Before the leaked videos, there was a leak of Church documents that couldn’t even muster enthusiasm from the ex-Mo reddit crowd. Why was that? Because the one thing the documents clearly revealed is that the church is a bureaucracy, and bureaucracies have policies. And those policies, like nearly all policies, are boring.
Calling the church a corporation or a bureaucracy is one common criticism we hear in the bloggernacle as Sam Brunson recently pointed out at By Common Consent.
criticizing the church for being a corporation is stupid. It misunderstands both churches and corporations. At best, it is a lazy way of saying, I’m critical, but I don’t want to work hard enough to explain what my criticism is. At worst, it’s a lazy way of saying, I’m critical, but I haven’t thought carefully enough to even figure out what my criticism is.
What exactly is it that critics are complaining about when they say that the church is a corporation? Here are a few things that seem to come up in these discussions:
Paranoia about lack of transparency
Mostly these are individuals who have lost trust in how the church spends the widow’s mite (or their own mite for that matter). They want to know they are spending their charity wisely, that those funds will go toward things they approve and not be wasted on frivolity or things they oppose (e.g. shooting preserves). Particularly in the internet age, charitable organizations are far more transparent than the church usually is. Some of the lack of transparency undoubtedly protects our ability to work within the confines of different countries’ limitations and is therefore necessary. But some of the lack of transparency may cover up wrong-doing (as it usually does in other corporations). Not knowing leads to speculation, and speculation leads to paranoia. It’s one reason that when the leaked videos came out, the leaker said that even though the content wasn’t that interesting, it’s better to have transparency.
Defenders would say that transparency can also lead to misunderstandings, and that it’s not secret, it’s sacred, and that only those whose stewardship it is need to know about it.
Suspicion of wealth
This criticism stems from a belief that capitalism is antithetical to Jesus’ teachings and that wealth corrupts both individuals and systems. Sometimes critics conflate capitalism, profitability, financial solvency, and bureaucracy into a big bucket of materialism that drives out spirituality and humility. The pride cycle in the Book of Mormon bolsters this thinking. If we are prosperous, we’re on the verge of losing our way spiritually and needing to be taken down a peg. There’s also a strain of Popish criticism to this as well–the Protestant idea that the Roman Catholic Church was corrupted by wealth. The reformation tore down the wealthy edifices and returned that wealth to its rightful heirs–the plundering aristocracy!
Defenders would say that we donate to the poor, and that financial solvency is being good stewards of the widow’s mite.
A dislike of the meetings in our church
The “corporate feel” of policies about facial hair or color of shirts or how the meetings are run with “ward business” at the beginning and a rote structure. The ward buildings that feeling like a spartan, cookie-cutter corporate creation rather than the artistic joyful spaces some other churches have. The push for conformity is very specifically related to a 1950s style of corporate governance (The Man in the Grey Flannel Suit) that is no longer in vogue but has a very specific feel to it that most modern corporations now see as oppressive and soulless, from the lofty perch of their exercise ball chairs. This criticism can also be about lay members in our church feeling like employees with bishops and stake presidents acting as managers handing down business objectives rather than pastors tending to Christ’s flock.
Defenders would say that we keep things stripped down so people can focus inwardly on their relationship with Christ.
A dislike of the centralized top-down governance in our church
This is because local wards have limited power to deviate from the model, that our manuals are all identical and that teachers who deviate at all are often quickly released. The level of control at the top level contrasted with the complete lack of control and variability at the local level drives this criticism. This is a contrast with other denominations where the congregation can find a new pastor if they don’t like the one they have, and the worship service is intentionally geared to the needs of the individual congregation. Rules and structure are dictated by local committees rather than handed down from a central committee at headquarters. Often, when complaints are voiced about how programs are run, local leaders claim powerlessness to fix the problems or simply state that it’s what they’ve been told to do. This can leave the member in a calling feeling that they have no support to succeed. In reality, it could just be a dodge by their local leader, or their local leader could in fact disagree with their proposed solution. But some of this criticism seems to stem from leaders often being chosen from the “yes men” who make the fewest waves rather than the more dynamic, creative types who push the norms but sometimes break a few eggs (or rules) in the process of making an omelette.
Defenders would say that the wards do govern and minister to ward members’ needs and have budgetary discretion (within guidelines), and that one man’s “yes man” is another man’s “if ye are not one, ye are not mine.”
Distaste for political actions
There is some element of this criticism that is related to disliking mixing of religion and state, a particularly American concern, but one also that has some root in the feeling that Mormons have more often been the victims of other religious groups’ politicking rather than the ones who were able to exert influence in the political realm. There is also dislike among non-conservatives in the church (in the US) for the church using tithing funds toward political aims (such as Prop 8) that they would not support and might in fact oppose. Church members living outside the US may not like the focus on American politics with little interest in similar issues outside the US. Even within the US, church members are often alarmed at how Utah-centric the church’s political efforts appear to be.
Defenders would say that politics is personal, that all churches participate in politics, that the Mormon church does it less than most other conservative churches, and that we only get involved with issues, not candidates. Those who watched the Gordon Smith leaked video might feel a bit queasy about this one.
Criticism of commercial endeavors
This is a tricky one because there are different types of criticism associated with the church’s commercial endeavors: 1) that the church shouldn’t own investment properties or oversee non-church related projects like a mall because they are unrelated to religious or spiritual aims, a distraction, 2) that some of these endeavors are ill-advised or have negative impacts such as gentrification to urban communities. (This criticism was particularly pointed at the Philadelphia housing project). There is also a tinge of secularism vs. spirituality to this criticism, the notion that religion should be at odds with secularism, not operating under its auspices.
Defenders of these endeavors often point to the fact that as a “business” the church wants to maximize returns to make the best overall use of funds to which critics respond “Ha ha! I knew you were going to say business!”
Where do you sit on these issues? Do you think the church is too bureaucratic or just the right amount to run it? Do these leaks give you more comfort or less comfort? Are there other issues I haven’t identified behind the criticism that the church is too corporate?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
“Defenders would say…”
The “defenders’ arguments” are very reductive about how the church works and what many of its members understand it to be. I know there’s only so much you can say in a blog post, but when I’ve heard members and non-members speak about those points, the defenders’ arguments are not what they say, or are a warped version of what they understand. And it’s not because they’re stupid and haven’t been exposed to enough criticism of the Church.
For example, when people talk about the Philadelphia temple/housing project, they speak in terms of the Church ensuring neighborhood safety for temple patrons (not a minor consideration in Philadelphia) and of the Church contributing to the city in an ongoing way since the temple doesn’t pay property taxes. It’s a real concern in a place like PA and New Jersey with such high property taxes and stresses on public services. (The project will only pay into PA, but patrons are also from New Jersey, and considering property taxes is how many people in the area, both members and non-members, view building projects.) Gentrification is not a particular concern in that neighborhood, and especially on that property, since the city needs more updated housing, and members and non-members are happy that the Church used all union labor and forged a positive working relationship with the labor unions, city officials, and surrounding churches. Please don’t begrudge the local members the effect of happy labor unions and city and church officials, and a strong and visible Mormon presence in a place like Philadelphia. That result has come from a combination of the Church’s resources used wisely and the dedicated service of thousands of local members and missionaries, including among them one very dedicated set of public affairs missionaries, and one very dedicated 80-something-year-old sister from South Jersey who left home around 4:30 a.m. every morning to make three transfers on public transportation so she could help at the temple open house every day it was open to the public. “The Church” is both its resources and its dedicated members, and if someone doesn’t take the second into account he or she probably won’t understand the first.
That’s probably enough added detail about one of the examples from one of the points from the post, but the “defenders’ arguments” here honestly don’t represent how most people I know think or understand the mission of the Church.
Great recap!
The two that hit me the most where “dislike of meetings” and “top-down”.
I work as a manager for a really large multi-national corporation. We have a few new folks running parts of the organization and I would have to say that now many of the large corporate-wide meetings are BETTER than church meetings. They have tried to really make these meetings motivational and not chastisement. The leaders are really showing their human side. They do some really hilarious things to lighten the mood. They really celebrate the cultural diversity in a really positive way. It has done considerable good in improving the morale AND the respect/relate-ability to the top executives. Individual contributors see one of the top executives that they have not even meet walking down the hall and they can throw a joke at the executive because the big-wig already joked about it to the whole company. I would say that most employees now “like” the executives on individual levels as they feel they know them and their human side. The executives have increased “checking the pulse” surveys to understand what is going on – including open-ended questions where people can write whatever they are feeling (anonymously).
I see essentially almost none of this in the church and it decreases as you go up the chain of command. I wish the Q15 and others would get briefed by some management consultants.
It seems like the only “suggestion” boxes are blogs like this where some chump in the COB is assigned to read them and report to the Strengthening the Members committee.
“Please don’t begrudge the local members the effect of happy labor unions and city and church officials, ”
Especially as otherwise the City would not have let them have the permits to build in the first place.
Otherwise, I think the title of this post “The Yawn Heard Round the World” really catches the details of what exists.
You did good Hawk.
Yes it was mostly a big yawner. I think the boredom of LDS bureaucracy spills over into the meetings. Also the Bible says: Ye cannot serve God and mammon. The video links are very disturbing, they demonstrate that the brethren are even more out of touch and more obsessively homophobic and more isolated than even their critics suspected.
Hmm. I didn’t intentionally give short shrift to the “defenders” arguments. On the contrary, these are generally the arguments I have personally used to defend in conversation threads on these topics, plus ones that I culled from other discussions.
Interesting post. I guess the yawn depends on the individual. I found the videos fascinating and somewhat creepy in regards to the homophobia and the comments from the Senator from Oregon video. I am in the camp where some criticism is warranted. I have seen for instance financial statements from the Catholic Church that are detailed and lay out where money is spent. I have difficulty buying the whole it is scared not secret argument. Why are members not allowed to see where money is being spent? I have yet to see a solid argument on that one. My issue with the political influence the Church looks to excert gives me pause when I watched the video I referenced. Feel free to disagree, but I was not comforted by the leaks and saw little as a member to be proud of from our leaders.
I would agree with the sentiment the church keadership feels more like “managers handing down objectives rather than pastors attending to Christ’s flock.” And, I think a big factor of this dynamic in church culture is the appointment of “yes” men managers “letter-of-the-law” types rather than those who are able to connect with people on a personal basis. I’ve seen members within my own family as well as others become inactive because leadership has failed to listen, failed to understand/meet the person where they are, and failed to offer unconditional love. The exclusive top-down approach and narrow focus on fitting everybody into the “cookie-cutter” as well as lack of diversity creates a very unhealthy “group-think” environment from top-to-bottom, which was disturbingly evident in the videos.
Lack of transparency. Absolutely yes. Boredom yes–because we are a bunch of bots being talked at by a bunch of bots from bot instruction manuals.
To be fair, when you have a group of people as large as the church, you need a bureaucracy to make it work. For example, people decry how little autonomy wards are given, when in reality bishops are given a fair amount of leeway, as are stake presidents. Just like any other bureaucracy, the amount of freedom subordinates are given is more dependent on the style of the leader above them than anything else. One of the things the church seems to be really concerned about is the quality of our meetings. I get the impression that many (if not the majority) are awful. Institutionally, they feel an obligation to fix that. So they try to filter out crazy talk and false doctrine by issuing standard manuals calibrated to address the least common denominator. Then the meetings become stultifying, and they try to teach teachers how to teach better. In our ward, I feel like we’ve hit on a good balance, people seem to be spiritually and intellectually uplifted, and teachers use both the manuals and the outside sources. Generally speaking, I feel our ward has the freedom and structure it needs (but that’s primarily because of the mindset and maturity of the average member).
Yes the church has a particular structure which was put in place before Joseph Smith died with very little changes today. Joseph Smith ran for President himself. I don’t like to hear some of what might be minor discrepancies in private meetings, but in our church, each individual will answer for any discrepancies not repented of and atoned for. I have faith that Jesus will intervene when they go too far astray.
I don’t mind the corporate or bureaucratic nature of the church. But I do disagree with the legal relationship it has set up between the church and its members. Members do not have any ownership in the church corporation. The assets are all owned by Thomas S. Monson, the leadership and authority structure is all owned by Thomas S. Monson. The church can basically do whatever it wants with its property, its callings, its policies, and there is nothing the members can do about it. The church could sell everything and close up shop, and the membership would be left with nothing. Boyd K. Packer made this very clear in one of his talks about facing the right way. Church leaders, he asserted, were accountable to and should serve the needs of their priesthood file leaders; they were not accountable to the members and were not to place serving the membership over serving their priesthood leaders. The church leadership does not believe they are accountable to the general membership. They believe they are only accountable to God, and they are the ultimate interpreters of what God wants.
I would prefer a member-driven corporate structure, where the members ultimately owned and were responsible for the assets and leadership structure of the church. I think there is doctrinal support for this structure, based on the principle of common consent. Rather than top down, it would be bottom up. There is still plenty of room for revelation in this model, you just trust your church membership to receive revelation rather than trusting a handful of men at the top. Of course, for the leaders, it is much preferable to not be accountable to the membership.
Joel, I think your idea would transform the church in a positive way. Great idea!
As underwhelming as these videos are, I think its nice for the rest of us to at least occasionally get a peek behind the curtain and see how the sausage gets made–to see that the day-to-day business of the modern church is really not that different from any other similarly sized organization (i.e. mostly boring). There is still a perception among many members of the Church that the meetings of the Church’s highest quorums are celestial/magical in nature, that the spirit reveals truth to all of them at once and there is no disagreement. I once had a Sunday School teacher claim that the Q15 have a chair at their temple meeting room table set aside for Jesus, and then speculated that the Savior himself is physically present to conduct their weekly meetings.
Also, I found it interesting that in several instances in the videos, Boyd K. Packer was the voice of reason. I never would have guessed.
I can’t disagree more with Sam Brunson. At best, he doesn’t understand the argument of why people call the church a corporation. At worst, he’s lazy and accuses others of his own laziness in failing to understand. Frankly, I find Sam’s point tone-deaf and a poor response. Well done Hawk for explaining things to him.
Mormon Heretic: Well, I certainly wasn’t trying to school Sam Brunson! My post is consistent with his statement that merely saying the church is a corporation isn’t a very articulate criticism. If we really want to be understood and heard, being granular about what a complaint is would be a good start. I don’t think he fails to understand the criticism, but that’s because he’s a smart guy. Many critics who use this line aren’t clear. Going back to the types of arguments in the OP, here’s how much I agree with each of these criticisms (which I didn’t state in the OP):
1) Lack of Transparency. Valid criticism, but not necessarily because of malfeasance. I suspect that it’s a byproduct of gerontocracy, one that is being remedied by leaks like the recent ones. Our leaders are from an era in which transparency was not a given. We’re talking pre-Vietnam Pentagon papers mindset. Pre-Watergate. People who grew up in the 80s and 90s simply don’t see lack of transparency as either a given or a positive. We are far more skeptical than our predecessors about those in power.
2) Suspicion of Wealth. I don’t personally find this a valid criticism. Is the church rich? Yes. It beats the alternative. Kirtland Bank Scandal, anyone? Let’s not relive that.
3)Dislike of Church Meetings. I’m 50/50 on this one. It’s really a style criticism. Do I love our meetings? Not really, but I also am iffy on some of the musty ritualistic stuff of other denominations. I think somewhere along the line we went too far with this low church concept, but that’s just personal preference. As to the lack of pastoral care that we get when businessmen are put in roles like bishop, I do think there’s a higher success rate among paid clergy, but it’s certainly not to say I haven’t had some great bishops too.
4) Centralized top-down governance. Valid criticism, but again, I think it’s because of an overcorrection. Correlation went too far and yet not far enough. Instead of being a global church with global awareness, we are a Utah franchised church with Utah-centric concerns. And the manuals suck.
5 ) Political Actions. As a political independent, I would love the church to stay completely out of political endeavors entirely. From where I sit, they get politics wrong 90% of the time. Really wrong. They were on the wrong side of civil rights. The wrong side of ERA. The wrong side of the culture wars. The wrong side of gay rights. And since politics is personal, it’s very difficult for a progressive like me to feel good about seeing the church taking stances that I believe are wrong. If we could simply focus on living the gospel and following Christ, we could avoid making non-conservatives feel unwelcome or worse, like they are complicit in morally objectionable positions.
6) Commercial Endeavors. I’m mostly agnostic on this one. I guess they have money to invest, so some of that can be in commercials endeavors. Any project, be it a mall or a housing development, is going to be a mixed bag.
I think leaking the tapes was wrong, and I get that these were a certain type of meetings.
My criticism isn’t that the church is too bureaucratic in its handling of tithes, meetings, flowcharts, politics, investments, etc. That’s exactly where I would expect to see lots of boring, even disappointing discussion and decisions.
My fear is that the onion has been peeled back and this is all there is.
Do you all think there are similar meetings in which they learn and talk about actual theology, history, current scholarship on scriptures, etc.?
“Do you all think there are similar meetings in which they learn and talk about actual theology…?”
Well, I suppose general conference
“…history, current scholarship on scriptures, etc.?”
Regarding history and scholarship, I think the Church Historian is the main one, and Asst Historian Richard Turley has some influence on GAs. This is why the new essays are a out, so yes, it has improved. Is it as good as the stuff we talk about on blogs? I’d say not. But I think we should acknowledge some baby steps, even if they aren’t saying “You know Richard Bushman said something interesting the other day……”