On Customer Trust

[Dr Moore]

I have to say that I am ambivalent regarding this whole model. I have no doubt that people expect responsiveness from their "service providers," but this does represent a sea change in the way people think about their religions and churches. Is it necessarily a good change? I am not sure.
…
I am all for saying that the LDS Church has made a series of bad judgment calls, and maybe it simply is the reality that customer satisfaction rules the day, but then I will continue to think that the point of being Mormon or Christian or Pythagorean, if it is to mean something substantive in the way it transforms individuals, families, and communities, can't just be a series of curated experiences to suit the tastes of the public. It has to deliver on what it promises in terms of personal transformation.

Reverend, your comments as always inspire reflection. And I fully accept your ambivalence to the model. It certainly isn’t a model for religious validity, if that’s your point. My model is more about what drives success or failure on the margin.

But if product is personal transformation, there are plenty of those to go around. How about Tony Robbins, or a few hours of Oprah Super Soul? I think that for churches today, one way to think about success is what happens with the marginal questioning individual. Member or non member. For that individual, competition for personally transformative ideas and practices is fierce. And at the core of Mormonism is the claim to superior truth and authority. That is the unique product, not personal transformation. So in my mind, the Church is in the customer trust business, when it comes down the bare metal.

[Moksha]

That was a little thing, but I wonder how much it crystalized in my mind that it wasn't really our church--it was somebody else's. We were just pawns in somebody else's game.

"It pays its money and rubs the lotion on its skin."

[Kishkumen]

Reverend, your comments as always inspire reflection. And I fully accept your ambivalence to the model. It certainly isn’t a model for religious validity, if that’s your point. My model is more about what drives success or failure on the margin.

But if product is personal transformation, there are plenty of those to go around. How about Tony Robbins, or a few hours of Oprah Super Soul? I think that for churches today, one way to think about success is what happens with the marginal questioning individual. Member or non member. For that individual, competition for personally transformative ideas and practices is fierce. And at the core of Mormonism is the claim to superior truth and authority. That is the unique product, not personal transformation. So in my mind, the Church is in the customer trust business, when it comes down the bare metal.

So, yes, your well and persuasively made point is about the success of an organization. I can't argue with you there. Of course, I have long been of the opinion that the LDS Church was too concerned about numbers and for that reason doing things that actually undermined the rich legacy of Early Mormonism. It is a tough balancing act. A Church can't just be a museum. Changes will be made, and they should keep the institution viable.

And your rebuttal regarding Tony Robbins and Oprah is right on the nose. Aren't there other options? Yes! The options that a highly individualistic culture of quick fixes, personal ambition, and consumerism provides. We will have what our culture tends to produce, whether we individually will it otherwise or not. But Christianity and Mormonism were born in a different time and place, and they can still potentially offer a different kind of transformation that more readily connects the individual to the family, the community, and deeper cultural roots.

I am not against Tony Robbins or Oprah. I say look for wisdom all around and take the best from every source. (To poorly adapt old Mormon saws.) But I still think that what they offer is quite different from the whole package that Mormonism could potentially offer but increasingly does not.

So, I guess what I am saying is that, while I think success is not a negligible consideration--empty pews don't really serve much purpose--success as the sole consideration can lead to all kinds of subpar outcomes. I think we already see those subpar outcomes from a numbers-obsessed organization. Certainly, going forward, the LDS Church should consider how well it serves its members, but at the same time it needs to reflect on what its deeper purposes are as an organization. Can those be realized while serving the members better? I say the two must go hand in hand or why not just find a consumer-friendly spirituality solution, so to speak.