You’ve no doubt heard of the Deep State. It’s a little hard to define. MAGA Republicans think it is bureaucrats and officials inside the federal government who use their institutional power to undermine and sabotage the efforts of former president Trump to formulate and execute policies and plans to save the country from the woke mob and various other shady enemies. Others think the Deep State is bureaucrats and officials inside the federal government who use their institutional power to prevent or deflect the efforts of former president Trump to execute policies and plans to undermine democracy and ruin America as we know it. Here’s a book I recently read that takes the second view: American Resistance: The Inside Story of How the Deep State Saved the Nation (Hachette Book Group, 2022) by David Rothkopf, a “foreign policy, national security, and political affairs analyst and commentator.” He also does podcasts — doesn’t everyone?
The Deep States is an institutional thing, bearing institutional momentum you might say, the large array of individual employees and departmental structures that carry forward not just the knowledge of how to get things done in government but that are also the repository of the habits and traditions and practices and norms of the government and its various departments and agencies. Whether you think the Deep State is a good thing or a bad thing is largely a function of your political views and sympathies, tempered by your personal view of bureaucracies in general. Remember, a century ago the term “bureaucrat” had a positive vibe, maybe like the term “expert” or “analyst” these days. Nowadays, the term “bureaucrat” means either an incompetent government functionary or a malicious one.
The LDS Church has bureaucrats — that is, employees of the institution who know how to get things done within the institution and are also the human capital with knowledge of the habits and traditions and practices and norms of the institutional side of the Church. They do everything from managing the design and building of temples and chapels to the drafting and publication of curriculum material to running a huge translation enterprise to managing the far-flung missionary system.
Here’s the question: Is there a Deep Church? That is, do these tens of thousands of LDS employees go beyond simply executing plans and policies formulated by LDS leaders? Do they sometimes undermine or impede or deflect those plans and policies, either intentionally or unintentionally? I’m not sure I’ve ever heard or read a discussion on this point. As with the Deep State, one could see the Deep Church as doing bad work (undermining the good ideas or inspired initiatives of LDS leaders) or as doing good work (preventing a bad idea pushed by one or many LDS leaders from being enacted or at least minimizing the harm of a bad plan or policy).
Let’s consider an example or two and then let readers chime in with their own examples or ideas. Exhibit 1: Denigrating the term “Mormon.” Seems like a bad idea for a lot of reasons. I imagine that in discussions behind closed doors, objections were raised and apparently either overruled or ignored. If the Deep Church couldn’t stop the “I’m not a Mormon and neither are you” initiative, I’m inclined to think it doesn’t have much power. If it even exists in the sense of being any sort of opposition, actual or potential, to leadership proposals.
Exhibit 2: LDS curriculum. Having seen a variety of LDS manual series come and go, I’m inclined to think there are committees and departments within the LDS curriculum area that undermine every effort to improve our manuals. If Uchtdorf couldn’t fix it (he didn’t), then no one can. Proposals to upgrade the curriculum are likely met, in every meeting to discuss it, with objections like “If Grandma couldn’t understand the topic, don’t put it in” and “would a new convert in Peru be able to understand this lesson?” and “who needs history? Just tell them what to do.” If the Deep Church can counter every effort to improve the LDS curriculum, it must be fairly powerful.
Exhibit 3: Seminary and Institute. Whatever directives are given from leadership and whatever updated information gets put in manuals, I’m pretty sure a fairly large chunk of full-time LDS S&I teachers think they know best and will teach their students whatever they damn well please. From time to time, that may include personal opinions or it may include LDS doctrines and ideas from two generations ago that are now disfavored or it may include fringe LDS ideas that were never really “LDS doctrine.” If I had a buck for every eye-rolling story about something someone heard from their seminary teacher, I’d be rich. If there is a Deep Church, the large cadre of LDS S&I teachers is one of its strongholds. That’s going to get worse, not better, with the recent announcement that the BYUs are going to place less emphasis on scholarship and more emphasis on other things for hiring into religion departments.
So what do you think?
- Is there a Deep Church in the sense of sometimes opposing or deflecting or redirecting proposals or plans or initiatives of LDS leadership?
- Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
- Any examples of interactions with LDS bureaucrats or employees that supports or refutes the idea of a Deep Church?
Wheat & Tares 
https://widowsmitereport.wordpress.com/
If there is a Deep Church, it has been an utter failure. In everything, that is, except for dumbing down the class curriculum to the level of the lowest common denominator.
For Dave B is absolutely correct. Any material that would require students to work hard and think for themselves has been removed from the classroom manuals. Long gone are the days of engaging, thought provoking mysteries.
Today’s manuals appear to be designed at the same reading level as a Dairy Queen menu. That goes for both the writing style and the actual content. Neither the menu nor the manual provides any path to edification.
Those in this rumored Deep Church appear to be afraid to make any class member feel bad for not working as hard to learn as another student. Thus, the lessons require no work and no learning at all. For anyone at all.
This is an abysmal state of things. Perhaps we should rename this group as the Shallow Church, since their actual output is about as deep as the local hot dog eating contest.
Yes, the Church has a version of the Deep State…unelected bureaucrats who run things as presidents come and go. But the difference between the Church and the federal government is that the Church’s president claims to be a prophet. And this particular prophet seems to think that his every thought and feeling is a revelation. Therefore, we have major disruption that a US president could hardly get away with relatively speaking. Here’s two simple examples:
1. trashing the Mormon name. Imagine a US president declaring that we are no longer “Americans”.
2. overbuilding of temples. Admittedly the Federal government is very wasteful but what the Church is doing with temples is insane.
A US president never seems to have more than 50% of the population behind him. But the president of the COJCOLDS can do whatever he basically wants. The Church has a Deep State but it can’t stop a guy like RMN. The Church doesn’t have the simple checks and balances that our federal government has.
My take: Regular Church is the Deep Church.
We are privy to basically 0% of the decision making process and debate regarding any policy. You’ve perhaps heard the term “President Newsroom.” When the church makes a big change, it’s equally likely to A) be announced in GC, B) be announced via press release with little to no explicit connection the Q15, or C) be implemented without fanfare, explanation, or announcement.
Who is President Newsroom and why does he get to say, “Thus saith the PR Dept—I mean…The Lord?” What’s going on behind the curtain? Who has what agenda and what are they doing about it? We don’t know.
Just a few months ago, Times & Seasons had a post about Clare Middlemiss, President McKay’s secretary, who had significant influence on who got to speak with him and what written information got to him. There was apparently significant pressure on President McKay to select a male secretary upon his elevation to the presidency, which he refused, and she was apparently forced into retirement upon his death, having earned the ire of at least some of the Q15 (Hugh Brown apparently was not a fan of her). I’d argue that Sister Middlemiss counts as “Deep Church.”
https://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2022/11/clare-middlemiss-and-david-o-mckay/
Wow, I use apparently a lot. Time to buy a thesaurus.
@Dave B., these are questions worth spending time on.
I have heard others say there are three churches: general authorities, the church’s employees, and the local church. I find using these segments to be helpful, and believe this lens is informative when analyzing the church and asking the question how does each segment impact us as members and why?
I’ve never liked the term “deep state” personally; however, I think we make a mistake if we don’t look at the role the church’s full-time employees play in shaping member experiences, behaviors and beliefs.
There is so much to discuss here, but I’ll limit my thoughts to three observations.
First, I think the full time COB employees have an impact on what reaches members. They act as the policy implementers and are likely informing the Q15 with intelligence and data. Some insiders have shed some light on how this flow works. The most stark example is the Ensign Peak Advisors building a $100 billion fund and the president of the Q12 (Boyd K. Packer) not knowing about it, as well as none of the other quorum members. It’s unclear if all members of the first presidency knew about the fund. We might assume the presiding bishop knew, but that has never been fully clarified to my knowledge. If Ensign Peak Advisors don’t represent part of what you could consider the church’s deep state, then I don’t know what does count.
Second, the LDS church’s technology group has grown and impacted church members in ways that are breathtaking. If we go back to circa 2000, the church’s IT network and proprietary systems were in the stone age. Anyone who processed tithing in 2005 on a PC 386 can attest to this. Roll forward 15 years and the church is running on IT systems and building proprietary software that is as advanced as any comparable organization in the world. The church’s website sits on advanced relational databases and organizes member donations, their categories and histories, and do you know how these data are being used? Neither do I, but it’s guaranteed A LOT more member financial data is made available to query than most would suspect. The church has hired former big technology executives to lead these efforts. From the church’s digital library to LDS tools, to the church’s website and member login portal, the changes in technology have been as sweeping as anything the church has undertaken. It’s always there running in the background, never talked about and unknown in terms of how it might impact things like local leadership callings. The church’s IT policy which members acknowledge if they have a member account and login, states explicitly all data collected (including session data) can be used for a number of purposes, including to inform callings. Know what the church’s cookie policy is? Do any of you know how The Church uses member data? I don’t know how the church is using member data, or what information may be electronically appended to membership records. I often complain about the church lacking financial transparency, but I will say the church’s lack of transparency regarding member data collection, use and privacy might alarm me even more.
Third, CES. If the church has a paid quasi-clergy, it is seminary and institute teachers. When I lived along the Wasatch Front, I was always struck by the deference my ward and stake leaders gave these employees. They were far over represented in callings of local leadership, especially bishops, stake president counselors and high counselors. My experiences with most were largely positive. They were good people, but not afraid to serve as unofficial official spokespersons on behalf of the church. The name dropping was endless (e.g., “We had training with Elder so and so last week and he said…followed by answers designed to end any discussion”). Starting with my oldest child, I always regularly questioned my kids about how seminary was going and a few times a year it led to me trapping nonsense and having long sit-downs with my teen. Just as Covid was easing, my wife had a few confrontational meetings with our last teen’s seminary teacher and principle because class kept turning into Trump rallies led by the teacher. Years earlier when my oldest was about three-years-old, a regional seminary administrator I came to know well told me, “Working for the church has been a pretty good career, but if you want to keep your testimony, don’t work for the church.” Why? He explained that the magic disappears and you see how the sausage is made, and it isn’t always pretty. In terms of this part of the church’s “deep state,” I think critically minded parents need to keep a close eye on how seminary teachers vie to become the primary influences in our adolescents’ lives. I must make it clear I do not believe in conspiracies. But I understand the combined effects of culture, policy and people can have on groups of people who are subjugated to them. The church seems to hire one profile of individual for seminaries and institutes, and they are going to teach loyalty, and obedience mingled with Mormon mysticism. My experiences with all but one of my children’s seminary teachers suggested they are not broadly educated or open-minded people. Most members extend too much credibility to their words simply because the are seminary teachers.
Since I don’t like to use the term deep state, I’ll say the church’s employees do serve as insiders and some are highly influential whether it is regarding opportunities to leverage technology and member data, or in CES to shape member mindsets. The problem is they too fall under the protection of the church and are shielded from local members being publicly critical of them. I think it is safe to say that to attack in public a church employee over church policy or programs would be seen by local leaders and GA’s as attacks on the church itself. Maybe there is a deep state argument to be advanced.
I think the entire religion department at BYU should be transferred to an Institute — change the BYU religion professors to Institute professors, and move the budget to the CES Seminaries and Institutes (S&I) organization. They can keep their building on campus, but let it be called an Institute building.
I think the apostasy of the original church was caused by a “deep church” of sorts. But they went to a frightening extreme and formed a combination–and in the end they succeeded in getting what they wanted: a church whose doctrine and theology was nothing more than a reflection of what was being taught in the schools of the day.
Of course there is a ‘Deep Church’. There is ‘Strengthening Members Committee’ is there not, that no one at the top wants to talk about? About as transparent as my big right toe.
I echo the comments regarding CES instructors. CES (especially seminaries and institutes) behaves at times like a bizarre sub-culture within the Church. I worked in public education, and it was painful to watch seminary teachers interact with public school teachers. Over a five-year period, numerous seminary teachers berated school teachers from their podiums in the seminary, spreading the word that this or that teacher was a “danger” to his/her students. Several called one of our history teachers an “anti-Christ” and told his students he was going to hell. His crime? Teaching world religions, which is part of the state curriculum. Others attacked science teachers for teaching the theory of evolution. We ended up calling Salt Lake and letting them know that the next “Brother” who opened his mouth would spark a phone call to the ACLU and the Salt Lake Tribune. The overt criticisms stopped.
What apostasy, Jack?
https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2023/01/23/what-latter-day-saints-get-wrong/
Come now, there was an apostasy. Perhaps our explanations as to its cause have been simplistic. But doing a quick inventory of everything that Joseph restored will give one a sense of how much had been lost through the intervening years–not least of which was apostolic authority.
How about Kirton-McConkie? They are about as “deep” as you can get. Their advise/recommendations are frequently questionable and PR nightmares. Some of their recommendations suggest they are padding their billable hours. Their assistance with abuse cases leaves much to be desired. Time for the Church to move on from this monopoly.
Of course there is a group of people leading from behind the scenes, and the three most prominent people in charge are Sheri Dew, Wendy Watson, and Krysten Oaks. I like to refer to them as the shadow First Presidency.
I call them the 15 % club- as in the amount of tithing required for admittance. Not only do they influence the direction of the church but there are special perks reserved just for them. But I disagree with Mark, it’s not three women. The Q15 as it stands right now would never share power or even take too much advice from a woman.
I dunno Laura. RMN seems pretty darn pussy whipped to me.
@BigSky, as always, thank you for your insightful comments.
May I follow up on your assertion that perhaps none of the Q15 were aware of the Ensign Peak Advisors (EPA) funds? I’m as dismayed by the church’s un-Christian financial secrecy as anyone but I feel like this is the first time I’ve heard that the Q15 was perhaps not aware of EPA’s growing billions.
Although I would assume not every apostle might have been aware, would there be some three person committee of apostles overseeing financial matters/overall church balance sheet, meeting Q70 members on this committee, to monitor things and so forth? And advising the First Presidency of what is going on overall in terms of church holdings?
I have assumed and, frankly, still do, that at least some of the Q15 were complicit and wanted to keep EPA’s balance sheets hidden because they knew it would 1) look very bad and 2) wanted to keep the tithing coming in.
But if EPA grew these funds completely independently — as well as machinations such as creating shell companies, moving money around, etc. — without senior leaders knowing, wow. That is definitely “Deep State”-like.
Right wingers love conspiracy theories. Many Mormons are right wingers therefore, this might be a theory they love, think might exist, or could create. Why, because there is so little transparency in the church. The church doesn’t talk about finances unless it’s to brag about some small donation to some group that shows they aren’t just about church members. The church doesn’t share internal data, surveys, discussions, or even possibilities and plans therefore members are left to conjecture with little knowledge. Finally there is the issue of trust and organization. Most people don’t trust in intents of anyone they don’t know and suspect those farther away from them to have bad intentions. People are also fearful of being “found out” and exposed, so if there is a deep church, how big is it and how does it spread its message? So I think there might be a couple of guys or women talking and they might even be in influential positions where some of their ideas can be implemented but I think most of anything that might appear to be a deep church is more a product of groupthink and our fear of pushing back. The implied consent of sustaining and the fear of disagreeing and having to explain.
RE: The Q15 aware or not aware of Ensign Peaks totals…
Honestly, I figured that the EP folks had done their duty (as defined by the tax code) to let the Q15 representatives know, and that the Q15 representatives had been told and forgot (old age does impact memory). It’s shocking to the lay person because we don’t have expose to those balances or see those totals. The Q15 have spent their administration (one way or another) with those totals and could have been “told” the exact totals over the years as those totals grew.
While they may or may not have been motivated to not share that information, it also may be in part, they didn’t remember that information in order to share it in the first place, and it wasn’t memorable to them enough to talk about it (had the subject come up).
Here’s a funny true story about the Deep Church. When I was an editor with the Ensign, the new managing director of the Curriculum Department called an emergency meeting for the magazine staffs one morning. He said he had just found out that President Hinckley was going to challenge the members to read the Book of Mormon by the end of the year. He wanted us to brainstorm ideas on how the Church magazines could support this effort. After several ideas were tossed around, the managing editor of the Ensign (let’s call him Don, since that was his name) piped up and said, “David, maybe we’d better slow down here. President Hinckley doesn’t know about this yet.” What David, being new, didn’t understand was that the First Presidency messages in the magazines were actually pulled together by the Ensign managing editor from old talks they had given. He then sent them upline to be approved. Don had remembered that years before, Elder Hinckley, a mere Apostle at the time, had given a talk in general conference in which he had challenged the members to read the Book of Mormon by a certain date. If you don’t remember this challenge, it’s because most members ignored Elder Hinckley’s plea. But now that he was the prophet, Don thought the time was ripe to resurrect this old challenge. Well, the idea went to President Hinckley, and he liked it, so it happened. And the rest is history. And Don, a member of the Deep Church, instigated a challenge to the members that was wildly successful. All because it was approved by the prophet. But it started in the bowels of the bureaucracy, not in some inspired insight from the pinnacle of the organization. Don’s line, “President Hinckley doesn’t know about this yet,” was hilarious but indicative of how the Church often works.
I have some experience with regards to the limitations of apostolic authority. My FIL had a legal dispute with some members with his local LDS community. One of the opposing party members was cozy with the local area authority, who instructed the SP, who was a key witness for my FIL, not to provide testimony. My FIL reached out to an apostle, who was his MIL’s HT years before, for help. The apostle said there wasn’t much he could do, but agreed that the area authority didn’t have authority to direct the SP, and should have stayed out of a civil matter. He said these kinds of situations where local and mid-level leaders exceed their authority happen all the time. Heck, it even happens at the top level (e.g. BKP and Sept 6 and RMN and POX)
Swimlanes are very important to the Q12. The only person who has full access to all church data is the pres. All others are on a need to know basis, based on their particular committee assignments. Therefore is is reasonable that the most of the Q12 were oblivious to the Ensign peak fund.
The best way to prevent abuses such as thr Ensign peak scandal is for some sunshine. I’m hoping the SEC investigation leads to some new transparency regulations for all 401(c)(3) orgs.
I have some experience with regards to the limitations of apostolic authority. My FIL had a legal dispute with some members with his local LDS community. One of the opposing party members was cozy with the local area authority, who instructed the SP, who was a key witness for my FIL, not to provide testimony. My FIL reached out to an apostle, who was his MIL’s HT years before, for help. The apostle said there wasn’t much he could do, but agreed that the area authority didn’t have authority to direct the SP, and should have stayed out of a civil matter. He said these kinds of situations where local and mid-level leaders exceed their authority happen all the time. Heck, it even happens at the top level (e.g. BKP and Sept 6 and RMN and POX)
Swimlanes are very important to the Q12. The only person who has full access to all church data is the pres. All others are on a need to know basis, based on their particular committee assignments. Therefore is is reasonable that the most of the Q12 were oblivious to the Ensign peak fund.
The best way to prevent abuses such as thr Ensign peak scandal is for some sunshine. I’m hoping the SEC investigation leads to some new transparency regulations for all 401(c)(3) orgs.
@EastCoastGuy – Great point. It’s hard to know since so much about the fund, who knew about it, and it’s actual purpose is based on hearsay. We have fragments coming from the whistleblower, the president of EPA (on record claiming they kept it secret because they were afraid members might stop paying tithing if they knew about it), and then Bishop Causse’s flaccid interview with the church’s public affairs rep when the story broke where he did nothing more than try to assert the church’s integrity when it comes to its financial stewardship. I can’t remember the source, but when I learned that Packer, Q12 quorum president at the time, had not been read in, I thought that was stunning. Of course, that too is hearsay. Even if a few Q12 knew along with the first presidency, it seems to me to be an extreme “need to know” practice given the sheer materiality of the fund, particularly when the Q15 is represented to the public as such a unified body (which I don’t believe anyway).
rk – Totally believable. I have enough experience at high levels of corporate management to know quotes attributed to the CEO in press releases are never spoken by that person. It’s the pure product of corporate communication managers. Why would the church be any different? (Other than it’s a church and is supposed to be different.) Love your story!
JLM – Ghastly and sad, but completely believable. I wonder at times just how compartmentalized the church org is, and wonder how difficult it must have been for Elder Uchtdorf to have been in a position where his view of the church was 360, then to be kicked to the basement and suffocated by the detachements of the missionary department. The Mormon Stories episode with Elder Wirthlin’s grandson sheds some light on how power in the Q15 is sorted out.
Instereo – I think the church has a deeper trust issue with many members than it is willing to admit. It’s one of my central problem with the church. There are a few interesting Mormon Stories episodes highlighting some of points I think you are making. One puts light on the church’s survey research efforts and how they segment members according to self-reported attitudes and behavior, how it is used and why it isn’t talked about openly. In another episode, a former senior manager of FamilySearch talks openly about the problems within that organization and how those issues were framed to members (quite the gap) and addresses FS’s annual budget, also not made public. A former executive assistant to a member of the seventy talks openly about her experiences (and disillusionment with) working for the church in yet another episode. Two former CES seminary teachers who left the church for bucking CES mandates, trends and cultural expectations are featured in two other MS episodes. These are all fascinating and provide an inside look at how the church operates as a organization (the good, the bad and the ugly). I have wondered if these former employees received letters from K&M threatening them by reminding them of the non-disparagement and confidentiality clauses that are sure to be contained in the church employment agreements they signed. I think one reason we don’t see more speak out is because the church is a vindictive organization and is more than willing to excommunicate those who publicly disparage it IF those public comments attract a large, growing and ongoing audience. I wouldn’t be surprised if K&M bullies former employees with legal threats when they go public as well–which is no small thing.
Responding to Roger Hansen
Ditto on Kirton, McConkie! I have been retained as counsel a number of times. Sometimes directly with KM other times with the Church department in charge of the matter. I have often reported back at the end of a matter that although the lawyers at KM are fine people, they added nothing to the equation. That resulted in essentially paying local counsel and inside counsel. I have many engagements with companies were inhouse counsel hires my firm and lets us do our job. Never have been micromanaged in other matters. Likewise in 30+ years I have never had a matter for a corporate client that the client was essentially paying the in-house counsel (Church legal department), outside counsel (KM) and local counsel, who runs the case. If that happened with my corporate clients in-house counsel’s head would roll.
There was a time when the in-house people were going in such wrong direction, based on the advice of KM, that I had to resort to calling the office of the 1P because KM was about to take a position that would tank the deal.
It seems clear that top Church leaders think or thought that they had a deep state problem at BYU regarding LGBTQ rights, or they wouldn’t have tried that Henry VIII Oath of Supremacy crap on them, requiring them to agree to be fired over it and to have their thoughts policed.
I think it’s important to recognize and remember that none of our thoughts, ideas, opinions, or beliefs form independently. They are shaped by every conversation we have, everything we watch, everything we read (including blog posts), and by the things we say and do. So I wouldn’t call it a deep state, but I definitely believe that those around the Q15 are shaping their ideas, opinions, and beliefs about the members (and things like what is going on with LGBTQ teachings at BYU)- and the information that is not getting passed on to them also has a huge impact on what they think, or don’t think about a wide variety of issues. They desperately need a pathway to hear from the rank and file members of the church. Some might say that will sway their opinions – but not hearing from ordinary members also sways their opinions.