Church's Communistic Structure Stifles Innovation

[oliver_denom]

It's interesting to compare the innovation occurring in American religion that seems to be passing Mormonism by. In a culture that is increasingly leaving organized religion, other churches have begun experimenting with different organizations and offerings to attract the "un-churched". For a vast majority of the religious landscape congregations are a part of a larger market place where individuals are able to shop around and pick and choose where they want to join. In any other context this sort of libertarian ideal would be embraced by the conservative world, as it allows the free market to determine winners and losers, pushing each congregation to offer new products and services to satisfy new demands. The freedom of movement between churches, it would be theorized, should result in a better product designed for the given population of consumers.

Even niche markets could be satisfied when people are given the truly free choice of worship. For example, if the dominant culture continues to shift towards liberal social positions, a spot in the market will open up for very strict and traditional worship services. They won't be as numerous as those serving the dominant culture, but they will be well positioned to serve a committed minority and will therefore flourish. This seems to be the case within Missouri Synod Lutheranism. Even congregations within that conservative denomination offer varying degrees of conservatism depending on location. Some may close their sacraments to just members while others are open. Some may deny voting privileges to women, while others offer universal suffrage. These sorts of adaptations don't require any given congregation to "compromise" where they don't want to while allowing others to moderate where they feel necessary without damaging the overall relationship of the whole. They agree on a narrow set of beliefs but then leave the rest to local control.

When looking at the religious landscape outside of any particular denomination, the United States is a perfect market place of faiths. Whether they intend it or not, each congregation is in competition with the others for new members. The problem for Mormonism is that it's communistic and centralized structure has completely eliminated any possible competition through adaptation. The politburo like structure of church administration holds ownership of all church property, is the central repository of all donations, the sole creator of doctrine and propaganda, and dictates every aspect of the three hour block down to the style of dress and exact words to be spoken. No deviation is allowed, and no competition is possible between congregations because members are not allowed freedom of movement. Not only does this organization stifle innovation within the church, it further harms missionary efforts as all new converts are required to not only convert to the doctrine, but also the prefabricated culture in all its complexity and nuance.

As a result, LDS congregations are identical to one another and only succeed or fail depending on how well existing members happen to conform to the largely mountain west culture. Predictably, the church is strongest in the mountain west, large cities, and compatible cultures while it becomes increasingly weaker as it radiates out from the center. Like the example of market places, in any other context, an activity rate between 25 and 35 percent where 80 percent of converts no longer attend a year after baptism would be considered a failure and cause for concern. In areas like my own, 70% of the members on the church's roles decline to attend a single meeting, and many no longer even consider themselves Mormon. If you can't even attract a majority of your own members, then how do you honestly expect to attract outsiders an "fill the whole earth"?

If the church were to become less communist and more capitalist, then I would expect some improvement. The most conservative congregations would remain in the mountain west, and more innovative congregations would exist in places where the pews are currently most empty. The question remains, however, as to whether or not the church would ever be open to allowing actual freedom, choice, and change.

[fh451]

Given the likely leadership for the next 25 years, which is (following Monson) Oaks, Holland, then Bednar, I don't see a lot of hope of "experimentation" from that level. Holland might be the most likely, but even he has been pretty hard core lately. The church's strength is also its weakness - a prophet could receive revelation to make significant changes in the church, but if the prophet believes the previous prophets were also inspired by God himself, it would be hard for the current leader to conclude that they might have been wrong and in need of changing. Given that the prophet will be an octogenarian for the foreseeable future, that kind of person is probably the least likely to be flexible or open to experimentation.

Also, I'm not sure "communistic" is the right word for the church's structure, except in the sense of how communism was actually implemented by the Soviet Union or Red China. Maybe rigid and authoritarian, but not generically communist as envisioned by Marx and Engels, or even the Book of Mormon in 4th Nephi.

fh451

[oliver_denom]

The church's strength is also its weakness - a prophet could receive revelation to make significant changes in the church, but if the prophet believes the previous prophets were also inspired by God himself, it would be hard for the current leader to conclude that they might have been wrong and in need of changing. Given that the prophet will be an octogenarian for the foreseeable future, that kind of person is probably the least likely to be flexible or open to experimentation.

I think the main reason its a weakness is that when the prophet receives a revelation, then it applies to all parts and places everywhere. There's not selective revelation for this region as opposed to that. There could be, if lower downs were let off the chain a bit.

[oliver_denom]

Also, I'm not sure "communistic" is the right word for the church's structure, except in the sense of how communism was actually implemented by the Soviet Union or Red China. Maybe rigid and authoritarian, but not generically communist as envisioned by Marx and Engels, or even the Book of Mormon in 4th Nephi.

The structure seems very United Order to me, minus the compulsory giving of all you have. It's communist in the way a religious commune is communist, but not Stalinist because of the lack of murder and genocide. They definitely use fear of damnation to keep people in line, but it's not under threat of death. You do have to wonder what could be justified under this system though, if it were to actually govern as a state.

[fh451]

You do have to wonder what could be justified under this system though, if it were to actually govern as a state.

Oh, I don't know - I think Utah under Brigham Young showed us where it would go!

fh451

[John G.]

I generally agree with the point of the opening post. The church tries to use a McDonalds franchise model so, like McDonalds where you can go anywhere in the world and expect to get a standard Big Mac, in the church you can go anywhere and attend a ward and get the same doctrine, meeting schedule, etc.

I've been hoping the church will eventually evolve to be more like the Catholic Church. I'm not an expert on the Catholic Church or anything, but as I see it they are more of a big tent kind of church and accept people of differing levels of commitment. For those that want to join a hardline, life encompassing, religion the Catholic Church offers ways to become a nun, priest, or to join a simliar type of group (do they still have monks?). They also have groups like Opies Die (spelling) for the hardcore lay religious types. On the other hand, for the more casual members, the Catholic Church doesn't seem too strict nowadays on enforcing strict adherence to a set a doctrinal beliefs on lay members. Casual members also are accepted whenever they show for a Christmas mass and such.

It would be great if the LDS church could offer different organizational units for members of different levels of commitment instead of its one-size-fits-all approach.

Also, just a minor point, I'm not sure "communism" is a good label for the LDS church in its modern form. I get what the O/P means, but I think the church would better be characterized as "highly centralized," "authoritarian," "highly controlled," "dictatorial" or "hierarchical" type of organization. Communism is an economic system where there is no private property and no capitalists who own the means of production.

[document]

I wrote up a long post on this yesterday but apparently didn't hit the "submit" button when I closed my browser. Darn.

One thing that is quite interesting about Protestant churches and their market is what my priest calls the "coffee" concept. When you move into a new city you don't know the local coffee shops, so you generally will pick someone close to you geographically. If you stay in that spot for a while, you develop a taste for that particular coffee brand, and even if you move to a different neighborhood, you might drive the extra mile every day to get your coffee from that particular shop. People develop brand loyalty, and sometimes it is just because it lands in their neighborhood when they were first introduced to the neighborhood.

Many Protestant congregations build up in much the same fashion. It is always interesting to talk to our established and older members in our parish. Many of them lived in the neighborhood right around our church in the 1960s or 1970s. They went to the neighborhood church when the first moved to the area, which happened to be our parish. They moved eventually, usually when their children grew, to more affluent neighborhoods which required longer distances, but at that point, they had established a loyalty to the parish and a church family, and thus drove the 15 miles to our parish.

We have several young families in our parish who started coming because they moved into the neighborhood from out of town. Our city is going through a boom right now, and the proper area of town is in transition while the older generation dies off and the younger families are buying starter homes around the church. Thus we get young families who are starting to develop that loyalty to our church partly due to geographical convenience.

There will always be those who have brand loyalty when they move into a new city: for the coffee drinkers they may a Seattle's Best or a Starbucks person, for the church goers they may be Methodist, Episcopalian, Lutheran, etc. And they will seek out their congregations. For others, it is to the nearest group.

What started this conversation where the "coffee" concept was explained was when I said that our church doesn't advertise (hand out flyers in the park) or proselyte (send door-to-door missionaries). My priest corrected me and said that absolutely they advertise, but they advertise to the geographically near. They put up a sign outside the church that says, "service is X time" so that those in the neighborhood know when church starts. It is an invitation to the nearby. We also advertise when church starts, I ring the church bell, telling the entire neighborhood, "OK, time for church!"

Mormonism HAS made geographical convenience a hallmark of itself which is bloody fascinating. They build the community through geographical wards of a city or area and have them attend together at the nearest location. In areas with many Mormons (5 - 10% of the population or more) this makes being an LDS person both HIGHLY convenient as well as able to maintain brand loyalty. Not even the Catholics can pull this off as well as the Mormons do, parishes tend to be much larger with larger Catholic populations, requiring loyal Catholics to drive further to congregate together.

[Corsair]

You do have to wonder what could be justified under this system though, if it were to actually govern as a state.

Oh, I don't know - I think Utah under Brigham Young showed us where it would go!

fh451

How about being a current BYU student under the Honor Code rules? I think we know how Mormons govern when they feel like they have the mandate of Heaven. They turn into narrow minded killjoys determined to keep people living like children.

[oliver_denom]

Mormonism HAS made geographical convenience a hallmark of itself which is bloody fascinating. They build the community through geographical wards of a city or area and have them attend together at the nearest location. In areas with many Mormons (5 - 10% of the population or more) this makes being an LDS person both HIGHLY convenient as well as able to maintain brand loyalty. Not even the Catholics can pull this off as well as the Mormons do, parishes tend to be much larger with larger Catholic populations, requiring loyal Catholics to drive further to congregate together.

The difference in the case of Mormonism, is that the brand loyalty is to the institutional church and not to any given ward. Ward boundaries are drawn, redrawn, and even eliminated, causing people to move from one building to another and from one congregation to the next. A few tears are shed during the announcement, but after that, it's as if split wards never existed.

Also, I think my concept of neighborhood wards is skewed, because I've never lived closer than a 20 to 30 minute drive from my building. Didn't feel local.

[document]

The difference in the case of Mormonism, is that the brand loyalty is to the institutional church and not to any given ward.

That is very true.

[LSOF]

You do have to wonder what could be justified under this system though, if it were to actually govern as a state.

Oh, I don't know - I think Utah under Brigham Young showed us where it would go!

fh451

How about being a current BYU student under the Honor Code rules? I think we know how Mormons govern when they feel like they have the mandate of Heaven. They turn into narrow minded killjoys determined to keep people living like children.

As far as I know, nobody has been executed by Danites here. However, I and a small group of unbelievers have had to go underground and hide from Honour Code rats, lest the University of the Bearded Polygamist Where Everyone Must Be Chaste and Clean-Shaven, Even Brigham Young University (UBPWEMBCCSEBYU) find us out and expel, evict and fire us, ruining our lives.

Religion classes here (particularly on scriptures) are full of preaching and the professor's own interpretations. If I wanted to be preached at, I'd go to church.

[Luther Heggs]

The difference in the case of Mormonism, is that the brand loyalty is to the institutional church and not to any given ward.

That is very true.

I guess the exception proves the rule. During this past year we moved from a suburban non-morcor (still in the west so quite a few mormons in town) ward to an Urban Mormon ward. If I didn't know better, I would guess maybe 80% of the members are NOMs (including the whole bishopric). When we were looking around for a slightly bigger place DWs 1st criteria was staying in that urban ward - I don't believe any of it, but if I had to, I wouldn't be uncomfortable attending that no mush ward.