Several years ago, newly called apostle Elder Clark Gilbert told a group of prominent Latter-day Saints that he had surveyed Brigham Young University faculty and concluded there were several categories of faculty ranging from highly orthodox to those openly hostile to the social issue positions of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

This effort to categorize BYU faculty hit home to me because I served on the BYU faculty for 29 years. I knew many faculty who held varying opinions about church doctrine and policy. However, I only met one who was a nonbeliever and he left BYU after a short tenure. Others were faithful members who understood BYU faculty had a dual role in fostering scholarship but also discipleship. In fact, I doubt there are many universities where the faculty are more religiously oriented than BYU’s. Therefore, this categorization concerned me since it had the potential of unfairly maligning BYU faculty.

Some have wondered whether Gilbert, then as church commissioner of education but now as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, would apply his categorizations not just to BYU faculty, but also to the general church membership.

Unfortunately, such categorizations have become increasingly common among Latter-day Saints. In 1967, Richard Poll, a BYU history professor, placed Latter-day Saints in one of two categories. The Iron Rod was a pole in the Book of Mormon people used to stay on the path of righteousness. Iron Rod members were literalists who believed God gave specific counsel through the prophet and other leaders that needed to be followed without question. The Liahona members, named after the Nephite compass mentioned in the Book of Mormon, believed God gave general guidance and the gospel raised more questions than answers. Poll stressed that both types were devout Latter-day Saints, even though the Iron Rod members might have considered the Liahona Saints as dubious.

Poll later explained that his categorization was not intended to separate church members into good guys and bad guys. However, subsequent categorizations have sought that very objective.

Recent labeling includes terms such as ProgMo, Orthodox and DezNat. The ProgMo (short for Progressive Mormon) is the member who perceives questions, complexity and paradoxes in the church. The Orthodox, however, sees none of those. To them, the gospel is black and white. The prophet needs to be followed implicitly. The DezNat is a category of Latter-day Saint who is not only orthodox, but even extreme in defending the faith against critics, including ProgMos.

These distinctive camps become suspicious of one another’s faithfulness.

However, this labeling has serious drawbacks. One is their inaccuracy. Church members, like people generally, cannot easily be labeled. We are complex beings. For example, we may agree more with one political party, but still see value in some of the positions of another party.

In terms of the church, Latter-day Saints may strictly adhere to temple-garment wearing, the Word of Wisdom, tithing, magnifying callings, etc., while also questioning certain policies, procedures of the church or even doctrinal statements by some past or current leaders.

Conversely, others may be less likely to adhere to specific practices but believe wholeheartedly in the mission of Joseph Smith and the veracity of the Book of Mormon.

Church members are not easily categorized because we may be a bundle of contradictions in our approach to doctrine, practice and culture. I have seen the complexity when I begin to label a fellow member and then they react in an unexpected way.

For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, many of those who might be considered Orthodox became critical of President Russell M. Nelson’s endorsement of the vaccine and the requirement to wear a mask. Yet they weren’t ProgMos. Nor were they DezNats. These categorizations did not really fit.

Another drawback is the effect on church membership. As a personal example, I was assigned a widow to “minister” to. When first meeting her, she asked about my background. When she learned I had been a BYU professor, she asked if I was a ProgMo. I explained that I did not like these labels and did not apply them to myself or others. (My wife joked that by not answering “yes” or “no,” the sister probably concluded that I was one.) It seemed to me she was quickly trying to label me.

I have fallen into that trap as well, which is why I don’t do it anymore. I don’t want to identify my fellow congregants that way. It is hard to see my fellow members as brothers and sisters in the gospel when I view them negatively.

Labeling is not only inaccurate but also slices and dices church members in a way that makes following Christ’s command to love one another more difficult. When we divide one another into various camps, we no longer see our common humanity or unity.

Richard Davis is an emeritus professor of political science at BYU. He is the author of “Faith and Politics: Latter-day Saint Politicians Tell Their Stories.”

The Salt Lake Tribune is committed to creating a space where Utahns can share ideas, perspectives and solutions that move our state forward. We rely on your insight to do this. Find out how to share your opinion here, and email us at voices@sltrib.com.