In the book Freakonomics, one item I found particularly interesting was the idea of information asymmetry. This is the theory that someone (an expert) knows more than somebody else, and uses that for their advantage. The book tells about how the internet has “gravely wounded” information asymmetries.
Freakonomics details about how insurance, funeral and real estate business models have drastically changed for the better (if you are a consumer) by the internet. Everybody now has the knowledge about how much a coffin really costs, and can make a decision based of their knowledge, and not on the knowledge that the funeral director chooses to give them.
It is easy to see how this same idea can apply to religion, and the LDS religion in particular. Before the internet, knowledge about the LDS church was asymmetrically controlled by the First Presidency and Q12. They decided how open or closed the historical archives should be. They decided that the policies of the church should be hidden in the Church Handbook of Instruction.
Then along came the internet, and they no longer had control over the knowledge. Now the knowledge was always out there, but to get to it you had to dig, read books by relatively unknown authors, and subscribe to Sunstone and Dialogue. But today it takes but a few seconds to have more data available on your screen that is in a university library.
The affect of the demise of information asymmetry in the church can be debated, but there is no question that the current essays and new history of the Saints book is a direct result of this information equalization. The church can no longer be the arbitrators of what the members can see and learn about. So instead of standing behind the correlated history, they are being forced to confront it head on.
What are others ways that the end of the information asymmetry has affected the church?
Wheat & Tares 
I think it has changed the way LGBTQ Mormons are viewed by cisgender members and by themselves. Before the internet, it was hard to connect to other gay Mormons and understand their experiences or find support. That has now totally changed. And cisgendered members have been awakened to the plight of their gay Mormon brothers and sisters . The Church eventually had to address the issues surrounding LGBTQ members and clarify its teachings and positions ; even creating a web site dedicated to the issue (mormonandgay.org). Church policies and pronouncements relating to LGBTQ members now receive close scrutiny, including policies the Church tried to “sneak under the radar”, like the POX.
Neal’s mentioning of the POX also made me think of church manuals. Changes, big or small, are often reported immediately to the internet, even from the restricted Handbook 1. I think the Church has since then been a bit more open about changes it is making (thinking about the interview/abuse prevention guidelines they released at the beginning of the year allowing a second person in bishop’s interviews and requiring two teachers for all Primary classes, regardless of gender). Now the Church sometimes WANTS the positive publicity of responding to concerns.
I agree with the general premise of the OP. But I am going to snort at the idea that the the new “history” book: Saints the Standard of Truth is somehow equalizing the information gap. I have read several chapters of it and find it extremely disappointing and annoying.
It is written on an adolescent or even older childhood level. This alone makes it hard for me to take it seriously. It is like a novel except it treats actual people of history like fictional characters. It does drop a few interesting, undeniable and previously ignored uncomfortable facts about Mormon history. It is fundamentally deceitful in the greater picture it paints. It is a more subtle defense of a traditional view of our history waged on an emotional level rather than a rational level. It does not confront the most disturbing aspects of our history, rather it obfuscates them as it dances around them giving the defenders of the faith an excuse to say- we already knew all that. But how does that make it any better? It is a 4 volume, maybe ~3000 page simple introductory history for a child of a church with less than 200 years of history. It is laughably not comprehensive even for a one volume history. It is too weak to be an effective inoculation against a critical evaluation of what happened in this age of information.
I think Rough Stone Rolling, as dense and biased as it might be is a far better use of your reading time- unless you are housebound, somewhere without electricity, facing months of isolation and are less than about 14 years old. Or you worship geriatric petty prophet celebrities like idols and pretend to read at it.Perusing reviews of it on Amazon makes me gag, and see just how far we have to go in dispelling the clouds of darkness surrounding our history.
The church is desperately trying to not allow their information asymmetry to disappear, unsuccessfully. The longer we delay dealing deeply with all of the history, the more brisk the hemorrhaging of younger members. Yet dealing with all of it honestly will drive out (my guess) 90% of the faithful. This is socially irresponsible because of a subset of older people who have nothing else upon which to rely except their religion (founded upon deceitful history) and they are facing extremely difficult challenges typical of the end of life.
We have only one path forward as a church, move away from our history. Instead of trying to erase the name Mormon from everything (except the Book of Mormon?) we could allow the name of Joseph Smith to fade into the past. This would undermine the current high level of control the leaders have over us and force them to get off their asses and start leading us on a level information playing field of modern life, instead of riding on the canards that worked in the past.
Using greater knowledge to help people is what Christ expects when he says “feed my sheep.” Using greater knowledge to gain advantage over people is what DC 121 warns against in the name of unrighteous dominion. Amen to their priesthood.
Feed sheep clover not bullshit.
Mike I can’t hear you over the sound of snobbery and self-importance.
Great Post, Mike. Thanks for speaking the truth plainly!
With manuals and scripture online, it has allowed the church to make subtle changes to the texts with not much notice. One example is found in an « online only » change to the scriptures. The online version of the NT shows the footnote to « comforter » inJohn 14:16 as « Holy Ghost, Comforter ». If you look at your printed scriptures from few years ago, the same word shows the footnote « Jesus Christ, Second Comforter ». They can also edit Conference talks to read a little different than what was actually spoken. See the video as compared to the written talk of Boyd K Packers October 2010 « Cleansing the Innet Vessel » Conference talks are quietly scrubbed all the time. In addition, consider all the online edits to the seminary manuals regarding the POX as revelation.
I think one effect of the internet is that it allows the church to make online changes to curriculm etc very quietly that the vast majority of members would never even notice in order to maintain some of that former information assemetry.
Not a Cougar:
Hey, thanks for the compliments. I couldn’t get into BYU either.
Me a snob? That’s a new one and it feels pretty good.Self-importance masking insecurity from being screwed..
I am a bumpkin who went to school in a ghetto in the Utah wilderness.
I own 3 cars each with over 200,000 miles, one with 336,000 miles and I ride a bike and train to work.
I prefer greyhound to delta and my favorite restaurant is waffle house.
I am still singing that song with E.T, Benson, I am a Mormon boy. Off key.
I am unquestionably the most dim-witted person in my immediate family of free thinkers.
I am such a Luddite I don’t have a cell phone yet. I buy my cloths at Goodwill.
I am spiritually a lost sheep bleating in the wilderness.
My wife left the LDS church and joined an evangelical church where she teaches pre-school and sometimes their equivalent of primary. Her opinion of the book referred to above is similar to mine, maybe less charitable. She of all people would know. It is one of the few things we agree upon in religion.
I’ve noticed that the Internet has changed the nature of Anti-Mormon literature as well. Absurd allegations and demonstrably false claims like the Godmakers have given way to subtler materials like the CES letter, that focus less on absurd facts and more on subtle arguments (don’t get me wrong, demonstrably false is still part of the equation, just less obviously so).
By making international cultural exchange much less expensive, and therefore more common, the internet will start to restrain our tendency to infantilize the rest of the world as simpletons waiting for enlightenment. At least I hope.
I believe one of the reasons for scrubbing the name Mormon off of this people is to put distance between and disconnect the sheep of the fold from anti-Mormon material. If we think the devil laughs at every use of the appellation Mormon, we will have a built-in negative judgmental shield against much of the critical material on the internet. We can immediately dismiss it without further consideration.The field remains rutted, not level.
We see a few examples expressed here of how the church leaders are resisting being forced onto the level playing field . You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. Retrenchment may be defined by those who don’t play fair in the contest of thought for our souls. I think we are perfectly capable of infantilizing the rest of the world as simpletons, Pretty much describes what has worked before. Ironically it makes us the simpletons resisting enlightenment.
Of the two Hinckley-inspired movements, the positive branding/dissemination of the Mormon trademark and the faith in every footstep obsession with our inspiring history, I think we picked the wrong one to demonize. Perhaps Satan laughs at every faithful sugar-coating and honey-baking of disturbing historical events; more than the sound of the word Mormon.
“What are others ways that the end of the information asymmetry has affected the church?”
It isn’t all “information”. The internet now makes it possible to make stories of any kind and distribute them instantly worldwide. Truth and lies chase each other. In the long term I suspect that people will learn to distrust anything they see online; but for now, and particularly among Millenials, it seems there’s a lot of faith placed in anything seen online; similar to what CBS News with Dan Rather was once considered authoritative and true.
the other Mike says “I think we are perfectly capable of infantilizing the rest of the world as simpletons… Ironically it makes us the simpletons resisting enlightenment.”
There is neither “we” nor “us”. Consequently I don’t need to try to hard to figure out who exactly is “A” and who is “B” and what either is doing.
Mike also writes “We have only one path forward as a church”
Lucky for everyone you happen to know the way! Strange I don’t quite agree that letting Joseph Smith “fade away” is part of that path. I mean, its a bit like letting “Jesus” fade away; it works for Unitarians but how often do you interact with a Unitarian?
I hope someday to understand this secret language: Neal’s mentioning of the POX
Presumably it isn’t pox, like chicken pox or smallpox.
POX Policy Of eXclusion, as per the Nov 2015 handbook changes excluding the children from baptism, ordination etc if a parent was partner in a same sex marriage.
Thanks for that clarification! Thumbs up!