Feeding the Fortune 500

[_Doctor Scratch]

A marginally interesting development in the 11th (!) installment of the series:

Fundamentally, I do not grant the premise that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a profit-driven corporation masquerading as a church. Not only do I not grant it, I find the allegation spectacularly false, both ridiculous and offensive.

Home and visiting teaching aren’t about profits. Ministering isn’t about profits.

Family history isn’t about profits.

Temples aren’t about profits.

Bishops storehouses aren’t about profits.

Latter-day Saint Charities is not about profits.

Well, remember: the basic criticism is that the LDS Church resembles a corporation in a way that makes a lot of people uncomfortable. Are these same types of complaints leveled at the Watchtower? What about Scientology? The SBC? Are there prominent apologists for those faiths who lay out all the reasons why it's "wrong" to compare them to a corporation?

And being profit-driven is not the only characteristic of a corporation/business entity. People sometimes describe corporations as 'soulless,' or as not placing a high enough value on people. Corporations get faulted for being too aggressive--seeking growth or expansion (or, sure, profits) or power above all else. (How many years was Amazon operating at a loss?) There is no longer any actual focus to DCP's commentary: he's basically objecting to any and all criticism at this point. If you go back to the first few posts in the "series," he was explaining how/why there is actually nothing wrong with businesses and corporations. Hey, we need these entities in order to sustain our capitalist model! And, once you've accepted that notion, then why would you say that it's bad for the LDS Church to adopt the characteristics of businesses/corporations? Except now, some 10 entries later, Peterson is saying that it's offensive to even entertain the idea:

The Church doesn't have "corporate designs."

That's a ridiculous accusation, and a shamefully insuting one.

LOL: "insuting." Are the Brethren's carefully tailored outfits "insuting"?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

So, the Church has 30 billion in 'not profits'? It's the most wildly successful non-profit corporation ever know to man, no?

- Doc

[_Kishkumen]

Thanks for sharing that, Doctor Scratch. I can see why this is frustrating for Dr. Peterson. The LDS Church catches a lot of criticism based on inaccurate information and plain ignorance. As Symmachus commented, the LDS Church in fact improved in this area quite a while ago by removing profit motive from GAs. Now they get hit with the “LDS, Inc.” insults?

It doesn’t make sense until you understand what is behind the perception. I agree that “soulless” is a word that fairly describes some of that perception. Now, I don’t believe it is true. There is plenty of soul in the intentions of LDS leaders. Elder Holland is filled with righteous anger as he challenges the disillusioned to crawl around the Book of Mormon, to cite what is now an older example. There are plenty of more recent ones.

The criticism will remain, however. The Church’s way of micromanaging every unit down to small details while projecting a slick PR faux folksiness gives away the game. People are smart in unexpected ways. They feel an emptiness in the operations of the Church. It is no single person’s mistake or deliberate sin. It is what happens when the small, regional, charismatic sect collides with a global world of technology, information, and mega-corporations. Is the Church “corporatized”? How could it not be in today’s environment, possessing such global aspirations as it does?

Is that wrong? Bad? Venal? Corrupt?

Probably not, surprising though that may be to the cynical. But it still has an impact. People are losing their trust in large institutions. Everything is a conspiracy and everyone is corrupt in the minds of the disillusioned. Mormons are not immune from these forces. They are fleeing the pews for different kinds of community. They don’t connect with the LDS Church any longer. They don’t feel they need the Church or that the Church really needs them.

What is the Church going to do about that? The tweaks they have made this far are inadequate.

[_Dr Moore]

It is "ridiculous" and "shamefully insulting" for any church to demand, quite literally, as a gateway to heaven, paying of tithes prioritized over feeding families, yet offers no transparency WHATSOEVER about its financial condition - income, expenses or balance sheet - in over 50 years.

A token audit report declaring that all income and expenses have been recorded in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (accountant speak for "they didn't break any obvious laws") is not sufficient. It is a slap in the face to members who give everything to the church.

In spite of Dan's noble effort to engage skeptics on various thoughtful perspectives about the church's use of sacred tithing funds, no amount of apologetic effort can get around the fact that, at the end of the day, it all boils down to two words: "trust us."

What an unfair imbalance that creates. How ridiculous and shamefully insulting too, from a church whose leaders routinely play word games to misdirect members' attention from glaring problems with its history and factual truth claims.

Dan makes a valiant effort to defend various types of criticism regarding "LDS Inc." But Dan, the real problem is that "trust us" only works when you consistently tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Every corporation would prefer to disclose the least amount of information required by law. That's human nature at work on an organizational level. Some may believe that the Lord's church - being a corporation and all - should be excused for doing the same thing. I submit that an entity claiming to be the Lord's church would seek to be peculiar and exemplary in every facet, not succumbing to the pernicious temptations to hide or cover things.

[_Kishkumen]

You are right about that, Dr. Moore. The demand is one of trust. One sticks that offering in the black box and leaves it to the leaders to decide how it is to be spent. Hell, most of them have no idea about the finances either. Not really.

And, yes, to ask members to do that, all the while presiding over what has become a financial empire with all kinds of investments, is insulting, no matter how noble the leaders’ intentions actually are.

[_Symmachus]

The criticism will remain, however. The Church’s way of micromanaging every unit down to small details while projecting a slick PR faux folksiness gives away the game. People are smart in unexpected ways. They feel an emptiness in the operations of the Church. It is no single person’s mistake or deliberate sin. It is what happens when the small, regional, charismatic sect collides with a global world of technology, information, and mega-corporations. Is the Church “corporatized”? How could it not be in today’s environment, possessing such global aspirations as it does?\

Is that wrong? Bad? Venal? Corrupt?

Probably not, surprising though that may be to the cynical. But it still has an impact. People are losing their trust in large institutions. Everything is a conspiracy and everyone is corrupt in the minds of the disillusioned. Mormons are not immune from these forces. They are fleeing the pews for different kinds of community. They don’t connect with the LDS Church any longer. They don’t feel they need the Church or that the Church really needs them.

The accuracy of this succinct diagnosis is unmatched. One can quibble on the margins about the kinetic potential of this or that doctrine or practice, as we will, but to me you distill here the core issue of my own Mormon experience. I really could live with all of the Book of Abraham nonsense and any number of historical or logical problems, but I have no reason to do that given what Mormonism actually offers in exchange. It feels like a job where you never get paid. A neo-apologist, armed with the tools of religious studies, could reply that my contract metaphor is incorrectly applied to the category of religion, emphasizing community, identity, and all that. But I think even the most elementary forms of religious life are two-way streets (do ut des, in one famous formulation), and the Church simply doesn't offer much except to certain kinds of people, particularly business people who can derive purpose and enjoyment from the culture of a large twentieth century American corporation (one of the worst posts ever posted on this site discussed this a few years ago, and with that see a clip of Henry Eyring). I'm glad there is a religion for those sort of people, but I'm not really one of them.

Hugh Nibley, to invoke his ghost again, gave a speech once about why there is no good Mormon art, and his claim was that, while art is an imitation of the divine, Mormonism has the real thing, and Mormons won't settle for imitations of divine encounters when they can just go right to the source. I am glad that he was convinced with his own bit of sophistry (later, he appears to have changed his mind and decided that Mormon kitsch was actually due to the dictates of the management class), but I never could be. I could never find a rich experience in Mormonism, nor anything that really stretched the mind to new understanding.

We use Wonder Bread as a symbol for the body of god's supposed son, and the Church's miracle has been to turn wine into water. Isn't it marvelous?

[_Gadianton]

In spite of Dan's noble effort to engage skeptics on various thoughtful perspectives about the church's use of sacred tithing funds, no amount of apologetic effort can get around the fact that, at the end of the day, it all boils down to two words: "trust us."

What an unfair imbalance that creates. How ridiculous and shamefully insulting too, from a church whose leaders routinely play word games to misdirect members' attention from glaring problems with its history and factual truth claims.

Strongly put. I wonder if they'd let you back over there after this?

As the Swede (from Hell on Wheels) put it so correctly, "suffering builds character".

The Brethren know that people aren't going to fix their problems in life by paying tithing, as the Brethren try to sell it. They must be deeply suspect about anyone ever reaping a benefit from paying tithing, aside from internal, socially constructed benefits. I doubt they really think a poor person who gives what they don't have (for the sake of corporate holdings that benefit nobody but the Brethren) is going to reap a greater return in the hereafter compared to the case where they didn't give.

the Brethren must be desperate to keep the locomotive moving, because that's what they do, and so "bless you sister" they sigh, at the end of a strong quarter where they have their own internally competitive culture and if it cost some homes or health, well at least they can look their peers in the eye and hold their heads high that things are moving forward. And should the slightest tinge of reflection manifest, then I guarantee they rely on the belief that most people need to suffer in order to "stay in the harness" as it were.