We have all heard of the error of treating a symptom instead of the cause of an illness/problem.
For instance, imagine someone has a leaky roof in their house. Instead of repairing the roof, they place a bucket under the leak to catch the water. The bucket catches the water (the symptom), but it doesn’t stop the roof from leaking (the cause). Over time, the problem persists, and the leak may get worse, but the person keeps using the bucket as a temporary solution rather than addressing the root cause—the damage to the roof.
There are many examples with our health. We get a headache and we take an aspirin. Symptom goes away! Underlying cause (stress, high blood pressure, brain tumor, etc) still there.
Organizations/businesses also do this. Let’s say that a company notices a problem of low employee engagement and responds by offering perks like free snacks, monthly team outings, or wellness programs. While these initiatives may temporarily improve employee satisfaction (the symptom), they don’t address the deeper causes of the issue, such as poor management practices, lack of career growth opportunities, unclear company goals, or insufficient compensation.
The root cause of low morale could be structural or cultural problems within the organization, and merely providing perks won’t solve them in the long term. To truly resolve the issue, the company would need to focus on improving leadership, fostering a supportive work environment, and addressing other systemic issues.
I believe the Church does this also. But I also think after awhile they eventually try to treat the cause of the problem. A recent example is that the Church leaders noticed that young endowed members were not wearing their garments. To treat the symptom, they added a question to the Temple Recommend interview that reminds them of the obligation to wear the garment. They gave a talk in General Conference reminding people to wear their garments. This did not treat the root cause of people not wearing their garments which is probably a combination of loss of faith in the Church, the garments are ugly and do not go well with modern fashion, and they are uncomfortable, especially for women.
The Church has tried to address the root cause several times with changes to the garments, making the shorter, and then recently removing the cap sleeves and making slips for women who don’t wear pants. So let’s give credit for the Church trying to address at least part of the reason people don’t wear their garments.
What are some of the other example in the Church where they have tried to solve a problem by treating the symptom? What examples are there of the Church actually treating the symptom?
Wheat & Tares 
The Church can only treat symptoms because the leaders have created a model in which everything they do is divinely inspired. The institution and most actions of leaders (what I consider the cause) are untouchable. The truth claims and believing membership reinforce this. Criticism of the institution are dismissed as apostate or anti. The Church will continue to conduct surveys and focus groups to understand what’s wrong with the membership. We will see more changes on the margins. However, the Church cannot allow true self-reflection that might lead to systemic or institutional change.
Hey, don’t knock the bucket system. For smaller drips, a cup works, too.
I think you’re giving the Church/leadership too much credit for adjusting garment design to treat the root problem. In the long view of a couple of generations, they’ve gotten worse, not better. That’s one of the reasons a lot of members have just given up on the whole thing except as ceremonial Sunday dress.
And the biggest problem isn’t just the logistics of underwear and fashion. It’s that the whole garment system is a big invitation to judge your neighbor, which most members take full advantage of. Once in my life have I heard a local leader reprimand members and tell a congregation directly that wearing garments is your own decision for yourself alone and to not take worry or interest in anyone else’s decision. Never in my life have I heard a GA make a similar statement. The judge your neighbor thing is a feature of the system they like. Judging your neighbor promotes compliance, they think (at least until people just check out, which is happening more and more).
So it’s not just a garment problem, it’s a management problem. The scripture says “Judge not, that ye be not judged,” but they set up and support a system that creates and encourages the opposite behavior. The root cause of the problem is bad management.
My issues/symptoms with the church initially were Mission President abuse, early morning seminary, youth bullying, and leadership cliques. After talking/imploring in vain with SP/Bishops, it led to doing my own research on these topics. I went down the rabbit hole, learned more church history than I would have ever imagined and seen the wizards behind the curtain. I may still be attending church if I had decision-makers who were flexible and more Christ-like.
@S has succinctly stated the truth with the first sentence alone.
The church has tried pseudo policies, but they are palliative only for some and ignore the greater issues.
Mission abuse- Not allowed to go to doctor. Church answer: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/volunteer-mormon-physicians-help-missionaries-maintain-health Not really seeing a doctor.
Mission abuse – LDS Missions, Policy & Pressure to Baptize. Church answer: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/have-faith-to-baptize-converts-elder-andersen-tells-2016-mission-presidents?lang=eng Vague statements and back to Mission President roulette.
Mission abuse- A characteristic of a cult is isolation from family and friends. Church answer: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/latter-day-saint-missionaries-can-now-call-text-home-weekly-first-presidency-announces?lang=eng This is still limited to only 1 hour max on Mondays. When you are depressed on Thursday, you pack it down.
Mission abuse- Yelling at missionaries. Church answer: crickets. Never commented. Church answer, did comment on sexual abuse : https://www.deseret.com/2018/4/26/20644019/lds-church-releases-statement-regarding-mission-president-s-misconduct-in-2014/. This came 4 years later. No KMC law hotline for missionaries.
Early morning seminary- Too early https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2024/05/14/no-easy-answers-lds-parents-wonder/. Church answer: https://www.deseret.com/2024/1/30/24056176/latter-day-saint-seminary-life-enrichment-lessons/. No answer, just change the topic.
Nepotism- They are all family and friends. Church answer: Elder Ballard said at a fireside: “When I contemplate the believing blood that flows through the veins of my family. (How many are in high callings).
Bullying – Church answer. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2015/10/the-worth-of-souls-and-the-problem-of-bullying?lang=eng. Problem: when it is the leadership’s kids doing the bullying.
For a church that claims to have a gospel and truth that answers all questions, I came out with more questions. What again is the purpose of the gospel? For me the leak turned into a firehouse and years to absorb and work through all the issues.
For others the small leak continues. Will the church move the bucket, paint the water stain, plug the holes, or remodel the whole house?
If the church made real changes, we would not need the Q15, and all the unneeded cultural dross. We then could have an individual relationship with Christ and be a Christian in our community without all the Pharisaic rules or the water dripping.
I’m kind of with Dave B on this one. Maybe the Gospel Topics essays, anodyne though they were, were an attempt to treat a cause, but what it showed them was the problem/cause was a lot more acute than they realized, and ever since it feels like (to me) it’s been all they can do to treat symptoms only, and always with treatments that imply the fault is with the patient.
In medicine, there comes a time when treating an original root cause (that weird freckle growing on the patient’s forearm) won’t work, because the physician has missed her window and the disease has metastasized, and now the problem runs far deeper. The garment changes feel like that to me.
The style change in garments is still not addressing the basic problem. The basic problem is men dictating women’s underwear in the first place. Women need control over their own needs in underwear.
There is such a huge difference between what men need in underwear and what women need. Men need basic covering and a fly to pee out of. Women need accommodations for all the things a female body does, like have periods, nurse babies change size and shape drastically with pregnancy. Women need 18 hour boob support, and that just doesn’t work on top of garments for bigger boobs, and it took the men 100 years to give women permission to wear the bra under the garments like a bra is designed to be worn. Women have so many issues that the need in underwear changes for and garments just don’t accommodate those needs. Women need to be able to choose underwear that works for them, not have men dictating to them what to wear.
The problem started in the 1800s when they took men’s long John’s and took the fly away and put in a gaping crotch hole and said, “there you go sisters. Women’s garments.” Maybe if they had started from a women’s bussel and corset and then handed that to the men and put the women in charge of modifications over the years, the men would be having the problem today.
The problem got bad when the men decided to use garments to enforce modesty and made women’s bottoms so much longer than the men’s in spite of men being on average taller. Once when I still wore the things, I put my garments up against my husbands. My garment bottoms hung ten inches longer than my husbands 10 inches. The tops also hung much longer, leaving me so much to tuck in at the waist that it left huge lumps in my clothing. Just gobs and gobs too much fabric. Are the leaders *that* scared that women might show midrift? My husband could wear knee shorts and I had to wear long pants because the right at the middle of my knee garments had to be covered and shorts that came just below my knees were out of style. Now Capri length is back, but it was out for 40 years.
And let’s move beyond the sex differences. Everyone should be free to determine their own needs in underwear. I had a friend who worked at a nursing home. He said that the old people had so many medical issues that made wearing the garments so difficult. Colonoscopy bags and catheter bags and other things that just made the garments difficult. But the old people just refused to not wear them, even when they had to strip naked (in the days of one piece) six times a day to have the nurse change the bag. They needed to have their underwear meet their needs and garments did not, but somebody up at the top of the church was so inflexible about wearing the garment 24/7 for life, no matter what. He wrote letters to the first presidency explaining and begging them to ease up on wearing garments. Stop making underwear a moral issue. It is just clothing and should meet the needs of the person wearing it, not be something to declare faithfulness to God by wearing like a hair shirt.
I don’t think you can effectively treat the cause without identifying your long-term goal. You want to keep your house dry, you want to stay alive, and you need to stay in business, so you work towards those ends. The church claims that its long-term goal is salvation for its members. But the end goal of the garment rule (as one example) seems to be the garment rule itself. I think members are questioning the link between garments and salvation, and they’re not seeing it. And the church is so fastened on the garments that they lecture members and tweak the cut and the fabrics, but miss the point that maybe the garments themselves need to go. They’re literally willing to sacrifice members (and that all-important salvation they claim to offer) over garments.
This isn’t the only issue, of course, and the big question becomes: what IS important to salvation, and—for a Q15 of businessmen and lawyers living comfortably on a modest stipend—how do you quantify that? It must be terrifying to think what could happen if everyone decided that they could love god and love their neighbor without wearing garments, for starters.
Let’s just say for the sake of argument that the truth claims (First Vision / Priesthood restoration / BOM translation) and founding documents (BOA / BOM / JST) of the Church are not true. Is there anything the Church can really do without admitting things that would undermine the entire foundation of the COJCOLDS? For some of us that’s the big dilemma that prevents them from treating the cause and instead forces them to deal with symptoms.
Mormonism’s pure unadulterated and uncontrolled greed is the root cause of many symptoms. Give us your money in exchange for the promise of a nebulous works-based salvation based on our ever-changing rules. Oh, and be sure to practice the same principles in your personal lives.
Based on firsthand knowledge, total LD$ Inc. assets (including real estate, investments, and cash) are greater than $500 billion. The relatively small pittance paid out in humanitarian aid pales in comparison to expenses such as GA perks (e.g., subsidized vacation homes, cars, living expenses, vacations, etc.).
The church could easily fund annual operating expenses with accrued passive earnings. Yet the messaging never changes even for widows and the destitute. Pay your tithing first. The hypocrisy is stunning.
This top-down greed serves as a catalyst for members to build and hoard wealth through nefarious schemes (think MLMs). Like the institutional church, you will need a strong balance sheet in preparation for the Second Coming. Status in Mormonism is largely determined by wealth and tithing donations.
Think about this the next time you clean toilets in the ward building.
josh h,
I think you’ve hit on the reality of things. It is true–in theory–that the church would fall apart if it were to admit that none of its foundational claims are true. But I would say (as a TBM) that the root cause of our problems with church could be that we’re not founded on those claims — rather than the claims not being true — and until we are we’ll be doing little more than applying band-aids.
We must become rooted, grounded, and settled in the basic claims of the restoration.
Jack, even the “restoration” was treating symptoms and is NOT the basics we need to get back to. If we just stuck to love God and love your neighbor as (and) yourself we wouldn’t even need any “restoration.” Instead of “restoring” all the junk that never was like the endowment ceremony, and some that was never good like polygamy, Joseph should have stuck to bringing kindness and love back into Christianity.
Obviously, I don’t have a dog in this fight. Speaking from the outside looking in, and respecting those on the inside, it appears to me that wearing garments is basically about loyalty. Loyalty is not a bad thing on its own. The issue, of course, becomes: to whom or what is the loyalty due? to Jesus Christ, the church as institution/community, church leadership, or simply basic proof of membership in good standing and/or acceptance of doctrine? Now, who would have thought underwear would be the means to that end?
Lately, I’ve been thinking about that time when Jesus asked Peter three times, “Do you love me?” The final answer in that interchange was Jesus saying, “Then feed my sheep.”
I think tithing as a case study is particularly interesting.
Once upon a time the church had a certain money problem, ie they had no money. So they started asking the members for money, then created an entire theology around the prosperity of making money and giving it to God.
But the money problem didn’t stop because the church had a spending problem. Henry Moyle employed an “if you build it they will come” philosophy to church funds that left the church $32M in the red in the 1960s.
The church then hired (is hired the right word?) N Eldon Tanner to reign in the spending and voila the problem was solved. By the 1990s the Church has $7B in excess reserves that were used to fund Ensign Peak. That fund has now grown to over $100B today on top of all the other assets.
It would seem the church’s money illness was spending. Which they fixed. They collect and collect and they don’t spend. Members work for free and the poor be damned. But now that the money problem is solved, couldn’t they stop collecting? I mean, when a wound is healed we eventually stop taking medication and putting band aids on it right? Yet no matter how many zeros they add to the end of the bank account, they still collect and refuse to spend.
Perhaps the real illness is an obsession with money.
“What are some of the other examples in the Church where they have tried to solve a problem by treating the symptom?”
Restricting ordination to the priesthood to males only, then telling women that they have priesthood authority in the temple (for other women) and for a calling when they are set apart. But they cannot be ordained, nor do they have final decision making anywhere in the church organization, including their callings. The gaping problem at the center is that there is no theology focusing on women for anything after this life, except to be an add-on for a male.
When you boil things down to root causes, you find the church *likes* those root causes and has zero intention of changing. Money grubbing and the problems of disgruntled members sick of cleaning toilets and smelly buildings, fines from the government for cheating to hid their billions from members are no problem compared to the money in the bank. Women being unhappy compared to the men having all the power, not really a problem—throw a few crumbs to the women and they are delighted and that lasts for a few years. Garments being a problem, again throw a few crumbs. Racism, publically support the NAACP and that smooths things over, but we *like our scriptures that say dark skin is a curse because deep in their racist hearts they think it is true. WoW says coffee and tea are harmful but scientists say they are actually good for you in moderation, but WoW gives us control and obedience and it is easy to see who is a “good
Mormon”. See, they really like the root cause of problems and it is us progressives who are idiots not to see that. Yes, I am calling myself an idiot.
Problem: slowing growth. Concern: perception of decline might frustrate the already active. Bandaid solution: announce the building of more temples to create a story of illusion of continued growth. Second bandaid solution: have some missionaries find a handful of people to baptize in some remote country, like South Sudan, and then talk about how the “gospel” TM is now in that country where there is a branch of a dozen or so attendees. Maybe translate the Book of Mormon into Dinka or something to dazzle the membership of just how widespread the church is.
I agree with Anna. Playing whack-a-mole keeps the progressives engaged in chasing after all these little distractions. We strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. And the conservatives for the most part are conservative because most of it works for them, and they are far more comfortable with obedience and authoritarian leadership anyway.
Root Problem: We treat the concept that generally “Men talk in hierarchy” and “Women talk in social networks” as isolated facts and get surprised when women want to “social network” with their leaders, their spouses, their families to have stronger families and family cultures and men act to protect/justify “the hierarchy” as the way to have those stronger families and family culture and it all goes up in cross-purpose flames.
In conversation around Heavenly Mother – women were “networking” to connect to each other and to a Divine Female (who is not a clean fit into the hierarchy AND pegs our religious organization as potentially “inferior to others” in the eyes of mainstream Christianity). Men in leadership, in the hierarchy felt that it was a threat to the church culture, church doctrine, church organization and “presided” to shut it down and “keep everyone (mundane and Divine) in their place”.
Root Solution Ideas: Talk about the situation from all perspectives in adult classes. Talk about how men generally “double down” when their authority/hierarchy position appears to be challenged. Talk about how men want to make decisive decisions and can be lauded as such.
Talk about how women have a powerful tool in “talking” as forming the network instead of shutting it down as “petty”. The tool is not petty, the way it is used can be very, very petty.
Honestly, I have written this post 3x around this concept and my assessment is that I don’t see anything changing. Men in leadership would have to make some drastic changes to show women members that “they are serious about networking with women” – and I don’t think that the men in our church culture who have the wisdom and experience to get that serious (which means they are older having attended the school of hard knocks) have the power/authority in the structure and the trust of the men in the congregation to do so on a mainstream stage for long enough that it would actually change the culture in meaningful ways. Women who treat men equally as part of their social networks get drummed out of those social networks, marginalized in other ways, sometimes burned out (because they have skillsets that cross the gender lines), and/or “quiet quit” for greener pastures instead.
The church has made it easier than ever for us to get our feet on the high road to eternal life. If we focus on doing that and helping others to do the same we’ll soon find that there’s no need for band-aids at all.
test
Jack, hard to get on “the high road” when your self worth is constantly chopped to pieces by the sexism at church, but then you’re a guy so it is different. And you aren’t on a high road around here so much as you are on a high horse. You preach at us instead of trying to understand. Just saying, you might do better to apply those bandaid to the people bleeding around you rather than preaching at them. Did the Good Samaritan preach at the guy or use bandages?
I find a common thread among the comments which highlights why we treat symptoms instead of root causes. I think Jesus addresses this problem as he begins Matthew 6, he says ““Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.”
We, both in the church and as human beings have been sucked into playing this exhausting game, where we supplant the transformative with the performative. Often, we are more concerned that we appear good, rather than actually doing the hard work of being good. We treat symptom’s I believe because it’s easy, superficial, without the need to descend below behavior management, where we actually sit face to face with the messiness of our humanity. In short, we have a case of Intimacy anorexia, using external expressions of goodness that can be easily judged to protect us from the discomfort of resting in the heart.
Jesus, not as yet another task to complete, but as something to wake up to, suggests that this image management game will certainly massage the ego, but will fail to produce the highest possible good. To solve problems at the level of the root requires a level of care that transcends the law, pointing the law at Christ instead of myself.
Jack – “The church has made it easier than ever for us to get our feet on the high road to eternal life.” While I am really trying to understand views that are different than mine, I simply don’t understand reducing life to “easier” or some “done for you” prescriptive path. I find nothing in reality that suggests that carefully plotting some formulaic steps is congruent with human development. It’s considerably messier than that. I hope you can appreciate equating the spiritual journey with “easy” is part of the problem. Although I find great value by appealing to wisdom that has come before me, I love Joseph’s Campbells formulation, “If you look ahead and the path you’re on is clear, it’s not your path.”
Furthermore, I don’t believe Jesus, when he was talking about “Eternal life” was ever suggesting a destination place, but rather a certain quality of life.
Jack – “The easiest way to Eternal life” – That sounds like the next big LDS slogan and perfect for an MLM party. Invite your friends and we’ll show you the “get Eternal life easy” scheme, you don’t even really have to be a nice person, just need to make some promises, assent to some truth claims, wear some underwear properly, have a few rituals performed in the right places and presto, you’re in! Oh, I forgot, and pay 10% of your income to the already multi-billion-dollar entity that doesn’t need your money but will continue to demand it and promise you not to be burned at the last day. Sorry for the cynicism, I just couldn’t resist.
Getting on the road to eternal life simply means to enter the gospel covenant by baptism and then receive the Holy Ghost–pretty straightforward.
I will say that there’s a bit of fun irony in a group resisting “the way being made easier” who regularly reduces the gospel to little more than *love thy neighbor* (which I kind of agree with).
Jack: Only “kind of” agree with?
Jack:
To paraphrase J. Golden Kimball: Baptism does some little good…. unless you hold them under. I personally would rather live in a society which never baptized and consistently loved one another than one that was baptized and ignored their neighbor.
Jack
As it turns out, loving your neighbor is not easy at all. But it sure feels good when I can say I’m righteous because I have been baptized.
@Jack, you wrote:
How is the Church making it “easier than ever” for LGBTQ individuals to “enter the gospel covenant by baptism and then receive the Holy Ghost”? Did the POX help with this? How exactly am I supposed to help my two close gay friends who have needed to step away from the Church (and really wanted to stay!) because they pursued monogamous gay relationship use the Church as a tool to get their feet on the high road to eternal life?
How did the Church help make it easier for black people to enter the gospel covenant (and we all know that, according to the Church, the gospel covenant includes temple ordinances and priesthood) prior to 1978?
There are a lot of other questions I could ask, but let’s just leave at at that for now.
@Jack,
I have to say there there is a bit of fun irony in being critical of a group reducing the gospel to little more than *love thy neighbor*. You mean, like Christ himself did? (See Mark 12:28-31).
As other’s have pointed out, there’s a difference between having a gospel that’s *easy* to understand versus one that’s *easy* to live. In many ways, the “gospel of checking boxes” that so many Church members and leaders seem to believe in is pretty complex, but also relatively easy to live (if, and until, you realize that this road doesn’t lead to happiness, anyway). On the other hand, the gospel of Christ is pretty simple to understand, yet awfully hard to live.
Dear friends,
If we look at what’s happening with the gospel in terms of dispensationalism what we have is a situation where it has never been easier enter the Kingdom. It’s wide open for anyone who wants to participate–albeit on the Lord’s terms. 2Nephi 31:
17 Wherefore, do the things which I have told you I have seen that your Lord and your Redeemer should do; for, for this cause have they been shown unto me, that ye might know the gate by which ye should enter. For the gate by which ye should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and then cometh a remission of your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost.
18 And then are ye in this strait and narrow path which leads to eternal life; yea, ye have entered in by the gate; ye have done according to the commandments of the Father and the Son; and ye have received the Holy Ghost, which witnesses of the Father and the Son, unto the fulfilling of the promise which he hath made, that if ye entered in by the way ye should receive.
19 And now, my beloved brethren, after ye have gotten into this strait and narrow path, I would ask if all is done? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save.
20 Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life.
Jack, please don’t forget going to the temple and the current prerequisites for that: loyalty to the church leadership and not speaking ill of them, a covenant to give everything you have to the LDS church, paying tithing, word of wisdom, wearing the correct underwear, etc.
Yes–it’s all part of consecration.