DiscussMormonism.com

As you all might imagine, as a Dean over tens of thousands of students I am quite busy, and just haven't been following the recent happenings in apologetics much. I see a lot of posts regarding developments with John Dehlin and it's brought some questions to mind about not just Dehlin's project, but in general, the project of anyone who has an interest in getting the Church and questioning members to understand each other.

Now bear with me here, I am indeed asking whether John is looking to engage Chapel Mormonism, Internet Mormonism, or both. If one doesn't believe in this distinction, that's fine, but give me the benefit of the doubt and let me make my case.

The biggest problem I see for anyone seeking to engage "the Church" on any issue, is defining the target. On the one hand, you have a large corporate entity increasingly led by professionals who have administered large organization. And on the other hand, you have self-declared experts -- Mopologists -- who have set themselves up as the online defenders of the kingdom who otherwise have little to do with the real organization, and the problems these two distinct entities pose for questioning members are very different.

The Church increasingly operates as any other large corporate entity, and that means it's increasingly customer service oriented. Don't get me wrong, this doesn't make them "good", it's just the way success presently works. The whole Covey/Earl Nightingale brand of leadership is quickly taking over the world. If you're dissatisfied as a customer with a purchase from Home Depot, Wall Mart, Costco, or any of these mega-stores, the motto of the corporation is that "the customer is always right" (until it statistically makes a material financial difference to the business). If you don't like the TV you bought, take it back, rant and rave, throw the packaging on the floor and their goal is to appease you as much as possible, even if they are in the right and you are in the wrong. I think you'll find less "September Six" types of fiascos in the church rolling forward and I think the Church regrets incidents such as these. The leadership is increasingly higher-functioning, highly motivated, successful businessmen, who know how to pick their battles and sacrifice their pet peeves for the greater good. So the problem here is increasingly going to be to get beneath the veneer and examine what the Church is really made of.

On the other hand, there is Mopologetics. Much like many a small-town shop, the management has a lot of personal pride invested in their trade and returning a defective product may result in a fight with the manger or even a no-return policy and an unfriendly feeling browsing the isles. The customer expects to much. Unlike the Savvy businessman, the apologists are very sensitive, and I think I've increasingly come to the belief that Mopologetics is dominated by folks with minor neurosis to more serious personality disorders. They have a personal investment in every battle, they wish to embarrass every last teenager trolling online. But even when they are right, this mode of operation is just not sustainable for a large corporate entity. So fighting Mopologists is a lot about exposing nastiness as well as flawed arguments. But this increasingly contrasts with dealing with a the Church that wants to dodge the fact that there is an argument in the first place.

Interestingly, Mormon Studies comes to occupy an in-between role. The civility improvements and disinterest in "truth" could dethrone the academic position the Mopologists hold, and this may be a victory of sorts, but such a brand scholarship will no doubt fit the Church's corporate issues very well in the future, which is pretending there is no grounds for a problem with the Church in the first place, we're all successful, nice people here. One may have major issues with polygamy but remain a loyal customer and be treated well, just as one may have major issues with mega-corp X, but continue to remain a customer. At this point, there are serious questions about who has won and what is right and wrong.

So if the problem is with bigotry, nastiness, and intolerance, then the Church is moving on, and slowly becoming better. As it does so, Mopologetics will fade into the background. If the problem is with the Church not being true, then the Church is getting better at the coverup and the more civil Mormon Studies current will work to this end. At any rate, one needs to appreciate the two very different dynamics of the Church, and of Mopologetics. Engaging the Mopologists is a huge distraction if one's target is the LDS Church, and a victory over Mopologetics means little to nothing and may in fact even desensitize one to the bigger problems with the church when points are scored on grounds of incivility. A growing civility in the Church and customer-focused attitude may be an improvement over the madness and bible-bashing mentality of apologetics, but one needs to be careful here and define their issues with the Church are in the first place.

I think those who respond to him and remain members are chapel Mormons who are afraid of embracing internet Mormonism as a means of remaining a member.

Perhaps they see John's example of do what you want and let the rest slide.

Don't agree with where the tithes are going? Stop paying.

Creeped out or bored to tears by the temple ceremony? Stop attending.

Tired of doing the Mormon shuffle(adjusting your garmies after sitting) because of garment creep?
Tired of being forced to wear lame fashions and sweating your ass off in the summer?
TOSS THE GARMENTS. Save one pair for when you *might attend the temple.

Don't like attending services every bleeping sunday? Go when you want. Why waste a nice weekend inside a building full of stuffy people listening to the same old lessons that you have been hearing since you were old enough to be forced to sit still and listen when you could be outside having fun with your kids?

LDS Inc wants to become mainstream then they best accept that their members will be more like members of mainstream religions.

Interesting post. There is a lot to unpack there. This paragraph intrigues me:

The Church increasingly operates as any other large corporate entity, and that means it's increasingly customer service oriented. Don't get me wrong, this doesn't make them "good", it's just the way success presently works. The whole Covey/Earl Nightingale brand of leadership is quickly taking over the world. If you're dissatisfied as a customer with a purchase from Home Depot, Wall Mart, Costco, or any of these mega-stores, the motto of the corporation is that "the customer is always right" (until it statistically makes a material financial difference to the business). If you don't like the TV you bought, take it back, rant and rave, throw the packaging on the floor and their goal is to appease you as much as possible, even if they are in the right and you are in the wrong. I think you'll find less "September Six" types of fiascos in the church rolling forward and I think the Church regrets incidents such as these. The leadership is increasingly higher-functioning, highly motivated, successful businessmen, who know how to pick their battles and sacrifice their pet peeves for the greater good. So the problem here is increasingly going to be to get beneath the veneer and examine what the Church is really made of.

While I agree that the church is like a business, even a sophisticated one, I think the leaders do not view the members as customers in the way that an honest business views its customers. I think they view the members more like "marks." Like the way Madoff viewed his "customers" or Ken Lay and crew viewed theirs.

Guess what, Simon? You haven't read it either.

We do, however, have the Compton hit piece to give us a foretaste.

At least one of the people at the Maxwell Institute who actually did read it characterized it as a "hit piece"--that's where Dehlin got the term. Further, we know that Gerald Bradford--the Director of the MI--also opposed it.

static wrote:The proprietor of Mormon Stories is probably a nice fellow with good intentions (I don't know him personally). What he did and continues to defend doing was wrong. To call a "multi-page critique" a "hit piece" when you haven't even read it is called poisoning the well. I remind everyone here that no one has read this supposed "hit piece," and while we do know that something was in the works, we don't know anything about the nature of the document. It could have been one page, or it could have been 100 pages; we don't know. Why speculate. I say let mormonstories alone, as he is probably under a lot of stress right now having caused this molehill to become a mountain.

So glad you are back. Obviously, you haven't been keeping up with developments. You continue to question the existence of the hit piece while your mopologetic compatriots have acknowledged both its existence and its length. It's not speculation to say it was in excess of 100 pages (and still growing if its creators are to be believed). The term hit piece was not first used by Dehlin but rather by his informant on the inside at MI. It's not accurate to say we know nothing of the document. It's also not true to say that "no one" has read it. Try to catch up to the basic facts. Amazing you could get so much wrong in such a short post.

Why the mormonstories flip-out-call-everyone-he-knows-email-general-authorities hoopla?

There are about a dozen threads here on the subject, including a 22-page thread in which you were an active participant, and more at other boards. If you don't know the answer to this question by now, you are a complete imbecile. But you are not an imbecile; you are a troll.

Hi Equality,

I'm not sure what constitutes an honest business. I hope I didn't give the impression that I think "customer service" orientation makes the business good -- it could go either way. Bear in mind, the missionary guide and leadership training is heavily based on this customer service mentality.

I think at the top it might be very strange, almost like, they've been hired by company X, so they are indifferent to the ultimate good company X provides the world, they are there to make it successful. I would personally have a hard time believing that the leaders are decidedly out to defraud the world, like Joseph Smith was.