Most organizations want to be admired, to be the best at what they do, but also to dominate their field and grow. Churches likewise feel a mandate to be the stone cut from the mountain that fills the whole earth. In the case of Mormonism, we want to go from 6 people meeting in 1830 to millions of Church members in 2022, and to retain what’s unique and special about us while appealing to a broader audience over time. We want to be different (better) than other Christian sects, but also recognized by them and part of them. It’s hard to be in competition with a group while also wanting that group to admit you as one of their own. The tension is real between being who you are and being accepted; there is a great pull to sacrifice uniqueness to fit in.
The musical [Title of Show] is about 4 theater friends writing and submitting a musical for a festival, they talk about whether they want the show to be broadly popular or more appealing to fewer people. They conclude they’d rather be “nine people’s favorite thing than 100 people’s ninth favorite thing.” They see broad popularity as the road to mediocrity and being forgotten amid so many similar musicals, but doing something truly unique may mean they achieve greatness that is just less appreciated, but still fresh.
Susan sings about being nine years old in Ohio, entering a baking contest against all the fancy cakes. She makes rice krispie treats instead, and while her offering is rejected by almost all the judges, one lone judge picks her rice krispie treats. She sings “Let our show be the rice krispie treats.” I was one of those nine people, seeing it on Broadway twice during its run. And rice krispie treats are pretty amazing.
Whenever an organization scales up to attract more people, a shift toward mediocrity will be one byproduct. There will be less variation: fewer disasters, but fewer moments of greatness. When you go to McDonald’s, you know what you are going to get. It’s the same wherever you go. The brand makes sure that it conforms to the McDonald’s recipe, packaging, hiring, and rough pricing model. If you go to a local burger restaurant, you might find a much higher quality meal, usually at higher prices, and probably with a better dining experience on the whole. If you take that successful niche restaurant and turn it into a chain, you may be better known and have more audience and make more money, but you will give up some of what makes you special in the process. The people running it will be more indifferent, the more people you add. The food quality may change as you make more of it. There might be less impact from a single bad incident, so quality control may go down as the output increases.
Another feature of scaling up is that what makes it so successful as a single business doesn’t always work across multiple locations. As you grow, chinks in the armor are revealed–flaws in the model get bigger and more problematic. Scaling up reveals the types of weaknesses that are hidden or compensated for in a smaller group. You might have to change suppliers or processes to receive supplies. You have to change your model, and in the process, you might lose what worked well and replace it with something not quite as good, but more practical for a large scale operation.
Most readers of the bloggernacle will immediately see a parallel with the correlation movement in the Church. As the Church grew, there was a lot of consternation over organizations having too much autonomy and not being consistent, particularly in terms of their vision for their organization and the content of teaching manuals and publications. In the process of correlating, we lost a lot of the best content, but settled on something much more bland. Maybe that’s necessary as you grow.
When evaluating the success of a scaled-up model, it’s important to consider the role of both the chef and the ingredients. We’ve all seen movies in which a great chef makes something simple like an omelette, and the critic or customer takes an ecstatic bite of this simple meal, rolling their eyes up in their head in pleasure, illustrating that the chef is fantastique. *chef’s kiss*
Those who enjoy watching chef competition shows will be familiar with the idea that these top notch chefs are often given unusual or unexciting ingredients that they have to incorporate into their recipe to make something good. On one show, a contestant had to include pop-tarts in the fancy dessert he was making, and the result wasn’t great. It was overpowering, too sweet, cloying, and had a weird texture. A great chef can’t always make bad ingredients into something delicious.
Within the Church, this question of the chef vs. the ingredients is just as salient. We started out with chefs who were charismatic enough to make a meal out of polygamy (at least the men found it delicious) and moving across the country. They literally had people drinking swamp water, straining it through their teeth, and calling it a life-changing spiritual experience! We’ve had plenty of leaders since then who have been less successful in making a meal out of unpalatable ingredients. We’ve also had some chefs who relied too much on certain ingredients that have been a turn off for some of the diners.
- What do you think are the weaknesses in Church structure that were revealed as we got bigger?
- What are the best ingredients the Church has available? The worst?
- Who have been the best chefs we’ve had as a Church? The worst?
- Which is more important to the Church’s scalability: the chef or the ingredients?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
I’m no longer active in the Church but I still have a very TBM opinion about correlation. I believe that the Church should be consistent wherever it is, pretty much like Burger King. We shouldn’t be subjected to a different set of beliefs depending on location.
And to that end, we should not be subjected to a different set of doctrines depending on who the president / prophet is. I understand the concept of continuing revelation. But core doctrines should not change over time no matter who is in charge.
And as much as I’d like to see the Church change, significant change would actually undermine the integrity of the Church. The Church is not a democracy and it’s stated beliefs (doctrine) should not change according to the chef (the prophet) nor should it change according to the wishes of its customers (members / investigators).
If I were a TBM I’d be very bothered by RMN. Today’s COJCOLDS seems to reflect him much more than it should. It shouldn’t be that way. But I guess it’s not really my problem.
Back when I was in Japan in the early 90s McDonald’s sold food and milk shakes that seemed specifically geared towards Japanese tastes and food, and that I had never seen elsewhere. My favourite was the chicken tasuta – a round bun of style found in a Japanese bakery, with a chicken burger, shredded white cabbage, ginger and soy sauce. There was also a teriyaki burger. The yoghurt and melon flavour milkshakes were also fantastic.
Following recipes is not really my thing. Whether I’m preparing meals for my family or lessons at church. It was in trying to find more information to supplement youth Sunday school lessons, and not just the tedium of the manuals that got me onto the internet a decade ago now, via the material on the old Maxwell Institute site to begin with. On family meals my kids have often asked what is this? Only to be given a list of ingredients rather than the name of a dish. As my husband says, whatever it is it’s nutritious. You might say I was really feeling the nutritional lack in the correlated curriculum.
I’ve told this story before, but it bears repeating. I work for a large national bank, with branches in most of the lower 48 states; basically we’ve got scale and consistency. A few years back, I had a team of employees based in India and had to travel to India for two weeks. While there one of my Indian coworkers who was Christian accompanied me to the LDS sacrament meeting on Sunday to see what it was like. After, when asked what he thought of the meeting he responded, “The Mormon church is what you would get if our financial services corporation was in charge of a religion.” Basically, he realized the Mormon church is the McDonalds of Christianity.
MTodd: you probably weren’t trying to be funny or ironic, but you were, when you compared the Church to a financial services corporation.
The process of Correlation should flatten things out, like you said, getting rid of the best stuff in favor of something easy to package. It’s also supposed to get rid of the worst stuff. The “don’t use outside sources” notes in the manuals should apply equally to all the outside sources. What’s frustrating is that this type of restriction is aimed far more often at progressive members than fundamentalist members. If you want to go outside the manual to teach about Heavenly Mother (like Elisa, I am damn well going to capitalize), you’ll likely get complaints, but if you want to go outside the manual to explain that polygamy is the true order of heaven, or that all government programs are of the devil, you’re much more likely to be tolerated, accepted, or even cheered.
Ziff, Looks like correlation is the Prozac of Church programs. Takes out the highs and lows, and leaves ones even keel. Maybe that’s what the Church wants? I’m old enough to remember the highs of pre-correlation, and I miss them!
The Church is very much the McDonalds of religions. Both have similar levels of global penetration (both have yet to enter North Korea) and both have a consistent but bland menu. There are some key differences, though. McDonalds does not pretend to have any Michelin stars, nor does it try to compete directly with up-market steakhouses. They know their market, and they dominate it, but they also don’t claim to provide the only valid path to human nourishment. They don’t even pretend that their food has any real nutritional value. McDonalds also frequently introduces new menu items (while the Church only takes them away), and is willing to make certain local adaptations (the Church fights this).
As Morgan Spurlock demonstrated, subsisting exclusively on food from McDonald’s can slowly kill you from the inside out. For many, the Church does this as well.
This opinion piece hits the nail right in the head. Their is an unfortunate tendency among younger bishops and ward leaders to dumb things down in an attempt to be popular. This has lowered expectations to the level of the lowest common denominator.
In my day, members were expected to refrain from substance abuse and wanton sexuality. Now, younger leaders excuse this behavior because they don’t want to hurt their popularity be being perceived as too harsh.
What this is leading to is congregations with no expectations and thus, no commitment level. When things are so easy that anyone can be a part of it, no one wants to be.
Mormonism is a macro-religion, with lots of different groups who do not recognize each other’s authority and legitimacy but who recognize Joseph Smith as a prophet. It fragmented from the days of Joseph Smith and continues to fragment to this day, with Snufferitism being one of the latest outgrowths. The largest group is led to Russell Nelson, but small polygamist groups do exist and have a profound effect on the lives of their followers. I know this first hand having worked and interacted with many members of the Kingston group.
The folly of Mormonism was that it was built around personality cults from early on. Early Mormonism was almost entirely built around Joseph Smith. When he was killed, the Mormon community became divided, with Brigham Young becoming the leading personality, who in turn built a personality cult around himself. Isolated in Utah Territory, Young maintained tremendous control over the affairs of the Mormon community. Although forced to cede power to the US, he completely reshaped the community and gave it a distinct imprint (expanding the institution of plural marriage to other leading figures in the church) and did what Smith couldn’t manage to do: root Mormon identity in a geographical region. The importance of this Mormon claims over territory took precedence in the minds of the most prominent leaders after Young’s death. So much so that they continued to make alterations to Mormonism (gradually get rid of polygamy) in order to maintain a foothold of power within the US system, a system that they knew they couldn’t avoid being absorbed into, but a system that they figured that they could work within, even if it only meant controlling the local politics of one resource-deprived state (with Congress drawing the borders of Idaho, Colorado, Wyoming, and Nevada to strip down Mormon influence in the region). Leaders post-Young never became as outspoken and prominent, and were forced to work along side with other leading figures in order to maintain the integrity of Mormonism in the political and cultural sphere against many forces pulling against from inside and pushing against it from the outside.
To tie what I’m saying with the questions you asked, I think that early Mormonism really just had a couple of “chefs.” As it grew, so did the number of “chefs” who worked within mostly the revelations of Joseph Smith to devise a workable and sustainable number of interpretations that would help perpetuate the community, most importantly the community in Utah but also to be able to attract members from Europe and throughout the US, and eventually the world.
What seems to be missing in today’s Church is vibrancy. We used to do road shows, dance festivals, pageants, blue and gold banquets, green and gold balls, pioneer day BBQs, YW dinners, pinewood derbies, ward Halloween parties with a haunted house, stake sport leagues, and so on. When the church leaders were busy promoting “family values ” they forgot to push back against corporate anti-family values that have chipped away at employee compensation and reduced government benefits to the point that both partners in a marriage have to work overtime just to get by. We might have more time to do church activities that are actually fun of everyone wasn’t so busy sacrificing themselves to the Almighty Dollar. Oh, well. As long as those tithing funds keep flowing, huh?
“Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?” We might ask ourselves today if anything good can come out of McDonalds. Can anything good come out of our plain chapels where plain doctrines are taught? “There is no beauty that we should desire [them].”
“He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.” I think one of the reasons as to why we fail to recognize the Lord — and by extension, his Kingdom — is because his presence in the world is rather ordinary most of the time. Can a prophet emerge from the woods of upstate New York? A boy who is nothing more than a farmhand? Can a UPS driver be a bishop? Or a Relief Society president? (I’ve seen both.)
The gospel can be just as true as it’s ever been without the finest trappings that the world has to offer. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that some of the quality we’d like to see in our buildings and in our worship services and in our instruction might actually get in the way of the spirit of the message. It’s better to worship the Lord in the spirit of truth in a foxhole than to misapprehend the spirit for the beauty that seasoned orators, musicians, and teachers, can bring–especially in a cathedral-like setting.
OP question: “What are the best ingredients the Church has available? The worst?”
The worst ingredient is us, the members – always sinning, sometimes frail, weak, impatient, quick to anger, insensitive, disobedient, unkind…
The best ingredient is Jesus Christ, by leaps and bounds – the way, the truth and the life. He who is mighty to save – offering repentance, forgiveness and resurrection. Infinitely making up for the worst ingredient.
Yes, I definitely feel that at church there has been a shift from making the spiritual food nourishing, to making it accessible and standardized. I still attend church, but not for the purpose of being nourished, (I need to do the nourishing on my own). I find value in the ritual of the sacrament, the connection of being at-one with God and Christ, and having a set apart to remember them and be at-one with them. So, I guess if my Father and Older Brother had founded McDonalds, and asked me to eat there once a week to remember them- I think I’d still do it (even if the food is not particularly enjoyable or nourishing- because the act of going and eating to remember them may still be beneficial).
The biggest problem for me is what Jack Hughes described “[McDonald’s] doesn’t claim to provide the only valid path to human nourishment”, whereas the church wants us to get all our meals from them. “Don’t use outside sources” is just wrong and tragic. The quote is “All truth belongs to Mormonism”, not “Correlated Mormonism teaches all the truth.” Correlated Mormonism is important, but it is very bland, boring, and uninspiring. I can never tell if the gung-ho people at church are really sincere and enjoying the lessons, or if they are just pretending. Instead of studying “Come Follow Me” during the week to come back to church and regurgitate it, members should be specifically encouraged to study outside resources and bring something back to augment what is found in the manuals, so that we can all be edified together. This would add some flavor and nourishment. (I guess we can all do this on our own, but the social cost can be a little draining, but I think it’s good to do as often as we can.)
Daddy – I want to grow up and be a McMorm0n just like y0u
Ditto Ziff. In some ways, I appreciate the idea of knowing what my kids will be taught at Church, but unfortunately their teachers keep straying from the manuals to spout personal theories about marriage / gender / family that aren’t even supported by the proclamation or other church teachings. But it flies under the radar because it’s still anti-gay marriage.
If I taught my personal theories on the same topics, I’d be released.
***
This is an interesting topic. It’s kind of a process vs substance question for me. I don’t like the substance of CFM. But I probably like the idea of having a coherent set of teachings to teach from. So am I willing to sacrifice some quality in order to get consistency?
The alternative would be to have much, much more tolerance for differing religious views within our own religious community. But that’s not a value we have. We apply the 11th article of faith to other religions, but not fellow Mormons
Elisa,
Years ago, I took a class from a young and vibrant BYU religion professor, Robert Millet. He pointedly taught that there was considerable latitude and variation within the LDS tradition. While there are some obvious boundaries, he addressed the issue of variation between statements by apostles and the First Presidency on a variety of topics, even on some rather “cut and dried” issues. I wish we could abandon the practice of creating what Brigham Young derided as “stereotyped Mormons.” It limits thought, creativity and (in my opinion) revelation. If our youth were able to internalize the concept of variation and develop a sense of tolerance inside our faith community, I doubt we have so many facing painful faith crises in their adulthood. They would also more ably resist the dogmatic fundamentalist so many on the political right have embraced.
Old Man, thanks for sharing what Robert Millet said. I remember him for his remarks that someone recorded him saying in an MTC talk telling the audience how to dodge inconvenient questions about polygamy and other uncomfortable historical topics: “answer the question they should have asked.”
I partly agree with him saying that there are acceptable degrees of variation. But I disagree with the idea of blaming dogmatism and black-and-white thinking on the youth’s inability to see that there is acceptable variation. For I do think that the youth are fully capable of seeing nuance and variation. I know that I did as a Mormon youth. Rigid dogmatism and black-and-white thinking come from the church teachings expressed at general conferences, church manuals, seminary, institute, EFY, John Bytheway and Brad Wilcox talks, and in the general church culture. Either-or, us-and-them type of ideas were reinforced hard in my brain by the church when I was a teen in the 90s. I mentally left and partly physically left the church 10 years ago because of nuanced thinking about the church and its teachings, not because I was unable to engage in nuanced thinking. Millet doesn’t and won’t blame who deserves the blame the most for black-and-white thinking: the church leaders themselves.
One area where is Church is seriously descending into mediocrity (and perhaps below that) is at BYU. The GA’s are willing to sacrifice everything on the altar of discrimination against the LGBTQ community. This is beyond pathetic. And to make matters worse, the religion department preaches obedience over critical thinking. Hopefully the rest of the staff won’t parrot that thinking.
Roger – almost thou persuadest me to burn all my BYU fan gear.
Looking for the church analogy but my local McDonald’s is still closed for dine-in services and drive-thru hours have been reduced.
Chet, “almost” is somewhat disappointing. But if you are talking about sports, there are some upsides at BYU. The programs are probably much more diverse than the rest of BYU’s staff and student body. And the teams are genuinely striving for excellence and not mediocrity.
My idea on BYU sports relates to Africa. There is a huge recruitment potential there. This resource is only partially exploited at this point. The Church needs to set up a high school for potential college athletes in Ghana. Africans could truly take BYU sports to an elite status.
Next time you are in conversation with a GA, please mention my idea to him.