Here’s a simple question: What does the Church stand for these days? Another way to ask that question might be: What defines the LDS Church in 2020? Yet another approach to the question might be: What would a non-LDS person reply in 2020 if asked to say something about the LDS Church? From an insider’s perspective rather than an external perspective, we might ask: What is the mission of the Church now, in 2020? My sense is that the Church more or less redefines itself every generation or two and that, presently, we are in a lull between an outdated “mission” that is fading and a newer and maybe as-yet undefined “mission” that is slowly taking shape.
Let’s take a quick view of LDS history with an eye to this generational mission idea. The first generation, the Joseph Smith era, was preoccupied with simply getting the Church up and running and establishing leadership structure: new scripture, a President, some apostles, and priesthood authority. The balance of the 19th century was about gathering to Utah, defending the Church from government interference, and trying to make polygamy work in America. The first half of the 20th century was about normalization (assimilation, in the terminology of Armand Mauss) with Mormons quite successfully becoming patriotic and monogamous Americans. The next generation was all about missionary work, “every member a missionary” (from Pres. David O. McKay) and “every young man should serve a mission” (from Pres. Kimball). In the last two decades of the 20th century, as missionary success declined, we became The Family Church, which sort of morphed into the Anti-Gay Church. And now it’s 2020.
I think that fight (against gay marriage) is over and the Church lost, although many in leadership are still fighting that battle. But from an identity perspective, it’s clear the Church is not just in retreat from that battle, it is intentionally pulling back. Which brings us back to my initial question: What’s next? What will Mormon identity be by 2030 or 2035?
This “Covid lull” is a good time to kick this question around, given disruptions to the standard LDS missionary program, to temple activities, and to congregational meetings on Sunday. It’s not like the Church is starting from scratch as things start to resume, but having some distance from Mormon life as usual probably helps one think about the larger issue of what it is that the Church is about, going forward.
Let me throw out some ideas. The easiest “new mission” for the Church might be called “temples, temples, and more temples.” The Church has the money to do it, and real estate development is certainly an organizational skill the Church has perfected. But that’s not terribly new and I’m not sure it still has that much attraction for the average member. “Church at home” might be an emerging theme and is certainly adapted to the difficult circumstances we are in at the moment, but I’m not sure there’s enough substance there to provide identity, something an average Mormon might be proud of.
Honestly, I’m at a bit of a loss to suggest a persuasive answer to the question. It’s sort of like when a first-term US President is running for a second term and wants to get re-elected, but when asked what they plan to achieve or what their vision is for their second term, they don’t have an answer. They’ve accomplished a thing or two during the first term, fulfilled a promise or two from the first campaign, and they are now busy with the daily and weekly things that a President does. They want to get re-elected, but … they don’t really have any big plans or ideas for the second term. They are more or less out of ideas and are just waiting for the next crisis so they have something to respond to. That sounds like the Church in 2020. Is there a mission or vision for the Church for the next decade? Or is the plan just to do the daily and weekly things we have always done: church on Sunday, build some temples, get those kids out on missions then get them married in the temple. Wait for a hurricane, then send in the trucks with water, blankets, and generators. Rinse and repeat.
I expect there will be some new ideas or views in the comments. Maybe things look different for new converts than for “lifers.” Maybe things look different in Asia or Africa or Europe. Maybe things look different for younger Mormons. Or maybe I’m wrong on this and some of you think Mormon identity is as clear as ever and all is well in Zion. What do you think?
Wheat & Tares 
Great article, really got me thinking. I think the opportunity is to pivot from a US/Utah centric church to a global religion. Couple that with the rebranding efforts of the last few years and the church could get on the radar of people and parts of the world where it is still fairly unknown. I don’t think there’s much that can be done to change the perception of the church in the US, so the focus would be outside of the US. The effort would be done in a way that doesn’t export the oddities about the church that many people in the US associate with it, and keep a distance from it because of those oddities (unique doctrines, anti-gay stuff, crazy history, exclusivity, being seems as a closed society, etc).
Excellent question. I don’t have a positive answer to this, to me we are still hard at work fighting a society we perceive to be in moral decline w/r/t gay marriage and morality generally. A lot of us vs them, wheat and chafe, world is going to hell in a handbasket cause we are in the last days talk.
But I’m eager to see what others think and hopeful to see some positive messages / themes emerge.
I’m in general agreement with Ethan. The minimizing of the term “Mormon”, increase in temple building in the more remote parts of the world, the beginnings of a multicultural Q12, strong anti-racist rhetoric at GC, the emphasis on a united Christ centered culture that takes the best of local cultures, etc. All this indicates a deemphasis on Utah or American Mormonism, and a greater focus on the goal of a truely a global church.
Seems like RMN wants the mission of the church to be “Hear Him.” I don’t know that as a mission it is concrete enough to have actionable steps. It also gets a bit offensive to other Christians if paired too tightly with our exclusivity claims. I like it as a mission though for inside the church. It reframes religion as spirituality rather than a checklist.
When President Nelson announced that the institution would drop “Mormon” from LDS jargon, it was for me a most timely, prophetic policy change—because in my view the culture of Mormonism has become toxic. So I interpret the Church distancing itself from the culture of Mormonism as a dramatic, optimistic step towards gathering Israel—a good thing.
For me, the deconstruction of temple ordinances has eliminated the drossy Masonic and Mormon elements—and in doing so, has revealed a more pure form, a more universal ordinance—another good thing. I expect more to come.
As for gathering Israel and cultivating Zion, I expect the missionary program to change from sending young boys to calling young families, so that wards and branches are strengthened worldwide with our greatest assets—families.
Access to pure bread and pure water represent a fundamental economic human right in Zion. Pure water and pure bread are endangered, so sacrament is a critical vulnerability. I expect the Church will work ($100 Billion) to secure worldwide supplies on grains for bread, taro for Polynesia, and worldwide water sources—all aimed to preserve and truly consecrate “sacrament.”
Zion is set apart by offering the purest sacrament, body and spirit, literal and figurative—a political economic consecration. Our new narrative revisits Enoch’s covenant with Earth—which means we will need to establish a relationship with the natural world as if it were an Eden-becoming.
I think we are well into the “Christ centered” church era. Look at the name. Look at the logo. Look at the URL we use. That’s what it’s all about from here on out because it’s the only constant than can be counted on to never have to change. The Mormon/Moroni/golden plates has been overtaken. The family values church is being overtaken. It’s all about Christ. That’s what it should have been all along.
The challenge: convincing people that the LDS version of Christ’s church is more valid than other Christian churches. Why would it be if our historical claims on authority continue to be invalidated by investigation.
Challenge II: draw a stronger link between temples and Christ. Right now I see the two as fairly disconnected. If we are going to spend massive resources on more temples and ask members to be “worthy” (i.e., tithing) to attend, we better find a way to articulate that strange temple ordinances bring you closer to Christ.
I would like to see the Church increase its presence in the New Jerusalem. That would be a sure sign of upcoming important events. Also acquiring more historic properties cause they are inspiring to visit.
As far as losing the fight over homosexual marriage, there is still the issue of living the law of chastity preparatory to that. Most secular relationships aren’t willing to obey, and there would be the catch.
+1 for the “Christ-centered” Church as the new theme.
This could take two of many paths, one (IMO) positive for the Church’s long-term prospects, the other destructive:
1) As is already evident, a renewed emphasis on the Church as Christian could bring the Church squarely into the mainstream cultural debate about truth, science, and faith. And we have a lot to say (e.g., Mormon theology’s humanist conception of God; Revelation as falsifiable; faith as morally and socially motivating). This path brings more humanitarian service, less social conservatism, and younger, brighter converts. Please, oh please, let this be what we do for the next 20 years!
2) As is equally evident, the new, “Christ-centered” church could join the American evangelical movement in a perverted alliance against “secularism.” Perverted, because cosmologically, we have more in common with humanist atheists than we do with evangelicals. This path holds more racism and xenophobia, less distinctively Mormon theology, and diminishing mainstream relevance. The end looks like 21st-century Catholicism in Europe: lots of beautiful, empty temples. I don’t want this one, and I probably won’t stick around for it.
Would you rather sing “O, Say, What Is Truth?” or “Onward, Christian Soldiers”?
I am genuinely curious about “the fight against gay marriage being over”. The reason I say that is because so much of it has been underground. The church has sent lobbyists and dollars all around the world to influence lawmakers in countries where it is an open issue. Then there’s the “religious freedom” battle that is, in many ways, a surrogate for limiting LGBTQ rights including those traditionally associated with marriage.
I kind of hope that the virtual meeting options continue in the church in a post COVID environment. They will occasionally catch people like me that just aren’t going to “darken the doors” physically. I tried to join last Sunday, but they mistakenly sent a link to another ward so I signed off.
Elder Bednar gave a talk in the April 2020 GC that chronicled church growth over the course of Pres. Nelson’s lifetime. First of all – he was born in 1924. There are some new catchphrases and he is finally able to address some of his pet issues, but I don’t see a sea change with him. Amping up exclusivity claims with a closer tie to the name of Christ will, I think, actually sharpen the differences between the church and the rest of Christianity – not bring us into the “club”.
I would say that as long as the standard practice remains of obscuring facts that contradict official narratives (rendering the narratives, dare I say it, lies) the internet will continue to light the paths out of and away from the church.
For growth: the church needs to become something that people want to be a part of rather than something they can, hopefully, live with, in spite of being that sexist church that hates the gays. For everything else the church has to offer, that is the threshold that must be crossed.
I know this makes me sound like a “progressive Mormon”. I’m really not. I just don’t think sexism, racism, and anti-LGBTQ are – or ever were – of God. Past leaders were wrong and current leaders don’t have the stomach to correct the problem.
@BeenThere & Billy Possum, I agree. Your comments made me think that what I would wish for the Church is that it becomes a place that celebrates and demonstrates vulnerability as part of a Christ-centered approach.
Many of the problems you point out result from an inability or unwillingness to be vulnerable and to admit mistakes on behalf of the institution or individually, or to betray any smidgen of doubt or uncertainty. We are too busy being right to be vulnerable. The very best meetings I’ve been to have been (1) Christ-centered, and (2) vulnerable. And none of them were General Conference.
We live in a world of endless possibilities. I would like to see the Church exploit these possibilities and work to improve global conditions. The Church has the human and financial resources to accomplish great things. It’s good that we say we are Christ-centered, but we need to demonstrate we are Christ-centered. Two million to World Food Program (the newest Nobel Peace Prize winner), doesn’t cut it. That is merely a drop for both the Church and WFP. There are other global activities that the Church could support like World Health Organization (WHO).
Our missionary programs could be reoriented toward service. Many of our young would relish the opportunity to serve humanitarian causes. I know several of my grandchildren would enjoy such service. Church retirees have skills that underutilized. Skills in areas like teaching, engineering, medicine, economics, etc.
Prez Monson added a 4th mission which was to assist the poor. Let’s do it with more vigor. What better way to serve and revere Christ?
I think the Church is what is always has been — a gathering of those who have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Historians and sociologists and other academics will make observations and try to explain things as though faith was irrelevant — but that is what the Church is. I hope the Church continues as it always has — to worship together, teach correct principles, build faith, encourage personal righteousness, administer ordinances, and so forth. The Church should not be a social justice warrior organization for virtue-signaling on flavor-of-the-month issues. Individual members should be involved in their communities as their circumstances allow, doing much good of their own will.
Elisa:
Could you please elaborate on the quality you describe as “vulnerable?” Beyond admitting mistakes and insisting on being right, I mean. I assume it also means a true absence of pride, and being honest that we are lost without Christ‘s love, and need Him—but I would appreciate your thoughts.
Thank you.
@Taiwan Missionary, when I say vulnerability I’m thinking about it in the way that Brene Brown talks about it. She says it’s “uncertainty, risk, and emotional exposure.” I believe her research (and my personal experience) that these qualities are essential for human connection and growth.
Some specific examples I’ve seen in church settings:
-admitting to struggling with something, whether it’s a challenge outside your control (like a health issue or difficulty with a family member or relationship) or a difficult time doing what you know is right (like keeping a commandment)
-admitting to having doubts and not being certain about things, including all of the “I know thats” that we tend to hear in testimonies
-admitting to having made mistakes
To be clear, I don’t think it’s fun or appropriate when church becomes a place we unload all of our baggage and over share. But in my experience real vulnerability invites connection, ministering, and the spirit. My favorite church meetings or comments are when people are open about things they struggle with and the ways that gospel teachings and, especially, Christ and the atonement have helped them muddle through those struggles.
I see this a fair amount in local meetings. I don’t see this modeled very often from the Q15. I think they feel they must project confidence, certainty, and perfection. I think it’s very rare that they share personal experiences that reveal any level of vulnerability – although I can think of a few examples (that are so rare they are memorable):
-Elder Holland talking about his own mental illness
-Pres Nelson talking about a time he failed in a surgery and his patient died and he wanted to quit medicine
-Elder Scott talking about having lost a child and having done something insensitive to his wife
-Pres Uchtdorf talking about struggling to use technology and drinking Diet Coke
-Elder Zwick talking about having done something dumb and thoughtless to his wife
-Sister Aburto talking about mental illness
-Sister Eubanks talking about testimony struggles
Etc.
Hopefully this is not too off topic. I would love to see a more Christ-centered church as the next “theme”, but agree with the commenters that such a focus can either go down a “ we’re the rightest about Jesus” path (not appealing) or a “we’re not perfect, including the leaders, and we all need redemption and forgiveness, including the institution”.
I also agree with the commenters we need to stop focusing so much on rebranding ourselves as Christian via logos and URLs and just start doing more Christian things like feeding the poor and loving our neighbors.
“Our missionary programs could be reoriented toward service. Many of our young would relish the opportunity to serve humanitarian causes.” .“… just start doing more Christian things like feeding the poor and loving our neighbors.“
Amen and Amen. Having just returned home, the things we did that we’ll remember most required gloves and shovels or time spent teaching life skills. Our young missionaries were best when teaching without words.
I see most of problems for the church coming from its connection to republicanism. To its conservative thinking. The opposition to equality for women and gay marriage. The progression system, the attitude to missionary work. Members defending Trump, The definition of morality, the idea that caring for the poor is by republican not Christs teachings.
Imagine the difference in the church, with a revelation to have a retiremt age for the 15, and gay marriage, and equality for woman. And a mission for the Church to be Christlike.
Imagine the difference if half the Apostles are women, and possibly a gay one. Half the conference speakers, and decision makers are women, and the focus of the church is to be more Christlike, care for the poor, and fight inequality. Missionaries directed to helping people, especially raising people out of poverty. Empowering people.
@Geoff-Aus
I think you are spot on.
In my lifetime (60 years) the church has certainly moved towards a very conservative ideology. I wonder why.
– Wanting allies within the broader Christian community? Not much chance with Catholics given our former (think BRM) thoughts on them. We certainly aren’t in sync with protestants. The only Christian bedfellows are evangelicals (they scorn our religion but see us as valuable political allies – with a generous checkbook).
– Growing wealth of the church? When I was a wee one, the church was clawing its way out of a cash crisis. Now it’s combined financial investment, business holdings, and real estate are estimated at upwards of a trillion dollars. That took a “big business” mindset and a similar cut of people to make it happen. Sure there are rich liberals – but no one is going to accuse the church of being liberal. The Q15 are essentially the board of directors. They have typically come from business and legal backgrounds – even more so with the 70. The leadership deck is stacked with conservatives and the organization reflects that.
– Stable core? Staunch conservatism is very stable – not many defectors. To the extent that church membership reflects the same principles, so will loyalty to the organization by a stable core of members. Those whose ideologies are more centrist are a broad enough group that it is hard to craft a battle cry to unite them (us). Conservatism can be counted on by the organization in a way that no other ideology can muster.
The leadership, management, and wealth-building aspects of the church are massive and on a steady course. I’m afraid middle-way and progressive Mormons are like little yapping dogs. They just don’t fit into the economy of the organization.
Those who love Mormon theology and cherish the truth claims may one day find that they no longer recognize the church as a vessel of the gospel. Maybe that day is already here.
BeenThere, excellent comment. Who estimates the wealth at one trillion? One assumes there’s much more than the Ensign Peak account that was discovered but further estimates would be useful.
@Anon
Please let me respond in broad strokes. It would take some time to assemble better documentation.
– Ensign Peak which was pegged at about $124 Billion.
– A couple of years before that, Mormonleaks documented 5 or 6 investment LLCs with funds totaling around $34 Billion. These companies were registered within a short period of time. They were managed by mid-level church accounting department employees. They were visible to the public because whoever created the entities neglected to check the box that would keep them private.
– Prior to that leak, a friend who used to work for the church IT department noticed the names of church-owned companies that were registered with some enterprise software. He looked at a dozen or so that were similar to the Mormonleaks accounts, each with $3 Billion to $5 Billion. There were additional accounts that he did not explore.
– The Perpetual Education Fund (which makes loans from the interest on the fund) now has over $1 Billion in principle.
– I listened to an interview (I believe it was a Mormon Stories podcast) with a man who had formerly served on the Deseret Trust board and was privy to high-level information. He would not give a specific number, but when pressed did say that the financial assets of the church exceed $500 Billion (which would include all of the above).
– The church owns many for-profit businesses such as the City Creek Mall, Deseret Mutual Insurance Company, Bonneville Communications (KSL, Deseret News, and many TV and Radio stations), and Beneficial Life. Beneficial is no longer selling life insurance but is now in the business of managing several billion in assets (which are capital reserves for future life insurance and annuity obligations) but managing money is very lucrative.
– The church has very extensive real estate holdings. The real estate arm of the church reportedly completes several major acquisitions every week. Much of that is for chapels and temples and that does not directly generate revenue but has significant value in the land and buildings.
– There are all of the welfare system storehouses, canneries, ranches, orchards, and farms. Deseret Ranch in Florida is the largest cattle operation in the country. In fact, the church is reportedly the largest private landowner in the state of Floria.
– Church Education System properties including flagship universities as well as seminary buildings at high schools and junior high schools and Institutes of Religion buildings at universities. There are also primary and secondary schools around the world.
– Very active in commercial and residential real estate development.
– There are valuable recreational properties used for girls’ camps, etc.
– Church historic sites (much of which are paid for by private member donations).
I’m sure there are other assets that haven’t been reported on or that I have forgotten about. It all adds up – a million here, a billion there.
The prosperity gospel so prevalent in Christianity has been very good to the church. Is there any wonder that some of that rubs off on Mormon politics?
I love this question, Dave, and I think it’s a great one. I think you make a great point that the Church seems maybe adrift between purposes if the fight over gay marriage is over (although I think BeenThere makes a great point that it’s still ongoing in many ways). What I wonder is who, as Church president, would even *want* to reorient the Church to a new focus. Nelson, Oaks, Ballard, and Eyring wouldn’t. But I think it’s possible that Holland or Uchtdorf could.
I love the idea several people have mentioned of orienting the Church toward service. We have practice and some structure (Victory for Satan Helping Hands), and a giant missionary force that’s not doing much converting. We have a giant pile of cash that, as others have noted, could be directed toward lots of humanitarian causes.
I also really like the idea others have proposed of turning the Church truly away from its Americanness. If a Church president had the will, perhaps he could “pack the quorum” by expanding the Q12 with a bunch of new picks from outside the US. That would force the succession in the future to become more non-American without having to count on future presidents agreeing with him. It’s unlikely, I know. But with growth for the Church, like for Christianity in general, certainly not happening in the richest nations of the world, it seems like for long-term survival, it would be better off having leadership coming from the same countries that membership comes from.
I’m just catching up and read Bishop Bill’s post on the effect of the internet on the Church and that sparked a thought that I think is relevant here. A huge reason that making service the Church’s next great identity is that service is something you do and not something you believe. I know I’ve seen people discuss the question of whether belief or action is more core to the Church a bunch of times, and I think you could make good arguments either way (although a temple recommend interview does seem to limit how far you can go in the Church without being pretty orthodox in terms of belief).
Anyway, since service is something you do, it’s not a thing that’s threatened by the greater availability of information about the Church online. If the core of your Mormon identity is, as the Church encourages, ideas about historical facts that are easily proven false, or at least more complicated, by a little Googling, then the Church would do better in the long run to have the core of its members’ identities be around an action, like service. So even if people are maybe thrown for a loop by learning about multiple accounts of the First Vision or the failure of the Book of Abraham to match up at all to what’s in the facsimiles, perhaps that will be less of an issue for their ongoing engagement with the Church if their engagement is based in the goodness of serving people around them rather than in having unique beliefs that nobody else shares.
A quick thought on the war against being too LGBTQ+ friendly.
There have been many posts on Mormons Building Bridges and the Dragon Dads FB groups about experiences when an Elder’s Quorum president, Bishop, or Stake President crossed a line in the sand in being “too” accommodating with particular individuals/families or have been too welcoming in their policies or training.
Elder Whitney Clayton was the GA that went in to lower the boom. I wonder if his retirement announced this last conference will have any impact on the practice.
Here’s a suggestion. How about our missionaries, wearing their badges, delivering needed prescriptions to the elderly and immuno-compromised who are unsafe to get them personally? A new identity for the church in the community right there.
1 ‘Be careful not to parade your uprightness in public to attract attention; otherwise you will lose all reward from your Father in heaven. 2 So when you give alms, do not have it trumpeted before you; this is what the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets to win human admiration. …
Beyond the boundaries of Utah, Idaho, and Nevada, is the church even relevant?
I don’t believe it is, I think Salt Lake knows this, and that’s driving their decisions and actions. They are searching ways to become a world leader…and failing.
What does the church stand for? I have no idea. It seems to be a meandering creek, that modifies it’s policies (?) every few years as it seeks a way to become an ocean.
TC – in my TBM days I would have responded here with a hearty defense of 1 Nephi 14.
I’m always interested in the messaging coming from SLC and by extension, from the missionaries. Tonight my wife had arranged a zoom “visit” with the missionaries after some coercion from the ward mission leader – it was tolerable in that there was no mention of RMN, Joseph Smith, or the Restoration. Happily, their message was all about Jesus.