Without doing an actual poll, I’m just going to throw this out there and solicit your vote in the comments: Is the LDS Church a well managed organization? You can use the old reliable scale of outstanding, good, fair, poor, or a complete train wreck, or you can give a longer explanation. I’ll add a few additional comments.
General Conference. Change can be good for an organization, and Pres. Nelson is bringing a lot of changes to LDS organization and practice. These seem to be minor rather than major changes and not everyone will see every change as positive, but who can argue with two-hour church? But the changes to the temple recommend questions, announced by Pres. Nelson in the Sunday afternoon session, illustrate a perennial problem for church governance: leadership doesn’t explain why they do the things the do. The wording was supposedly edited for clarity, but as Jana Riess points out in her two-part review of the changes, the meaning and effect of the changes are clear as mud (part 1, part 2). Interviewees are asked if they understand the Word of Wisdom. Does anyone? Do you promote teachings contrary to those of the Church? You mean like science? If you’re going to edit a key document, what comes out of the process should be an improvement over the prior document.
Finances. I can understand why the Church does not publish financial statements. When lots of people want to take potshots at your organization, why give them additional ammunition? But you can’t let your critics determine your policies. Just do the right thing. Until the late 1950s, the Church did publish its finances. Here is the key thing: Publishing financial statements promotes organizational accountability. Not publishing them almost certainly means there are things to hide. The membership, which contributes generously to the Church, deserves more than an auditor’s report expressing an opinion on the accuracy and reliability of financial statements that no one gets to see.
Leadership. One often hears the argument made that the Church must be well led by the senior leaders because of their experience as business executives, educational leaders, and so forth. That held more weight two generations ago, when LDS leaders were of roughly the same age as actual leaders in business, government, and education. Lifetime tenure has pushed the senior cadre of LDS leaders into their 80s and 90s. No organization in the country, apart from the federal judiciary, allows senior leaders to regularly serve until they die in office, and even many federal judges retire rather than die on the bench. There is a price to be paid for sticking with lifetime tenure. This is most apparent when, as often happens now, the person in that office loses the mental capacity to conduct the duties of the office. An organization that supports a system in which the leader of the organization is regularly incapable of leading the organization can only be described as dysfunctional.
Selecting the President. Then there is the issue of choosing the President. Bishops, stake presidents, new GAs, new apostles … all of these selections are made carefully and with due consideration to the capabilities, qualifications, and faithfulness of the person selected from several qualified candidates. But for the leader of the Church, it’s the last man standing system. Imagine how wards would run if, when a bishop is released, the oldest high priest in the ward automatically became the new bishop? I understand the benefit of avoiding conflict in the senior quorum by not forcing them to have an actual discussion about who would best serve the Church as President or who the Lord would like to serve. But isn’t that what inspired leaders are supposed to do? You could avoid conflict by selecting the *youngest* member of the Twelve and giving them a twelve-year term of service (to avoid the loss of capacity problem).
Selection procedures sometimes may aim to select the best candidate available, an NFL draft pick or the new accounting manager at your company, for example. But sometimes the system merely avoids making a bad selection, or even simply avoid picking the worst candidate. Elections arguably do this, although not with complete success. Is an organization capable of avoiding picking the wrong candidate for CEO or president? Most make every effort to avoid picking the wrong coach or the wrong CEO or the wrong general for the job. For LDS President, it’s just luck of the draw. There is no mechanism to avoid picking the wrong person for President if they happen to be the most senior living apostle.
I’m thinking here of Ezra Taft Benson. I just read Thunder From the Right: Ezra Taft Benson in Mormonism and Politics (U. of Illinois, 2019), a collection of essays edited by Matthew L. Harris. It’s informative but depressing, depressing enough I can’t really bring myself to write a review. While Benson was a dedicated public servant in office and served energetically in the Church, he also brought conflict to the quorum, manipulated an aging Pres. McKay to further his own agenda, helped politicize the Church in his General Conference addresses, and embraced right-wing conspiracy theories. The Church has still not recovered from all this. But when he was the oldest surviving apostle, there was no organizational mechanism to prevent him assuming the Presidency. The LDS Church is an organization that, as an organization, does not have the power to select its own President.
So, back to the original question. Do you think the LDS Church, at the central and highest level, is well managed? Is it outstanding, good, fair, poor, or a complete train wreck?
Wheat & Tares 
I’m not really sure what the point is here. If you highlight obvious shortcomings of the Church from an organization point of view the true believers will simply say that the Lord operates differently than everyone else. Thus, leaders in their 90s. Thus, a lack of public accountability. Thus, many contradictions right out in the open. It’s hard to make religion follow the standards we set for other organizations and the Church benefits from its members’ willingness to ignore inconvenient truths.
I can only agree with each of your points you put forward and some (such as finances) I REALLY wish they would do ASAP.
But one other item I would put forward is they don’t have a good way for good ideas (or even constructive criticism) to go “up the chain”. Good organizations have this flow of information back and forth – up and down the organization. The way it is setup now, the top has all but said, “don’t even mention changes you might like, WE will be the one’s that will put forward the needed change when it is needed (assumed guided by the Lord – can you say POX?). And even if there are some leaders that would like to get some information from below, they are usually (from what I have seen) they are individually praised by underlings (allowing the underlings to show how much “faith” they have). To point out that the area president HE has issues – that is just not tolerated. Pres Oaks has said not to criticize leaders even if the criticism is true.
Leaders of organization can occasionally be drowned out by requests/suggestions from below. But it seems like the top church leaders both are not that interested and worried that if they portray themselves as soliciting direction from below then they are seen on par with any other smart man and not 100% directed by the Lord.
More choices….managed by objectives. Democratic management, need to know style, laissez faire?? All of the above depending on situation. I am holding out hope that one day Elder Bednar will be able incorporate some of the “Seven Habits” he learned. Some of that is coming through in the new youth programs. Change comes very slowly in styles. We learned from Gordon B. that certain things are none of our business! I was listening to someone who made sense to me the other day…and he said change comes from the bottom up not the top down…us! But who is asking us?
My grade for Leadership and Selecting the President would be “C”. Not failing – after the church has grown from a handle of people 200 years ago to a pretty big church with dedicated followers and some political clout in the United States. That being said, from a governance perspective and ability to change perspective, the both of these categories fail. The church’s ability to adapt to change seems limited and may ultimately prove to be our collective Achilles heel.
Finances I’d give a “B”. The church is successful enough that it has no debt and all buildings are self-insured. The church also seems to have a pretty stable income stream (tithing + investments) and having met the CFO (e.g. presiding bishop) he seems pretty capable. However, as the OP states, a lack of transparency means there’s something hiding. I still wonder what kind of perks the GAs and their families are receiving from the church.
General Conference “D”. My wife loves it, as do many orthodox LDS, but I don’t even pretend to watch it any more. I work for a very large company in the US, with some very public challenges lately, and the CEO gets up on a monthly basis and takes blunt and difficult questions from any average employee. There’s no way that a candid, public self examination by the Prophet followed by a Q&A would ever take place. Now THAT would be an interesting 200 year anniversary General Conference next April.
Is it a well run organization? I’m not convinced overall. I do, however, think that it’s gotten overall better, not worse, under Pres. Nelson, and that’s simply a byproduct of his health being so much better than his direct predecessor’s. We are actually experiencing more attention-getting changes, some good, some bad, but all are taking us off auto-pilot.
When I look at the Church as a corporation, here are the biggest problems I see:
– Open Discrimination. No women (or gay people, and VERY few minorities) are true decision-makers, and policies that are created affect women. It’s so bad that every crumb is lauded as a great feast. There are many aspects to Church employment that are hostile to women from the misogyny of bosses, employees (and students at BYU) to the lack of thoughtful healthcare options for women. No corporation that operated this way would still be in business in 2019. The Church isn’t required to follow non-discrimination practices, but acting in ways that are less moral than society is a problem in my book..
– Lack of political diversity. That there are currently no members of the quorum of the twelve who are registered Democrats is telling. There are a small handful who are unaffiliated. That’s, just, wow. Of course we are getting weird beliefs and policies as a result. The current political landscape is not a great place to find moral actors with a great grasp of the truth.
– Toadyism. This is a HUGE problem in the Church. If a corporation doesn’t get good feedback from bottom up, it’s going to have a lot of wrong ideas about how things work and what the problems are. It’s going to misuse its resources, and it’s going to fail to meet people’s needs.
– Nepotism. How many Church leaders have famous pioneer pedigrees? It seems there are a lot of “Mormon royalty” families in the Church. That’s not good in business, and it’s not good in the Church. There’s no such thing as “believing blood.”
I do think that in general, though, the Church has sound financial leadership. Its investments have created a pool of wealth so that there are no more worries about money. This is a big change from the 70s when wards had to operate from local donations. It’s a big big change.
Would I ever want to work for the Church? Not in a million years. Hard pass.
As a religion, it is a pretty successful corporation. As a corporation, and arguably a public one at that, it is more opaque and discriminatory than most. Perhaps that makes it a poor substitute for both a dynamic religion and responsible corporation, and if tithing revenues and membership numbers fall (continue to fall?), those qualities may become more obvious to both interested and disinterested observers.
Yes
“It’s hard to make religion follow the standards we set for other organizations”
Jesus did not follow any standards but that of his father, God. Still, he obeyed or at least honored the laws of the land, rendered unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.
Angela, I like your comment, but I have a question on this: “That there are currently no members of the quorum of the twelve who are registered Democrats is telling.”
Is it true, or just assumed, that none are registered Democrats?
When Elder Renlund was called, someone in a Facebook group posted that he was a registered Democrat. At the time Utah voter registration information was free to download, and I verified that someone with the exact name and middle initial was a registered Democrat in Cache Valley. I thought all the information matched except I wasn’t sure he lived in Cache Valley.
Now Utah voter information is no longer free, so I can’t verify or check anymore.
By secular standards, I would say the the church is poorly managed, bordering on a complete train wreck, but improving.
Most members will use theological standards to judge the church, and I don’t think I can do that anymore, so the remainder of this comment should focus on secular reasoning.
Exclusion of women for leadership means (ignoring issues of equality band fairness) that fifty percent of the talent is underutilized.
It’s actually worse than that. Because the first line management (bishops and stake presidents) are unpaid, they can really only be chosen from families in which the husband has ample free time to contribute, meaning that many families with working mom’s cannot afford to have the father be in significant church leadership. So men whose wives have successful careers also tend to be excluded from the talent pool.
I also think that the lack of paid clergy contributes to shallow doctrine, like the prosperity gospel and things like that.
As far as picking a president, unless you think that God literally arranges for the chosen person to be oldest at the right time, you might do better having a new prophet chosen at random. At least then there would be less time with a leader suffering from dementia.
I can’t judge finances. So little information is public or acknowledged, I give an incomplete grade on that.
As to political affiliation of the FP and Q12: my imperfect memory recalls reading (can’t remember source) a few years ago that there were zero Democrats, 9 Republicans, 6 Independents, with some of the Independents strategically switching to Republican as primary or convention time approached, so they could participate in candidate selection. The independents were all junior members of the Q12.
Is that a hopeful trend?
Can anyone out there shed more light on this?
My general sense is that after all the tumult caused by ETB in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, the Church has tried to stay away from calling people who are politically prominent, to senior positions. I can’t see Mitt Romney ever receiving a senior Church calling. I think our FP and Q12 are conservative, but in personality and religious belief, rather than political views.
The three do not always go hand-in-hand, but often do. And some leaders have a more moderate reputation: for example, I do not recall Dieter Uchtdorf speaking on hot-button issues like LGBT, and it is that lack that makes him seem less hard-edged. I have read articles that in the aftermath of Prop. 8 and Obergefell, the debate in the Q12 has focused on whether the Church should move on, or continue to resist these social trends. I am guessing that the 2015 POX and its recent recission are a reflection of such a debate.
James E. Faust served as a Democrat in the Utah State Legislature, before his calling as a GA, but that was back before Utah engaged in its massive rejection of the Democratic Party. Richard Lindsay, former member of 2nd Q70, and father-in-law to Gerrit Gong, was also a Dem. in the USL. But these men stand out because they are/were the exceptions.
I believe Marlin Jensen is a Dem. And Dallin Oaks had a reputation as a conventional conservative Republican back when he clerked for SCOTUS judges and was considered by Gerald Ford for nomination to SCOTUS. But our Church leaders no longer stand out for their political activism.
@Angela C: “It’s so bad that every crumb is lauded as a great feast.” I love this and you are spot on! When the POX was reversed, I had members blowing up my phone with the “wonderful news!” I was not impressed. I was still gay, still a ‘serious trangressor,’ and still not eligible for Mormon exaltation. So what really changed? Duh!! I’m not a crumb catcher!
If the goal is heaven, then nobody but The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can do it better.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
From Happy Hubby: “Pres Oaks has said not to criticize leaders even if the criticism is true.” But that leaves open all kinds of discussion about what is or isn’t working well in terms of practices, what does or doesn’t make sense in terms of doctrine, what is or isn’t presented accurately in terms of history. You can do all that without saying, “Elder X was wrong to say …” That’s the difference between constructive discussion and personal criticism. Although it does seem to be the case that many leaders and many Mormons take even constructive discussion as simple criticism and take it personally. Oh well.
Angela C., yes there is some progress under Pres. Nelson. Any change is good change compared to two decades of no change because it opens things up for better changes down the line. If women can now be witnesses at baptisms, maybe someday they can perform baptisms.
Rockwell: “As far as picking a president, unless you think that God literally arranges for the chosen person to be oldest at the right time, you might do better having a new prophet chosen at random. At least then there would be less time with a leader suffering from dementia.” Pretty sad when a random selection is likely to give better results than the current system.
IT OCCURS TO ME that one reason – maybe THE reason – so many Mormons voted for Trump is because the Brethren have accustomed them to his leadership style: summary, inconsistent and (frequently) irrational (see WoW/green tea and PoX.)
Since the church hides much information that would shed light on the question, I can’t really give an answer. I think the church is good at some things, like staying on message, communicating things down the chain of command, retrenchment, gaslighting, and indoctrination. It’s not so good at answering legitimate questions, being more inclusive or changing in any meaningful, significant way (I second Angela C’s comment about “every crumb”) despite the constant rhetoric about “continuing revelation”. I do think the church has been relatively successful (if you can call 40% sacrament meeting attendance “successful”) when it comes to using the twin hammers of fear and obedience in order to keep the masses in line. In some sense, the obedience-centric members of the church (comprising a fairly large percentage of active Mormons, I’m guessing) remind me a bit of dyed-in-the-wool democrats or republicans. No matter what happens, they’ll give their unwavering support to a deeply flawed individual or institution because the intense desperation with which they believe validates that belief. It’s a kind of subjective, self-generated sense of a supposedly objective truth. In some sense, that’s to be expected. We fallen human beings like to think there’s at least some certainty in a perilous and frightening world. So I suppose the church is successful at keeping enough bodies in the seats to support itself financially and continue its existence for another generation. I’ll be curious to see what happens in twenty years when the massive exodus of our young people really starts to impact the church’s tithing income.
Rockwell, the stat on party affiliation probably does pre-date the latest picks for apostle, come to think of it. I believe Taiwan missionary is quoting the stats I saw on the parties. In the past, that wasn’t the case–there were both Democrats and Republicans. Honestly, I would love it if none of them were affiliated with ANY party, but then again, that’s my own position. Neither party lines up perfectly with the gospel teachings anyway, so why is that not a conflict with the TR interview question I wonder. Hmmm.
Your comment about front line leaders all being in financial positions that give them the freedom to do the free labor required by their ward callings, and that it leads to prosperity gospel thinking, I certainly agree, although I also think that we avoid some evils on the other end by so doing. If you pay them or if they are not financially secure, there are many more motives for abuses of office than exist today, and my personal evidence of this is directly linked to the actions of our founder! I find some of his personal motives suspect in how he used Church resources toward his own secular advantage. He wasn’t a wise steward of Church funds generally speaking (Brigham Young was even better at it, although again, upheld some really abusive practices). Would I rather avoid those problems at the local ward level (e.g. skimming tithing funds, manipulating relationships for financial gain)? Yeah, I think it’s the lesser of two evils to require that bishops be financially solvent. That doesn’t mean they MUST have a stay-at-home wife (fewer children might do the trick), but it often seems to coincide.
More on party affiliations:
Among current (unless I’ve lost track) Democrat GAs you can also count Larry EchoHawk and Steven Snow.
It may also be worth pointing out that political party voter registration does not necessarily coincide with national political party platforms or even the conservative-liberal scale, however you define those. I understand there are places where (a) only party members vote in primary elections and (b) primary elections and not general elections are decisive. So, for example, in Carbon County, Utah, for a long time (maybe still), if you were not registered as a Democrat your vote was meaningless in county (and probably city) elections. I suspect there could also be counties where your vote is/was essentially meaningless unless you were voting in a Republican primary.
“I understand there are places where (a) only party members vote in primary elections”
Any other approach is ridiculous. What, exactly, is a “party”? It is a group of people that think sufficiently alike to band together, organize and make decisions who best represents their common interests and it is that process that is called a primary election. A person that does not belong to a party has chosen to not participate in an early selection of representatives.
p supposes: “one reason – maybe THE reason – so many Mormons voted for Trump is because the Brethren have accustomed them to his leadership style”
A much simpler answer is Second Amendment vs Hillary Clinton right up there with “you WILL bake that cake”.
“Most members will use theological standards to judge the church”
Seems reasonable. That’s how I judge all churches.
“unless you think that God literally arranges for the chosen person to be oldest at the right time”
The selection is who has been apostle the longest. He might be oldest, might not. The quorum must then sustain him, and the members also, as a reflection of (hopefully) God’s intention, assuming God has an intention on human affairs. Someone completely off the rails or in the grip of dementia will be made “emeritus” and presumably not in line for presidency.
I agree that it is ridiculous to have non-party members voting in party primaries. (But that is the case in some places.) Michael 2’s focusing on only that one half of a conjunctive comment may miss the point, however. That is that even if you disagree with much of the party platform, in those places where one party always wins general elections, the only way to have your vote make a difference as between two candidates is to register as a member of that party.
I live in a county where Democrats literally never run for any position. Often two Republicans will run in the primary. If I can’t vote in the Republican primary I effectively can’t vote in any county-wide races. So I either register as a Republican or my vote is meaningless.
Following up on the affiliation of leaders, I believe the blog post that listed the leaders affiliation was this one:
https://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2014/01/a-look-at-the-political-affiliations-of-some-prominent-members/
So yes, it was before Renlund’s time.
I kind of like Angela’s suggestion of leaders not affiliating, similar to how most journalists also decline to declare party affiliation, but I’m reluctant to tell people that shouldn’t be able to vote in primaries, particularly in Utah where many offices are decided in the Republican primaries. General Elections where I live are meaningless.
Michael 2, yes I was a bit careless regarding “oldest” vs “most senior” apostle. I thought about correcting it, but then you did that for me. Whether someone with dementia or “off the rails” would be made emeritus instead of becoming prophet, well, I’m surprised that you make this claim. I do not believe it.
>>I was still gay, still a ‘serious trangressor,’ and still not eligible for Mormon exaltation.<<
That is just heartbreaking…
How does the church justify this as anything other than blasphemy? It's all over scripture: We are fearfully and wonderfully made. We were knitted together in the womb, God's workmanship, known before we were born. "Why, even all the hairs on your head have been counted! Do not be afraid."
So, our Heavenly Parents crafted every individual hair on our heads, but our sexuality is above Their pay grade?? How is that not textbook blasphemy, not to mention pride? They're flat-out saying, "Sorry, God, but you screwed it up. A truly perfect creation would be strictly boy-girl-boy-girl. See, I know better than You."
There's no rationalization that can get around the fact that that is claiming to know more than God.
Is the Church a well managed organization? I would say yes and no. It is well managed in that it knows how to invest money and grow wealthy. I heard the Church has over 32 billion in the stock market. It is a multinational corporation that builds malls, and so on. So yes, it is well run in that regard.
I would say no in other areas. One area is how it administers to the needs of the poor and under employed.I worked very closely with Deseret Industries for 5 years and was sadly, not impressed. remember thinking, “This is the Lord’s inspired plan?” The vast majority of people who I saw came out of the program with very little education and a low paying job. I suspect that my experience was not unique.In addition, it gives pennies on the dollar to humanitarian needs and when I have seen what little info they have released, the numbers look even shakier..
YES and NO!
Snow is a Democrat, but got released earlier this month.