Let’s start out with an article from that trusted news source, The Onion: “National Museum of the Middle Class Opens in Schaumburg, IL.” It satirically describes the future museum’s “historical and anthropological exhibits addressing the socioeconomic category that once existed between the upper and lower classes.” It’s an amusing article, go read it for a smile or two. But let’s talk about this thing called the middle class.
First serious question: Is “the middle class” shrinking? The short answer is yes. This is confirmed by a quick Google search, with the handy AI summary providing the following additional info: “[I]ts share of adults falling from 61% in 1971 to 51% by 2023” and “The middle class has contracted over the past five decades, with more people moving up to upper-income levels (rising from 11% to 19%) than down to lower-income levels (rising from 27% to 30% between 1971 and 2023).”
Second serious question: What does this mean for the LDS Church, which is a middle-class church? You might be puzzled by the term “middle-class church.” I’m guessing your town has some churches, often meeting in store-front locations, that focus on ministering to people who aren’t doing too well financially, who may be on the edge or in crisis. And your town may have an Episcopal congregation full of the high-rollers in town. Then there are the mega-churches or local Methodist or Presbyterian congregations that are somewhere in the middle, with a family emphasis maybe. The LDS Church fits in that middle group.
Tithing acts as something like a filter. The ideal Mormon family makes enough money to pay a 10% tithe (which may be more like 50% or more of disposable income) and has enough spare time after work and household tasks to devote to LDS callings, some of which require substantial time commitments. And who fits that description? Middle-class families. Upper-class folks with plenty of money to spare fit in as well, as long as they act middle-class. [And to be fair, I know of many LDS who have plenty of extra time and money who are very generous in supporting both their local congregation and particular individuals in need.] If you can’t pay tithing, you are an uneasy fit in the Mormon scheme. Significant attention in Conference talks and the LDS curriculum is directed against any temptation to tell the bishop, “Sorry, I just can’t afford to pay tithing.” Even suggesting that might ever be the case is simply verbotten in the Church.
It’s not just a shrinking middle-class that might affect the Church (we’ll get to that part below), it’s that many of those families who remain and look like stable middle-class families are actually under stress: financial stress with costs rising faster than income, job stress because positions are not as stable as they used to be (i.e., people get laid off unexpectedly more often than before), insurance stress because it seems like everyone is worried about their health insurance getting worse or going away, kid stress paying for the various fees for this or that activity or club or device, and oh-my-gosh how are we going to save for junior’s college in just a dozen years? And junior’s siblings? If the middle class has shrunk from 60% to 50%, that remaining 50% is a lot less confident and stable than a couple of generations ago, during the golden years of LDS convert growth and retention.
So, focusing again on the second question, what does this mean for the LDS Church? The numbers published by the Church claim there are still a couple of hundred thousand converts per year, but my sense is a lot fewer “golden families” coming in the front door than before (those who fit smoothly into the Mormon system, paying tithing and able to accept and perform various callings). I have sometimes said the LDS Church at the local level has a deep bench, having plenty of candidates when a new bishop or EQ president or RS president is needed. I think over time that bench is getting thinner throughout the Church. There are fewer converts who fit that ideal Mormon family model, and more families/couples in the Church who are under financial and other stress and who are thereby less able to pay tithing and provide substantial but uncompensated volunteer work in callings.
Third serious question: What could the Church do to help out? Granted, the Church doesn’t have the capacity or resources to fight broad societal trends and developments. The Church can’t reinvigorate labor unions or reverse falling student test scores or prevent corporations from moving jobs overseas. But there are a few things that would help struggling middle class Mormons. (1) Provide low-cost day care in LDS churches during the week, in chapels that are largely unused during work hours during the week. There are some complications (insurance, paying the workers) but businesses and churches all over America deal with those complications, I’m sure the business wizards at the COB can figure it out if they want to. (2) Subsidize missions? Maybe every missionary/family pays $100 a month and the Church covers the rest? (3) Figure out how to give families that can’t pony up for a “full tithe” some sort of break so they can be (and can consider themselves) members in good standing and temple-recommend eligible?
Now these and other proposals might seem reasonable and achievable (even easily achievable) but I doubt LDS leadership would do any of these or other similar things. Why not? (1) Self-reliance as a Mormon virtue. You’re supposed to solve your personal and financial problem by yourself. You might get a bit of advice from the bishop and maybe some short-term financial assistance, but don’t expect changes or programs that would provide systemic assistance or ongoing relief. (2) If it ain’t broke ... With a financial system that has generated a hundred billion dollar surplus (and it’s still growing, apparently), LDS leaders are highly unlikely to look at their balance sheet and say, “Hmm, we have a problem here.” If feedback ever trickles up to senior leadership that LDS families are having a hard time, I think most senior leaders would blame the victims (they should work harder!) and think of how in their youth sixty or seventy years ago they got ahead in the world by doing just that, working hard. (3) Money in the bank. You might think that with the Hundred Billion Dollar Fund on hand, built on the backs of member contributions over the years, senior leaders would feel more inclined to use some of that surplus to (to use a Mormon phrase) strengthen families in the Church. No, I don’t believe that’s how they think. They like having a huge financial cushion to protect LDS Inc. as an institution from any future financial reverses. It’s money in the bank that will never be used. As if at the final day, decades or centuries from now, Jesus Christ will return and the future First Presidency will greet the returning Lord with a few trillion dollars in the bank and a checkbook to spend it with. Leadership takes the parable of the talents way too literally.
Okay, I’ve said enough. Maybe you agree or maybe you don’t.
- Is the US middle class, arguably the backbone of the LDS Church in America, shrinking and under stress?
- How is this middle-class drama playing out in your ward or stake?
- Should the Church do anything to help out? Or is this simply outside the responsibility or capacity of the Church to alleviate?
- Name one thing the Church could do to help. Or name one thing the Church has done already that is helping. Or name one thing the Church is doing that is the opposite of helping.
Wheat & Tares 
There is one good argument why the church require missionaries, even senior missionaries, to pay their way. It is to establish a test of willingness. For while the church wants every member to be a missionary, it wants some selectivity of who is a full-time representative and adding the financial test helps make the selection. I’m not saying this is the best way to filter, but it is a way to filter.
As far as promoting a “middle class” the church long lost the argument about that. The practice of self-reliance, avoiding debt, paying Tithing, having food storage, etc have the effect of reducing consumption and enabling a family to make it on a single primary income. But people like to consume! And the modern economy has been extremely successful at inviting greater consumption. So even in Utah, the culture changed from one of modest consumption to great consumption and that demand forces prices higher and encourages a debt financed lifestyle.
The more immediate challenge for the church is that it is in the middle and upper class cultures that one finds people willing and able to serve in the church. As the middle class evaporates (or is overwhelmed with earning money to survive), the church is going to be ever more challenged to operate as a voluntary organization.
Many white collar workers are being replaced by AI, further shrinking the middle class. One very, very small step would be for the Church to hire paid building custodians, as the Church once had. Many of the top Church leaders grew up during the “Beaver Cleaver” era of the 1950s to early 1960s when women could be stay-at-home moms, and a blue collar working man could still afford to purchase home for his family. Back then, a man could work for the same company his entire career. That era is long gone.
Something the church is doing that is currently helping:
I think the church has a good track record in providing aid in disaster zones and in poor countries. These are much needed and provide a lot of relief. I would rather that we did significantly more here (reinvestments still far outweigh charitable spending), but I do think real good is done here.
Something the church is doing that is hurting:
The church recently updated the handbook as follows “22.3.3. Help Members Build Self-Reliance (emphasized that a Self-Reliance Plan is used with all members receiving assistance)”
Forcing all members to receive a self reliance plan creates exhausting hoops to jump through for people already in significant financial strain. I think it also creates pressure for people to pay the 10% tithing before getting anything from the church.
Not to mention the huge organizational strain to make, review, and maintain these plans. Guess what the bishop, EQ president, and relief society president are going to be spending the majority of the time on?
Our government has lots of hoops people need to jump through to get aid too. I have a dear friend with Type 1 Diabetes who was recently divorced and has been trying to get in Medicaid for months. Without family support for the insulin and other diabetes supplies he would have died while the government was slowly reviewing his case file.
Adding organizational hoops will just eat up leader’s time and make it harder to get the aid where it is needed.
How is this middle-class drama playing out in your ward or stake?
The middle-class is steadily vanishing and the last few struggles to even be seen or heard. Most leaders are upper-class pretending to be middle class. But when the entire stake leadership comes from two upper-income wards and the last three stake presidents had incomes easily over $500,000 annually… well it has become a church for the wealthy. The lower middle/working class has slid into inactivity or disillusionment. But it’s their fault. Afterall, the men in those households are just elders, right?
How can we talk about the disappearance of the middle class without also talking about the disappearance of children? Both are downstream of housing affordability. The high cost of homeownership is pushing couples to marry later, have children later, and have fewer children. In my view, this puts the Church on a demographic downward spiral, because housing costs are highest precisely where Latter-day Saints are most concentrated. What we’re seeing now is just the canary in the coal mine; the real impact will accelerate over the next 10–20 years.
The economics of homeownership are bleak. The average age of a first-time homebuyer is now around 40. At the same time, the ideals in the Family Proclamation—especially rigid gender roles—almost guarantee financial precarity for many families. I live in Washington County, Utah, one of the most LDS-dense areas in the world, and we’ve just had a record decline in public-school enrollment. Birthrates are falling sharply. This trend began in the 2010s and has accelerated since COVID.
So what could the Church do? It could get directly into the home-building business. It could call construction missionaries and daycare missionaries. The Church already mobilizes enormous amounts of free labor; some of that could be redirected toward reducing the cost-of-living pressures that prevent families from forming and growing. Think of a Perpetual Education Fund for housing.
Yes, this would be legally complex and would significantly expand the Church’s role, so it probably won’t happen. But unless the Church becomes directly involved in massively expanding housing supply—either by building itself or by strongly backing policies and candidates who do—the financial pressures will continue to suppress family formation. The result will be fewer children to fill the churches and temples that exist today, let alone the ones being planned for the future.
I also think tithing policy should be explicitly revised. Members should be taught that they are not expected to pay tithing until they have paid off a modest home and while they have children under 18.
That deep bench is definitely going away. Some of it is economic, but a lot of it is cultural, more people who are active are willing to just tell the Church no when it comes to callings. There is a definite generational shift occurring regarding this, and it means that the Church’s desire to create smaller wards is going to hit a wall of Millennials not being willing to serve at the same rates/intensity as their Boomer parents (honestly good for them, growing up my parents were always in high demand callings and it took over their lives).
@Jacob L: the Church is actually very big in the development game here in Utah (I work in a related industry, so that’s how I know). They are the main developer behind a lot of new communities/neighborhoods in Utah. That being said, the development arm of the Church is not interested in building affordable housing for the sake of affordable housing. They are laser focused on maximizing profitability, which means they usually just follow market trends. That means they focus on a mix of housing types (inspired by Daybreak in South Jordan), and building whole neighborhoods of rental properties that they plan to hold as investment properties (I know of one these they are finishing in Riverton)
Dave B:
I know that it will (most likely) come as a great surprise to you – but, I think this is a really great article. My sincere compliments. You’ve touched upon the single greatest issue (above all others) that I have with “the Church”. Either you position your organization as a “Church of Christ” or as a very successful Real Estate/Hedge Fund Corporation. In my mind it is impossible to merge the two; which of course, is exactly what the leadership is attempting to do. Personally, I think it’s a disgusting, stomach turning practice. I think (and hope) that more and more people are finding these practices to be untenable – and are turning their backs on it.
Obviously, so much good could be accomplished through the proper use of their vast wealth; as many others have noted above. Perhaps as their “Religious Credibility” continues to decline….they’ll be forced to make some of these changes. As for me, I don’t hold out much hope for them.
My family is technically middle class if you just look at annual income. However, our expenses eat up that income pretty quickly. Financial stress has been a constant issue for us. Stuff breaks down faster and faster and the cost to replace or repair goes up as well. Bills go up, unexpected medical things happen. People say, “pay yourself first” but if we did that there wouldn’t be enough to pay the bills. But that’s our fault right? So we are looking at almost nothing saved up for retirement. Ha! We will be working until we drop dead. Pay for college? Nope. The kids will have to get loans if they want to do that. Vacations? What are those? New cars? As if. Fancy toys like ATVs and side by sides? Yeah that isn’t us. New cars? Not on your life. We don’t even pay for streaming services.
We don’t even try to keep up with the Joneses because that would bankrupt us. We don’t feel middle class.
What could the church do? Amend tithing to 10 percent of whatever you have leftover after you pay your bills for the month.
The American middle class is hurting, and it doesn’t look good for the younger generations. I’m no economist, but I’d probably draw the line at anyone who managed to get established with a career and a house before 2008. (Obviously individual circumstances will cover the whole spectrum of possible outcomes regardless of which demographic group you belong to.)
In my ward, the curious way this is playing out is that there are no more young families. My neighborhood is about 15 years old, and when it was new there were huge primaries. Now my ward has about 35 kids in primary each week. We have 3 sunbeams this year and 3 kids in nursery, and no babies waiting to get into nursery. It’s been nearly 2 years since anyone in my ward had a baby, significantly because we have 5 women under the age of 40 in the ward, and only 1 under 33 years-old. Our primary (and YW/YM) are full of youngest children because the median house in my ward has a value of $631k, according to Zillow. (Average value is $685k.) 80% of the homes in my ward are over $500k. In a post COVID world, I don’t see how anyone of child bearing age could afford to live in my stake.
I don’t really know what the church can do. These are national issues that far exceed church policies. Redefining tithing to “10% of what is left after your bills” will never happen, though explicitly calling it “10% of take-home pay” or “10% of take-home minus rent/mortgage” could be a significant step. (Yes, I know that plenty of people already define tithing for themselves in a variety of ways.) Shrinking missionary payments might sound nice, but my ward only has 1 missionary that doesn’t live at home, so that isn’t making any large effects.
Child care at churches sounds nice, but is an undertaking much bigger than what people are thinking when they suggest it. Go walk through a daycare facility. Does it look anything like our churches? No, they do not. Church buildings would have to be added onto and extensively remodeled to have separate spaces for a daycare. Separate kitchens for food prep. Separate entrances to keep kids apart from other people in the building. Separate indoor play areas, because you can’t use the gym if someone is having a funeral in the chapel. Outdoor play areas with grass, and slides and swings. Spaces for administrative tasks. Separate bathrooms. Separate rooms for kids of different ages. The list goes on. The “just use the building because it’s empty” option looks like subjecting both children and adults to 50 hours per week of playing with the same toys in the nursery that doesn’t even have a window you can look out of. No thanks.
There are a couple of trends that I see affecting the church long term. First, housing along the Wasatch Front in Utah is never going to be the same for future generations as it was in the past. It has been an attractive destination for people moving from out of state, and it’s quite constrained geographically, so there’s not much empty land left. That’s basically how the bay area of California got expensive. Mormon families will increasingly be competing with 2-income households for housing in Utah. I hope the church can back away from their past history of publicly making value judgments about those who feel they need a second income to survive. I see signs things are moving that way, but attitudes change slowly.
The second trend I see is that much of the growth in the church will continue to be in the developing world for the forseeable future. The church will need to think about how much they are willing to have contributions from wealthier countries subsidize church operations in less wealthy countries. I suspect they have operated that way for a long time, but are they ready to ramp that up further? What do budgets look like in that world? Do they start tapping into reserve funds to support regular church operations in less developed countries?
As far as subsidizing the missionary program, I think they are already doing so; it’s just a matter of degree. I don’t think the contribution asked for US members has kept pace with inflation. I thought it was 250-300 USD for my mission in the early 1990s (shortly after the centralized and cost-equalized system was introduced) and now it’s 400. I thought they announced an increase to 500 a few years back, but as a currently serving financial clerk I can confirm they are still only taking 400 every month. The other thing I’ve learned from being a clerk is that many members like contributing to the mission fund. My stake has more than enough excess mission funds to cover multiple missionaries if necessary. So I’m not worried about missions in particular being a burden, for now. I’m quite curious what financial contribution is asked of missionaries from other countries. I would guess that it’s natural for missionaries, even from poorer countries, to feel a desire to contribute at least a little if possible to their own missions. It’s possible the current system can accommodate that while not imposing excessive hardship on any families.
One thing I think the church should do to deal with a less wealthy membership is to go back to teaching the original meaning of “increase” in the D&C, which at the time was understood to mean pay tithing on gains after living expenses. Under that definition, tithing shouldn’t feel like a burden to anyone. Those of modest means who feel spiritual value from making at least some small contribution can determine what represents an increase to them and tithe accordingly.
I agree with Dave W and Quentin, et alia, that I would like for the church to teach, or allow to be taught, that tithing is on increase. Alternatively, go back to the First Presidency letter of 19 March 1970, which made the bold statement that “every member of the Church should be entitled to make his own decision as to what he thinks he owes the Lord, and to make payment accordingly.” Yes, the letter talks about 10% of interest annually, which is understood to mean income.
Can we teach our people how businessmen, colleges, and the SEC define income? You have a top line for revenue, then a line for operating expenses, and then a line for income. I’m looking at Apple, IBM, and Microsoft statements filed with the SEC. The pattern is the same. Revenue first, then cost of revenue and operating expenses, and then net income. Looking at IBM ending Dec 2024, I see “revenue” of 62.8B, less cost of revenue, less operating expense, down to “operating income” of 10.1B, and this is the first time that “income” appears on the sheet. Our leaders, many of whom are businessmen and attorneys, do not see revenue as gross income, or as income at all. It is only income after expenses are removed. One website defines business income as: “Business income is the total money (or value of property/services) a company receives from its regular operations—primarily the sale of goods and services—minus the costs of goods sold (COGS) and operating expenses.” My household has a revenue line (call it a gross, if you will), and it also has operating expenses. What is left is income.
I’m not saying tithe on net or gross, for we’ve been taught not to say anything more than income, but I think that we should be able to define the term “income” so that the people at large understand it as church leaders likely understand it.
If we were to teach the people what income means, and ask them to tithe on that, the tithing receipts might decrease, but the number of full tithe payers might increase, which would be a good thing. I have heard in general conference that if one can only tithe or buy food for the children, one should tithe, but food is an operating expense which should be removed from revenue before determining income.
As for dollars going down, I wouldn’t worry about it. When the people of Israel were building the tabernacle, Moses asked for voluntary donations, and they received so much from the people that Moses had to tell the people to stop donating, because they had more than they needed to build the tabernacle. Is there a lesson for us today? I’ve heard (but I don’t know) that the interest and earnings on the church’s investments in one year exceed the tithing funds received. If that is true, then maybe we have enough. Joseph F. Smith said something about reaching a point where we wouldn’t need tithing anymore, didn’t he? (I don’t have a quote.) “Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.” The people of Israel in the wilderness only collected enough manna for that day, except on the day before the Sabbath they collected enough for two days. I agree with a rainy day fund, but I also think one can trust the Lord. Maybe there’s a balance. I think less dollars but more full tithe payers might be a good thing.
A couple of things that come to mind that the Church can do that would ease financial stress on the middle class (and low income) members of the church.
1. Drop the requirement for paying a full tithe to get a temple recommend.
This would accomplish a couple of things. It would allow members to decide what they can reasonably afford to donate without compromising their financial stability. Church leader can still preach on the blessings of paying tithing without laying on a guilt trip. A side benefit of doing this is that it would silence critics who claim that church members must pay to enter the Temple.
2. Pay the full amount for full time missionary service. Our young men and women who decide to go on a full-time mission are already sacrificing one and a half to two years of their lives. They don’t need a financial burden as well to appreciate their mission. Church leader can encourage member to donate to the Church Missionary Fund as they are able. I wouldn’t be surprised if members who can afford to financially contribute would make up the difference.
@Zwingli I am very much in favor of the Church’s development efforts. This is a delicate issue, because even when the Church builds market-rate—or even luxury—housing, it still reduces overall housing costs, especially rents. I have eclectic political views, but on housing I’m firmly “abundance-pilled”: when you understand the structural housing shortage that has been building for decades, it becomes clear that all supply is good supply.
So-called “affordable” (i.e., subsidized) housing in places like Los Angeles now costs $800k–$900k for a two-bedroom unit. In my mind that just demostrates that the real problem isn’t developers—it’s regulation, zoning, land-use restrictions, and layers of special-interest carve-outs that pile cost on top of cost. Anyone who doubts this should read Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson’s Abundance and look at housing through a true supply-side lens.
What’s good for a young, married LDS couple who wants to raise a big family is good for society as a whole. More housing helps everyone—LDS and non-LDS alike.
One last point: if you really dig into the Widow’s Mite report and how fast offerings are accounted for, you’ll see that a significant share of the Church’s reported “charitable” giving is effectively redistributive. I used to attend landlord trainings in Sandy sponsored by Titan Legal (The Law Offices of Kirk A. Cullimore), which is one of the largest multifamily housing law firms in Utah. In one session, it was mentioned that the Church may be the single largest rent payer in the state, once you account for how often bishops pay rent for members in need.
I saw this firsthand in my own family. My sister-in-law had roughly $20k in rent covered over about a year by her bishop. She lived in a well-off ward in Lehi, and her kids were over eight and not baptized, which effectively made her the ward’s ongoing “project.” Whether intentionally or not, that dynamic can turn welfare into a kind of bargaining system. I suppose that is one way to back into the United Order.
The church no longer needs to enforce tithing. It can easily pay for its operating costs without tithing. Time to do away with tithing settlement. Also, time to just have members pay online. The annual tithing settlement model in place only makes middle class families feel pressure to pay somewhere between $5K and $10K a year to the church, which is more than they can afford. An honest tithing can be justified on the basis of savings after necessary living expenses. $1-$3K annually is enough for the average household living on 1 to 1.5 incomes.
@Jacob L
Don’t get me wrong, I am very much pro-development, I just have reservations about a Church (any Church really, not just the LDS church) being such a large scale developer is all. It’s one thing to redevelop an old church site, quite another to be the developer behind tens of thousands of homes. I used to be skeptical of people’s accusations of the Church being a cover for business, but now due to my work, I basically believe the LDS church is a hedge fund/real estate development company masquerading as a church.
As a ward clerk in a lower income ward in North America, I can say that all of our ward’s missionaries are fully subsidized by the stake
a lot of money also goes towards individuals and families that request assistance with rent, medical bills, utilities, and, increasingly, bills for therapy and counseling
as mentioned above, it’s effectively wealth redistribution
my take is that this redistribution infrastructure should be formalized and possibly expanded, like a sort of UBI for lower income families
I might even go so far as to say that if the Church wants to survive the 21st century, it’s going to have to become its own political and economic entity with things like housing, co-ops, and jobs programs for its members.
Essentially, it would be a return to the early days if the Church in the 19th century with the United Order and all that.
The Church became successful by piggybacking on the success and expansion of the American empire, and its members could (or could pretend) to keep work, politics, and religion separate. But now that America is crumbling, the Church is going to have to become a de-facto nation state at some point. Which seems like that was Joseph Smith’s and (and, for a time, Brigham Young’s intention).
It’s like going backwards in history when the church and state (such as it was) were the same thing.
They’re making the building blocks for it now, even if they don’t know it yet.
It’s unfortunate that we’ve already passed the apogee of enlightened democratic (if in name only) secular society and are now descending into some kind of dystopic neo-feudalism. But I’m sure plenty of people will be OK with getting baptized and pretending to hate the gays or whatever if that keeps a roof over their heads and their families fed.
Well, seeing as the church’s financial status being leaked convinced a lot of tithe paying members that they need the money much more than the church does, they need to change something. My last active child really had second thoughts on continuing to pay tithing and he is in the active leadership roll. As the church’s wealth becomes more well known, more people will decide they need the money far more than the church needs more housing developments.
And as the whole “rich get richer/poor get poorer” gets worse, it will only get worse for the church as far as what people are willing or able to be extorted by the church to buy their salvation. He is also the only one who can come close to affording a house. My other two are in too small and run down places that were supposed to be temporary, and can’t afford to get anything better. And they have white collar, middle class jobs and are living in what the very poor lived in a few years ago.
And I really can’t imagine the church caring about its members enough to change anything. It sees the members as nothing but a free meal ticket.
@Zwingli
Your point is well-taken. There are lots of things I have misgivings about the Church being involved in. I’m not sure they need to own so much agricultural farmland, for instance, but I’m sure a TBM would see this as vertical integration into the Church-run welfare system. Interestingly enough, my reading of early-1900s history is that the Church welfare system was almost started to counter the FDR New Deal programs.
I do think there are real problems with a church being so involved in temporal assistance. For instance, it is kind of a well-known secret that a condition of receiving redistributed intra-ward fast offerings is being active or participating. As far as I know, there is no cap on how much fast-offering or cash assistance for rent, medical, utilities, or therapy/counseling a bishop can provide. That seems to be left to the discretion of “the judge in Israel,” but it is limited to the financial status of the ward.
I also think the current iteration is more of a corporation than a church. That is why it is so metric-focused: percent of active members attending church regularly, percent endowed, percent of ministering assignments completed, percent of youth who go on missions, etc. It’s easier to measure convert baptisms and new children of record joining the Church than it is to measure the unquantifiable aspects of repentance, increased faith, charity, or hope in Christ.
We do not currently participate and plan not to until women have real decision-making power and authority on par with men, and basic issues like worthiness interviews are eliminated. So we are raising our son outside of the Church, which is different from how I grew up (LDS returned missionary, full academic scholarship to BYU, Eagle Scout, temple marriage, etc.).
@anonymous34
Your comments are so spot on. I hope more people understand the wisdom of what you have articulated. When I served my mission in Montreal, one of the demographics joining the Church was North African immigrants. They often joined with the expectation of getting some kind of temporal assistance or refugee/asylum sponsoring through various tie-ups with religious organizations (apparently that is common with some Evangelical churches).
You can also look at discounted Church tuition as a form of redistribution. For those active LDS who are lucky enough to get accepted to BYU, BYU-I, or BYU-H, a good chunk of their tuition is being fronted by lower-income kids and families who pay tithing and who might never get anywhere near that amount of financial assistance. In this case, it is redistribution upward, which is unfortunate. I do think that also contributes to the disappearance of the middle class in the Church.
By the way, Ryan Burge has cataloged this in his book and writings: the higher educated you are, the more likely you are to be a weekly attender in the U.S. (not that this necessarily means you believe, but rather that you participate maybe for the social connections gained by rubbing shoulders with other high-earners, highly educated individuals). The time requirement to serve in the Church is almost a luxury that is filtering out middle- and lower-class members who have to work second and third jobs and side hustles.
“But I’m sure plenty of people will be OK with getting baptized and pretending to hate the gays or whatever if that keeps a roof over their heads and their families fed.”
It’s amazing how many people suddenly consider becoming active when they need free moving assistance from the elders quorum to move into or out of a ward.