New presidency same old church

[oliver_denom]

Now that we've got all the shoutin' out of the way, we can settle back down and recognize what has become a reality as certain as succession, that this change means nothing is changing.

The gentlemen now calling the shots are the same gentlemen who have already been doing so for decades. They differ very little from one another in actual substance, only strategy and approach. In April the church will get a couple of new apostles who are chosen because they are just like the old ones. We'll get some new slogans, probably something about getting married young and keeping the Sabbath, and social media will get flooded with some new memes for a bit. There will be a cycle of training on new programs, which are exactly like the old ones, and excitement will trickle down to the members that big things are happening, just like they always have. By the time new disappointment sets in, new training and new programs, exactly like the old training and old programs will have already started their way down the chain to begin the cycle over a new. There will be new conferences and new apostles, new presidencies, and new slogans, all exactly like the ones that came before. The unchanging sameness will be declared as evidence that the church is true, an odd claim for a religion once built on the foundation of continuous revelation.

The mode of Mormonism in its nonage was restoration and chaotic change in preparation for the end of the world which had already arrived. In its adolescence it burst out into the world from its mountain home, naively spreading and conquering wherever it could reach. Now in its dotage, and all signs point to this being the case, it has become static and set in its ways, only concerned with surviving for another day. It's no longer the child full of potential, nor the youth brimming with optimism, it is the old men who sit in their marble mausoleum, hoping to hold it all together before death takes them away.

There is still a degree of hope among many, because the church itself is still young and new generations are still optimistic, filled with potential, but that vitality has been cut off from the body through bureaucracy. Instead of harnessing the chaos and managing change, they purged it from their halls with policy and tradition. They so solidified the institution that it has become impossible to adapt to a changing environment. It is an institution out of time, confused and bewildered, unable to shake itself awake because even the smallest noise has been extinguished and the walls built so thick around the sanctum that its leaders helplessly operate in a blind solitude.

Only god can save the church now, and if god knows nothing of Mormonism, then its only a matter of time. Fruit may fall and sprout new seeds, but only a miracle can save the tree. There's only so much that can be done once the aged have intentionally set themselves onto an ice flow and refuse to eat.

[MoPag]

WOW! That was amazing Oliver!

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

I enjoyed this. Seems very Jacob 5 analogous.

[Emower]

I while ago I was assigned to do some research on the US Army Corps of Engineers and some specific operational procedures. This is where I was introduced to the term "institutional momentum." I feel like it describes the church perfectly. Nelson may or may not have any real effect, but it will be like a tugboat pushing on a supertanker. It will take time, time that he does not have. The only one who will have a measurable effect on the church is someone who is behind the scenes for a long time and in charge out in front for a long time, and they need to have a strong personality. DOM, SWK, GBH all fit that bill. The only person I see having a long enough tenure behind and in front is Bednar. But does he have the personality?

[Jeffret]

The only one who will have a measurable effect on the church is someone who is behind the scenes for a long time and in charge out in front for a long time, and they need to have a strong personality. DOM, SWK, GBH all fit that bill.

And how much change did those three really effect?

SWK finally got the priesthood ban cancelled but that was driven by other forces inside and outside the Church. His longest lasting legacy is, very tragically, "The Miracle of Forgiveness", but he wrote that before becoming president.

GBH went on quite a building spree, but did that result in significant changes in the Church? It makes it easier for people to attend the temple, but it didn't really change much. GBH was a PR guy and provided the Church an unusual level of public relations, for good and bad. His interviews caused enough turmoil in the Church that he had to talk about it in General Conference (the more closed priesthood session, as I recall) and wiggle his way out. But his public relations didn't really change much in the Church. They didn't increase growth or retention as his tenure saw the beginnings of the long slide in growth that is accelerating today. Nor retention, as problems there really started to pick up under his presidency. He certainly didn't instill PR practices into the presidency, as his successors have incapably shown. President Newsroom is probably a legacy of the Hinckley era, but it's not really much of a change.

[Jeffret]

This whole thing is spot on, Oliver. It's why I really don't think RMN is going to change anything. Nor Aunt Wendy. Nor even DHO. It's not like these men have been suddenly thrust into a new position of power. The primary way in which these men operate is in a stratified, hierarchical, patriarchal model, driven fundamentally by an insistence on complete unanimity among the top 15. Their new position as members of the FP places them as kind of first among equals, but with different prestige and seniority. This elevation doesn't give them sudden new powers to implement their programs. They've been working on programs and pet projects all along. They've always had to get full approval to proceed with any changes. They still do.

They'll call two new members to join their supposedly august body, but they'll be pretty much the same as those who cam before them. Same race, same sex, similar family backgrounds, similar interests and devotions. They'll join at the junior level, but their vote is still required for unanimity.

We'll get some new slogans, probably something about getting married young and keeping the Sabbath, and social media will get flooded with some new memes for a bit.

This is one part I specifically want to elaborate on more.

Now would've been the perfect time to introduce those new slogans and programs. Excitement is high among the members, with their feelings of adoration for their beloved prophet Monson and the passing of the torch to someone new. Yesterday's press conference would've been the perfect opportunity to introduce those new slogans, programs, visions, concerns, or projects. Yet everything they said was as bland as could possibly be and while spoken softly screamed "Stay the course" at every moment.

Pondering on your analysis, I'm convinced the reason they didn't seize the moment is because they can't. Their decision-making structure prevents them making any such moves. They can't make any changes because they have to obtain full agreement to do so. This was a point they stressed in their press conference, I think it was Oaks in particular, that you cannot criticize them for what one person has said, because the way they officially operate, the only way they are reliable, is when they all act together. This is some of the worst aspects of management by committee. It leaves them very ill-prepared to deal with issues when they arise and with the changes to society.

Perhaps a key takeaway from the press conference comes from this: People really shouldn't pay much attention to what they individually say. Their speeches and comments are unreliable. The press conference, their speeches, everything they say individually including as president are merely their opinion. I'm sure that conflicts with the deference they feel they should enjoy, but that is the one clear thing they said in the conference and it is backed by their behavior.

[Yobispo]

All of this is dead-on, very well written. We did get one new slogan yesterday, "stay on the covenant path". You can start printing t-shirts now.

[Red Ryder]

The church has always been slow to catch up perhaps by design in order to not rock the oldest of the membership base. Or perhaps because they are slow and don't react to current events to avoid looking like they bend to social pressures. So they stand firm. Who really knows? This worked ok for years because the world was slow to change. It was ok to be a 1960's Leave It To Beaver Church in 1980. By 2000, the church had only evolved to a 1970's church that allowed Blacks to hold the priesthood but still forbade the consumption of drugs, sex, and alcohol. The world still thought that was cute. By 2010, the internet era was in full force and brought new found wealth, information, and world events right into the pocket of every human being with a smart phone. Yet the church still sporting white shirts and ties and capped sleeves as the signature uniform was creeping along to 1982 standards. The greatest leap forward the church has made has to become a huge media conglomerate, producing content for members on You Tube and Facebook while outfitting every church building with wifi.

Now the world changes so fast that their time lag gets accelerated exponentially. Instead of 30 years, they now appear 50 years in the past. In another 10 years, they will appear to be 100 years in the past. Then suddenly one day they might just realize they are Amish.

[Corsair]

Only god can save the church now, and if god knows nothing of Mormonism, then its only a matter of time. Fruit may fall and sprout new seeds, but only a miracle can save tree. There's only so much that can be done once the aged have intentionally set themselves onto an ice flow and refuse to eat.

Excellent post, Oliver. I can doctrinally agree.

But functionally, the LDS church has an astonishingly large bank account and can sustain itself for crazy long time. It might be embarassing when church buildings start getting sold off, but real estate can keep them afloat for another century, at least. They keep bringing in lawyers, businessmen, and education administrators into the quorum, not theologians.

[SincereInquirer]

This is awesome Oliver. Really good stuff. Thanks.

[slavereeno]

well written and spot on.

[oliver_denom]

Pondering on your analysis, I'm convinced the reason they didn't seize the moment is because they can't. Their decision-making structure prevents them making any such moves. They can't make any changes because they have to obtain full agreement to do so. This was a point they stressed in their press conference, I think it was Oaks in particular, that you cannot criticize them for what one person has said, because the way they officially operate, the only way they are reliable, is when they all act together. This is some of the worst aspects of management by committee. It leaves them very ill-prepared to deal with issues when they arise and with the changes to society.

I didn't realize complete unanimity was a standard that they hold themselves to. Not only does it make it difficult to govern, but it encourages the selection of people who think the same verses different. All it would take is a single outspoken individual to completely cripple the quorums.

My personal belief is that the church has committed a slow motion suicide through correlation, financial centralization, gerontocracy, and this insistence on unanimity. Each is their own part in a larger picture that has wrung every bit of innovation and potential for change out of the organization. It's gotten to the point where I wonder whether or not the organization could function with a truly participatory membership.

If you were to broaden the umbrella of why people leave, then I think the lack of voice or ability to influence the religion is a core objection. Maybe a future generation will shift back toward wanting to lose themselves in an organization which erases their individuality, but we don't seem to be heading there anytime soon. That is why I think the worst PR statement of the news conference was when Oaks was asked about women and race, and then responded that people shouldn't label themselves. I have plenty of complaints against identity politics, but that pithy statement was no where near long enough or deep enough to cover the subject. In a single dismissive breath, he tossed aside perhaps the largest and most pervasive philosophical problem of the 21st century.

[Jeffret]

That is why I think the worst PR statement of the news conference was when Oaks was asked about women and race, and then responded that people shouldn't label themselves. I have plenty of complaints against identity politics, but that pithy statement was no where near long enough or deep enough to cover the subject. In a single dismissive breath, he tossed aside perhaps the largest and most pervasive philosophical problem of the 21st century.

I suspect he would be quite happy for people to identify themselves as Mormon, children of god, members of the Church, men, women, Elders, High Priests, Apostles, etc. He's not really against people identifying themselves. He's merely against people identifying themselves as things he doesn't like. Or that don't define him.

[wtfluff]

WOW! That was amazing Oliver!

+1 (bazillion)

... We did get one new slogan yesterday, "stay on the covenant path". You can start printing t-shirts now.

No, no, no! Aunt Wendy as to write a book based on the new catch-phrase "stay on the covenant path" THEN, and only then can the t-shirts be marketed and sold...

Maybe a future generation will shift back toward wanting to lose themselves in an organization which erases their individuality, but we don't seem to be heading there anytime soon.

Again... Brilliant. As long as all mormons think and dress and walk and talk the same, they can be as individual as they want.

That is why I think the worst PR statement of the news conference was when Oaks was asked about women and race, and then responded that people shouldn't label themselves. I have plenty of complaints against identity politics, but that pithy statement was no where near long enough or deep enough to cover the subject. In a single dismissive breath, he tossed aside perhaps the largest and most pervasive philosophical problem of the 21st century.

I suspect he would be quite happy for people to identify themselves as Mormon, children of god, members of the Church, men, women, Elders, High Priests, Apostles, etc. He's not really against people identifying themselves. He's merely against people identifying themselves as things he doesn't like. Or that don't define him.

I'd actually love to test Mr. Oaks on his "don't label yourself" theory when meeting him in person and actually referring to him as Mr. Oaks. After he "corrects" me and tells me to refer to him as President Oaks, I would reply: I'm sorry Mr. Oaks, but you shouldn't label yourself. Actually, he should probably be addressed by his first name, as he doesn't even deserve the "Mr." label...

[MoPag]

I'd actually love to test Mr. Oaks on his "don't label yourself" theory when meeting him in person and actually referring to him as Mr. Oaks. After he "corrects" me and tells me to refer to him as President Oaks, I would reply: I'm sorry Mr. Oaks, but you shouldn't label yourself. Actually, he should probably be addressed by his first name, as he doesn't even deserve the "Mr." label...

He didn't have any problems labeling women "walking pornography" a while back.

[wtfluff]

I'd actually love to test Mr. Oaks on his "don't label yourself" theory when meeting him in person and actually referring to him as Mr. Oaks. After he "corrects" me and tells me to refer to him as President Oaks, I would reply: I'm sorry Mr. Oaks, but you shouldn't label yourself. Actually, he should probably be addressed by his first name, as he doesn't even deserve the "Mr." label...

He didn't have any problems labeling women "walking pornography" a while back.

Yeah, when Oaks says "don't label yourself" what he's really saying is: "The LDS Corporation has an approved list of 'labels' which you can use for yourself, and any 'label' I choose for you is OK too. All other 'labels' are off limits."