Church (as a) Business

[tjohnson]

Hi,

I would like to explore a few ideas and see what everyone thinks... :)

Personally I started having a REAL hard time with the church financial standing when they purchased 6 of the local radio stations. This transaction was approved and completed by the FCC about a year ago. Why does a church need to own 6 radio stations in the rural community of Idaho Falls, Idaho?

Next... I read on another forum that the church "growth" rate hit it's all-time low during 2003 (under 3% for the first time in 31 years). Baptisms per missionary are down as well. The interesting part is all the "mini-temples" the church announced during that same time. I know this may seem completely out of line, but what if you look at the church from a completely financial standpoint?

I would bet that the church is tracking every stake and ward statistic of how many members are full/partial/non tithe payers and income (or possible income) from every area. What if each of those temples is being built in areas where the church thinks they can generate the most tithing money from non or partial tithe paying members? So, then each temple simply becomes a new "store" (like Subway opens a new store) to generate more money so they can buy more assets?

How's that for food for thought? :D

Travis

[peter_mary]

Hi,

I would like to explore a few ideas and see what everyone thinks... :)

I would bet that the church is tracking every stake and ward statistic of how many members are full/partial/non tithe payers and income (or possible income) from every area. What if each of those temples is being built in areas where the church thinks they can generate the most tithing money from non or partial tithe paying members? So, then each temple simply becomes a new "store" (like Subway opens a new store) to generate more money so they can buy more assets?

Travis

I was very interested in the growth rate statistic...would like to see those numbers if you have a link or something.

Regarding the temples, though...you're right. They ARE Big Business. I have a family member who is an insider at BYU, and he happened to tell us a few years ago that everywhere the Church builds a temple, tithing revenues sky-rocket, because now that a temple is relatively convenient, the local people take getting a recommend more seriously. The temples more than pay for themselves in the first few years of operation, and after that, they are revenue generators. But the way the books are handled, i.e. tithing is a charitable donation to the general church, and the temples are just one of their many assets, it's hard for anyone to actually make that connection...because a) we're not supposed to think that way (see Travis, that's your problem! Your not thinking like a good Mormon! :) ) and b) the money generated by temples is essentially "laundered" through the church at-large and is indistinquishable from the rest of the funds, and c) nobody REALLY gets to know what the Church is raking in anyhow.

But lets explore this a little bit more. The early temples were "spare no expense, this is the House of the Lord" kinds of affairs. Nothing was too good for God. They were lavish, required great sacrifice, and were intended to impress a God who would, apparently, be comfortable in gaudy surroundings. Now we've changed the model to small and efficient. Is it because the Church cares less about how well we treat God, and more about how many temples are built, which in turn results in greater income? Interesting twist, if you ask me.

And lastly, I also find it interesting to note the smaller church buildings and Stake centers. Our Stake split last year, and we moved into a new Stake Center. The day we moved into the new building, our Ward was already too big. We couldn't EVER all fit in the chapel, or even the chapel and the overflow. We ALWAYS had to spill into the gym...for 7-10 rows! We almost always fit in our old building. Subsequently, we are ripe for splitting our ward, now that we are too big for our building.

But why would you build a new building that is too small? Well, if you have to keep up the appearance of growth to keep the members believing the myth of "the stone cut from the mountain without hands" rolling across the face of all the land, then you build smaller buildings, split your wards and stakes more often, and you INCREASE the number of wards without having to increase the actual membership. You acquire more capital assets, protect the money, look like your growing...and really, all you've grown is your investment. Pretty clever if you ask me. :mad:

Paul

[tjohnson]

Here's the great link to the stat information:

http://www.aimoo.com/forum/postview.cfm?id=418550&CategoryID=121363&startcat=1&ThreadID=1400639

Enjoy.

P.S. Did the church really give away soccer balls to kids in other countries if they would be baptized?

Travis

[Born Free]

Hi,

I would like to explore a few ideas and see what everyone thinks... :)

Personally I started having a REAL hard time with the church financial standing when they purchased 6 of the local radio stations. This transaction was approved and completed by the FCC about a year ago. Why does a church need to own 6 radio stations in the rural community of Idaho Falls, Idaho?


Travis

Travis,

Oh you cynic you. How dare you doubt the intent of the leaders?

There appear to be some logical errors in the McTemple philosophy you outline (the Church's that is). Simon Southerton was the first be lay this out for me over dinner, a few years back, when Brisbane Australia McTemple was nearing completion.

It appears to go something like this:

1. Those who attend the Temple are more vigilent in many ways: all the things on a Temple recommend. (FACT).

2. In Australian there was only one Temple in Sydney, so travelling there was a real commitment. E.g. 600 miles from Brisbane.

3. If temples can be made more accessible to people, then attendance will rise, built upon more people being motivated to be temple worthy. (Not necessarily sound logic. Some people may have found the inaccessibility of the Temple convenient as a reason to not get around to attending.)

So while the logic appears valid, and maybe your information re sustained higher compliance levels is valid, then it might work.

But, if the assumption built into 3 falters, then the whole pack of cards crumbles. Here, I get reports of people being really annoyed at the constant rostering to clean the Temple.

On the whole logic of dividing wards to make more, smaller ones, there is a hidden trap. Smaller wards mean the same number of positions to be filled by less people. In a busier world, with more working mothers, that is less sustainable than in the past. And it was a disaster in the past, in my experience here. Eeventually peopel plain burn out, evident in things like teh high level of depression among 'God's Chosen'.

Plus all the above assumes continued growth! Oooooops! What if it falters? What if it goes into decline? Growth and decay tend to feed upon themselves, so if they have backed a wrong logic, it could unravel rather fast.

On the issue of the tax breaks all Churches receive, I wonder if in time that will fall over as well. In this country the Church-going population in aging rapidly (I speak of all, not just Mormon, where I don't know the specifics).

How long will a non-Church-going population tolerate a shrinking segments' interests getting a tax break, while the rest miss out on a break for their interests?

See my postings elsewhere on Values and Worldviews and you will see that beancounting sits well with the rest of their values. Corporate structures is the other than that gets them excited.

The other thing that I would be interesting to observe would be the climate in Church owned commercial organisations, like the stations you discussed. I worked for a brief period for Franklin Quest (later joined to become Franklin Covey) in Sydney Australia. Whilst it was not Mormon Church owned, it was for all intent an organisation run my Mormons employing their values and ethics.

I have never worked in a more snake infested, hypocritical organisation in my life. The politicing, the dodgy accounting, the character assassination, the blurring of Church and business boundaries had to be seen to be believed. (By the way, for those closer to 'Zion", what was the true story about Hyrum Smith's decline from grace?)

So, yes I concur that it is a business, but don't be too in awe. I am old enough to have lived through the Tom Peters various books on (Corporate) Excellence in the 80s. Many of the organisations he lauded, went down hill at the speed of light when teh external environment shifted, and the mindset that had worked, no longer fitted.

Here is my 5 cents towards the Wake, when it croaks. :rolleyes:

Daryl

[Jeff_Ricks]

But lets explore this a little bit more. The early temples were "spare no expense, this is the House of the Lord" kinds of affairs. Nothing was too good for God. They were lavish, required great sacrifice, and were intended to impress a God who would, apparently, be comfortable in gaudy surroundings. Now we've changed the model to small and efficient. Is it because the Church cares less about how well we treat God, and more about how many temples are built, which in turn results in greater income? Interesting twist, if you ask me.


I’ll restate what you said using marketing terminology I’m familiar with. In your context, and I think it's well characterized, a new temple shows all the signs of being little more than a disguised marketing campaign. Like any good marketing campaign they likely do demographics studies to project how much revenue a campaign can generate relative the marketing costs. The bishop is the frontline data gathering resource for those demographics studies. Raw data for those studies come directly from bishop’s otherwise private interviews and private tithing data. Once the numbers are turned Salt Lake approves those campaigns that will produce the most revenue per dollar spent. A temple is essentially a high visibility advertisement, with its towering spires and Moroni-logo perched on top. Typically the temple-advertisement is placed in an area (preferably on a hill) where the logo can be seen from anywhere in the city. Moroni is comparable to the Nike logo.

Once the temple-advertisement goes up, Stake Presidents and Bishops still participate in the marketing campaign by encouraging members to talk up the temple in their homes and church meetings. They are essentially the sales force managers in the campaign.

Another element of the campaign is the temple preparation class, one of the primary marketing tools for expanding market share among the populace that the “ad” is designed to reach. It’s a sales pitch not much different than the typical time-share condo sales pitch. And like any typical sales pitch the benefits are maximized but the negative aspects minimized if not ignored all together – they’re too sacred to talk about.

Yes it has all the markings of pure business. I couldn’t help but include a visual aid.

Jeff

http://www.postmormon.com/temp/nike_temple.jpg

[peter_mary]

Travis,

Oh you cynic you. How dare you doubt the intent of the leaders?

There appear to be some logical errors in the McTemple philosophy you outline (the Church's that is).
Daryl

I like your breakdown of the logic errors if in fact the Church is reasoning in the manner Travis and I have supposed. I am inclined to think that to one degree or another, they ARE in fact reasoning this way, and here's why.

The Church operates from a command and control model, and what do you do when you feel control slipping away? You ratchet down. There are many ways in which the Church can do that. First, they can make you busier...hence smaller Wards, more opportunities for service, and the truly committed are busier than ever--hence more attached than ever. The last thing you want as a Bishop is to have people who don't have more than enough to do. Idle hands are the Devil's workshop, after all.

Second, you increase the guilt load, and bringing a temple into closer proximity does exactly that. When you live 600 miles or more from a temple, there's not a lot of guilt associated with not going, because most people really can claim that their lives and finances get in the way, even though they have theoretically "consecrated it all to the kingdom." The Church cuts those folks some slack. But when there's a temple in your neighborhood, it's a whole different animal. The heat gets turned up significantly, and you have Ward and Stake temple nights, youth baptisms a couple times a year, sealings and initiations that are assigned to your Priesthood Quorum or Relief Society, and goals are set for you for regular attendance. All that pressure brought to bear is significant, and most people who want to belong crank it up and get their act together enough to at least answer the temple recommend questions and tithing settlement questions appropriately. Otherwise the guilt is too much to bear.

And lastly, they get you to sacrifice more for the cause. Not only do you pay your 10% in tithes, but they get your Fast Offering, and then pester you to help the missionaries, and the Church's humanitarian efforts, and the Deseret Industries, and special temple projects such as the Nauvoo temple, and cleaning the ward house, and participating in service projects, and...and...and... There is an adage that notes that "We Love that which we Sacrifice for." That's why most of us have not yet killed our children! :D I don't know about you, but it was PAINFUL for me when I began to come out of the Church and I started the personal accounting process of figuring out what I had sacrificed for the Church. Over $100,000 in tithing, more in other offerings, probably a full 'man-year' of time or more, and my lovely wife draped her body in those hideous garments for the 20 most youthful years of our marriage! AAAUUUGGGHHH!!! That all amounts to a bitter pill to swallow, and I think it serves as a huge psychological barrier to exiting, frankly. (In case you are marveling at my sexism at the moment, trust me when I say it wasn't such a bad thing to drape ME in those hideous garments... :eek: )

My point is, the Church is ratcheting down, bringing more control to bear on the faithful. But here's the fallacy that I see. At any given time, there is a population of Mormons "on the fringe." Each time the Church ratchets down, those "fringe" folks get pushed out, and a new set of folks who used to be safely inside now find themselves on the fringe. The next time the Church cranks up the heat, then those folks pop out, and the cycle continues. Travis' stats bear that out...growth is slowing. The preponderance of places just like this suggest that the population of people leaving is growing fast...a pandemic, frankly. And what we have in SLC is an aging group of old commanders who, when they see themselves losing their stranglehold on the people, redouble their efforts in control.

As John Shelby Spong said, "Christianity must change or die." The Mormon Church is the same. It will either evolve, becoming more mainstream and appealing to a broader, more Protestant mass, or it will begin the withering process. There will always be fanatics...hell, there are nearly 100,000 of them hiding away in the polygamous corners of the Church already...but that dream of being 120 million strong by the year 2050 is probably only that...a dream.

And THAT's what I'm sticking around for...I want to be there when it collapses, and watch. It could be one of the most fascinating cultural events of my life.

On the other hand, they may be a helluva lot more clever than I am, and they may have the last laugh over my grave, too! :cool:

Paul

[silverfox]

My two cents worth -

I understand the church recently stopped paying managers/trainers for Deseret Industries. Now retired couples are called to do these jobs. My in laws are one of those couples. This reminded me of downsizing in large corporations....how to save a buck? Hey, let's stop paying our managers and trainers....we can use our persuasive techniques to get people to volunteer by telling them they have been called through prayer to serve a "DI Mission"

My in laws ate this crap up in a heartbeat. Any time we are together we get to hear about all their spiritual moments as DI missionaries. No, we don't talk about grandkids or anything "normal"....it's all about their DI mission.

I live in a small booming community with lots of young families. The stake centers and wards are popping up like crazy. We have 5 (FIVE) stake centers (4 of them less than 4 years old and 1 about 30 years old) within a mile of each other just in MY neighborhood. I can look out and see 4 of them from my home. (we are in the middle of them) I don't get it. On the west side of town I assume it's the same scenario..I will have to take a drive and see. My town is little - about 10 miles square. Seems to be a lot of stake centers for such a small place.

I've found this thread really interesting...I will look at the growth here a little differently. The info in this thread gives me something to ponder.

[Jeff_Ricks]

I’ll restate what you said using marketing terminology I’m familiar with. In your context, and I think it's well characterized, a new temple shows all the signs of being little more than a disguised marketing campaign. Like any good marketing campaign they likely do demographics studies to project how much revenue a campaign can generate relative the marketing costs. The bishop is the frontline data gathering resource for those demographics studies. Raw data for those studies come directly from bishop’s otherwise private interviews and private tithing data. Once the numbers are turned Salt Lake approves those campaigns that will produce the most revenue per dollar spent. A temple is essentially a high visibility advertisement, with its towering spires and Moroni-logo perched on top. Typically the temple-advertisement is placed in an area (preferably on a hill) where the logo can be seen from anywhere in the city. Moroni is comparable to the Nike logo.

Once the temple-advertisement goes up, Stake Presidents and Bishops still participate in the marketing campaign by encouraging members to talk up the temple in their homes and church meetings. They are essentially the sales force managers in the campaign.

Another element of the campaign is the temple preparation class, one of the primary marketing tools for expanding market share among the populace that the “ad” is designed to reach. It’s a sales pitch not much different than the typical time-share condo sales pitch. And like any typical sales pitch the benefits are maximized but the negative aspects minimized if not ignored all together – they’re too sacred to talk about.

Yes it has all the markings of pure business. I couldn’t help but include a visual aid.

Jeff

http://www.postmormon.com/temp/nike_temple.jpg


By the way, the Church needs a new logo and new image to promote. The Moroni logo (see my previous post) is becoming a liability with its direct ties to the Book of Mormon and all the controversy brewing over it and Native American DNA.

So anyone venture to guess what the new logo will be? Will it be a Mormonized Jesus, a crucifix, the temples without Moroni? I wish they’d be honest and just replace Moroni with a shiny gold dollar sign.

Jeff

[peter_mary]

My two cents worth -

I understand the church recently stopped paying managers/trainers for Deseret Industries. Now retired couples are called to do these jobs. My in laws are one of those couples. This reminded me of downsizing in large corporations....how to save a buck? Hey, let's stop paying our managers and trainers....we can use our persuasive techniques to get people to volunteer by telling them they have been called through prayer to serve a "DI Mission"

My in laws ate this crap up in a heartbeat.

I can do one better. MY in-laws served a mission in Hawaii (and return every year for several months on a rotation with 4 other retired couples) to work for a friggin' Church-owned corporation! They paid their own way, living in a Church-owned condominium (to the tune of $1200 a month the first year in a nicer unit, and $700 a month later years in a dive), and worked in the Safety office for Hawaii Reserves Incorporated and the Human Resources Office of the same. This is the corporation that owns and/or operates much of Laie, including the Polynesian Cultural Center, BYU-Hawaii, the grounds around the temple, a strip mall, a grocery store, several condominiums, and soon a golf course and a hotel (that I know of...there may be a good deal more.) They are FOR profit, they are run by a PAID board of directors, they do hire a large number of local people (which is great for the local economy), but it is beyond conscionable to me to ALLOW so-called missionaries to serve in those capacities. It simply increases the bottom-line while taking advantage of good people. Talk about Church Business! "Let's see, if we can convince people they are serving the Lord, then we can staff our golf course with missionaries and keep our overhead lower than any other golf course...hmmm...at green fees similar to the regular going rate at Hawaiian courses...yes, I think we can turn a fine profit, Mr. Prophet!"

Now obviously my in-laws are enjoying themselves or they wouldn't go back year after year. Fine. But PAY them, and don't call them missionaries! ARRGGHH!!! Okay, now I'm spun up.... :mad:

Paul

[free thinker]

I like your breakdown of the logic errors if in fact the Church is reasoning in the manner Travis and I have supposed. I am inclined to think that to one degree or another, they ARE in fact reasoning this way, and here's why.

The Church operates from a command and control model, and what do you do when you feel control slipping away? You ratchet down. There are many ways in which the Church can do that. First, they can make you busier...hence smaller Wards, more opportunities for service, and the truly committed are busier than ever--hence more attached than ever. The last thing you want as a Bishop is to have people who don't have more than enough to do. Idle hands are the Devil's workshop, after all.

Second, you increase the guilt load, and bringing a temple into closer proximity does exactly that. When you live 600 miles or more from a temple, there's not a lot of guilt associated with not going, because most people really can claim that their lives and finances get in the way, even though they have theoretically "consecrated it all to the kingdom." The Church cuts those folks some slack. But when there's a temple in your neighborhood, it's a whole different animal. The heat gets turned up significantly, and you have Ward and Stake temple nights, youth baptisms a couple times a year, sealings and initiations that are assigned to your Priesthood Quorum or Relief Society, and goals are set for you for regular attendance. All that pressure brought to bear is significant, and most people who want to belong crank it up and get their act together enough to at least answer the temple recommend questions and tithing settlement questions appropriately. Otherwise the guilt is too much to bear.

And lastly, they get you to sacrifice more for the cause. Not only do you pay your 10% in tithes, but they get your Fast Offering, and then pester you to help the missionaries, and the Church's humanitarian efforts, and the Deseret Industries, and special temple projects such as the Nauvoo temple, and cleaning the ward house, and participating in service projects, and...and...and... There is an adage that notes that "We Love that which we Sacrifice for." That's why most of us have not yet killed our children! :D I don't know about you, but it was PAINFUL for me when I began to come out of the Church and I started the personal accounting process of figuring out what I had sacrificed for the Church. Over $100,000 in tithing, more in other offerings, probably a full 'man-year' of time or more, and my lovely wife draped her body in those hideous garments for the 20 most youthful years of our marriage! AAAUUUGGGHHH!!! That all amounts to a bitter pill to swallow, and I think it serves as a huge psychological barrier to exiting, frankly. (In case you are marveling at my sexism at the moment, trust me when I say it wasn't such a bad thing to drape ME in those hideous garments... :eek: )

My point is, the Church is ratcheting down, bringing more control to bear on the faithful. But here's the fallacy that I see. At any given time, there is a population of Mormons "on the fringe." Each time the Church ratchets down, those "fringe" folks get pushed out, and a new set of folks who used to be safely inside now find themselves on the fringe. The next time the Church cranks up the heat, then those folks pop out, and the cycle continues. Travis' stats bear that out...growth is slowing. The preponderance of places just like this suggest that the population of people leaving is growing fast...a pandemic, frankly. And what we have in SLC is an aging group of old commanders who, when they see themselves losing their stranglehold on the people, redouble their efforts in control.

As John Shelby Spong said, "Christianity must change or die." The Mormon Church is the same. It will either evolve, becoming more mainstream and appealing to a broader, more Protestant mass, or it will begin the withering process. There will always be fanatics...hell, there are nearly 100,000 of them hiding away in the polygamous corners of the Church already...but that dream of being 120 million strong by the year 2050 is probably only that...a dream.

And THAT's what I'm sticking around for...I want to be there when it collapses, and watch. It could be one of the most fascinating cultural events of my life.

On the other hand, they may be a helluva lot more clever than I am, and they may have the last laugh over my grave, too! :cool:

Paul

Unfortunately I have to inform you that you spent much more than $100,000 in tithing. You also have to calculate the time value of money as you know.

So if you would have invested that $100,000 for twenty years at a modest rate of return %6. It would have grown to $320,714.

When I read your note above, I was reminded why I left. The incessant activity just became too much!! I was totally worn out. I'm glad I am not mormon anymore. I love playing golf on Sundays!!

You cannot separate the business from the ecclesiastical in the church. It is all one. My mission president used to say " we are interested in people as people, and numbers as numbers". I thought it was ridiculous then, and now I think it is absurd. If you really care about people, you wont need to worry about numbers!!

I truly enjoy reading all your post's!!


Free Thinker

[peter_mary]

Unfortunately I have to inform you that you spent much more than $100,000 in tithing. You also have to calculate the time value of money as you know.

So if you would have invested that $100,000 for twenty years at a modest rate of return %6. It would have grown to $320,714.

Free Thinker

Oh man...my head is swimming...I'm going to throw up...I need to lay down...

This pretty much ruins MY day! Thanks, Free Thinker!
(Now, imagine this little guy :eek: barfing...)

Paul

[peter_mary]

Yes it has all the markings of pure business. I couldn’t help but include a visual aid.

Jeff

http://www.postmormon.com/temp/nike_temple.jpg

So I'm thinking (a scary proposition) that the Peep Stone needs to sponsor a "New Church Logo Contest!" The winner would get their logo published in the Mag! :D

Paul

[Jeff_Ricks]

So I'm thinking (a scary proposition) that the Peep Stone needs to sponsor a "New Church Logo Contest!" The winner would get their logo published in the Mag! :D

Paul

Hehe! Let's do it! I like it!

[silverfox]

So I'm thinking (a scary proposition) that the Peep Stone needs to sponsor a "New Church Logo Contest!" The winner would get their logo published in the Mag! :D

Paul

Oh yeah....sweeeeeeeeeeeeet!

[bigeddy]

On the other hand, they may be a helluva lot more clever than I am, and they may have the last laugh over my grave, too!

Paul


I have always thought it pretty damn smart to run an organization that can profit from aspects of non-evolved people and then claim that they are fostering "eternal growth."

It is fairly demonstrable that an aspect of non-evolved people is the need to feel elite. I think the temple shit preys on that unevolved aspect of the mo-mob. A new temple comes in with the prospect of making my elite status as a recommend holder all that much more potent and wow, watch me get the checkbook out to pay the 10%. Now, I am an official "better than the better than the rest". I was treating a former Stake President who was convicted of a sex offense (he is now dead so I owe him no confidentiality). He stated one day that he was better off than me because he had a temple recommend in his pocket. My reply was something to the effect that as a sex offender I was really glad he could be "better off." (some pun intended)

Anyway, the need for people at the level that momodoctrine keeps them, to feel they are elite will always keep the folks coming into the office to lay down the silver (LDS).

Ed

[Born Free]

So I'm thinking (a scary proposition) that the Peep Stone needs to sponsor a "New Church Logo Contest!" The winner would get their logo published in the Mag! :D

Paul

Given what we now know about Joseph Smith, I recommend the one horned Moroni come down, and a 2 horned Joseph Smith go up. ;)

Truth in advertising!

Daryl

[Born Free]

A new temple comes in with the prospect of making my elite status as a recommend holder all that much more potent and wow, watch me get the checkbook out to pay the 10%. Now, I am an official "better than the better than the rest".


Ed

Ed,

I have commented elsewhere on what I observed in myself many years ago, as a result of being human in the first place (childhood - 'I'm Not Ok, You Are"), and then the unhealthy overlaying of Moism, in creating a concurrent sense of inferiority and superiority.

I came to appreciate many years ago, wathcing a documentary on the Jehovah Witness' use of teenagers to door knock, that the toxic impact of that is to deeply entrench a sense of being inferior, then compensated for and justified with the weekly dose of 'You are 'Gods Chosen'.

To draw on the comments in some of your papers, it maxes out the shame.

That makes the person an easy target for anything pandering to elitism - Moism, Nazism etc. And, of course, much more likely to open their wallet, and feed the coffers.

Can you comment on that mindset from a professional perspective?

Daryl

[free thinker]

Oh man...my head is swimming...I'm going to throw up...I need to lay down...

This pretty much ruins MY day! Thanks, Free Thinker!
(Now, imagine this little guy :eek: barfing...)

Paul

Sorry man. I will be more careful in the future.!!

Maybe you could ask for a refund? Just tell them you changed your mind, and decided that you were not afraid of the devourer anymore. In fact, maybe you could tell them you've been taking rebuking lessons, and can rebuke the devourer all by yourself!! :D

Free Thinker

[peter_mary]

My favorite (current) ridiculous "project" that the church is continually trying to get me to engage in: KNITTING "tropical sore bandages" for people (who have sores somewhere!)

Noelle

You know what this sounds like? Busy work, plain and simple. It's like making up stuff just to make sure nobody, not even blue-haired old ladies, ever have time to think about what they might like out of life.

It reminds me of a friend of mine, who is a dentist getting on toward the end of his career, and who is "on the fringe," who was apparently not serving quite enough. So his Bishop approached him and asked if he could be "The Nursury Greeter." Yup, they made up a job, to have an intelligent, capable man stand at the door to the nursury and shake their little hands as they came in, welcoming them to nursury.

I put knitting tropical sore bandages in the same category as nursury greeter...just finding more ways to keep us from living our friggin' lives. Spend some of that tithing money and buy the gosh darn gauze! (Goodness, but I'm a potty mouth this morning! :) )

Paul

[silverfox]

My favorite (current) ridiculous "project" that the church is continually trying to get me to engage in: KNITTING "tropical sore bandages" for people (who have sores somewhere!)


Noelle

I had to laugh at this one. My hubby's gramma, rest her soul, knitted these bandages for YEARS. She told us they were for lepers in other countries. I found that ODD. They were long like ACE bandages. I really do wonder what the church uses them for????? What is upsetting is she would knit these damn things even when she was very ill

[david]

I'm going to side with Paul when he notes the unexpected consequences of the church's business model.
I grew up in the "mission field" (the east coast, before the DC temple was built) where attending the temple was a matter of sacrifice and pride. The trips back to Utah had the elements of a pilgramage. Although on the surface this seemed to be a hardship, it also had the effect of preserving the aura of temple attendance and sacrifice as rituals necessary for salvation. In addition the Utah temples are impressive. They served that same role as the mideval cathredrals, where the peasants could bask in the glory of the church/god despite their own lowliness.

But let's face it, the ceremonies are boring and goofy and it was a real blessing to not have to endure them too often. I think my parents attended just a handful of times while I was growing up, despite being dyed in the wool TBMs. I think they probably liked it that way. When they went, it was a real event; that they couldn't go too often: fine.

The McTemple strategy has both business- and spiritual implications, and I think the church miscalculated on the spiritual effects. As has been rightly pointed out, when the pressures of temple attendance are constant, it tends to force out that part of the mormon population that exists at the edge, for the reasons I've already mentioned: the ceremonies are not edifying, the price of admission is too high, and there's no ritualistic aura.

One thing that the church has done right is to forbid discussion of the ceremony outside the temple. This upholds the aura of worship. This is counterintuitive until you realize that the content is fairly stupid; the most it has going for it is it's mysteriousness.

But just because a business model is lucrative does not mean it has staying power. The whole "business" of temple work is rotten. It's a waste of time and I think a large part of the membership senses that. I don't know anyone in the church who really thinks the temple is cool. Holding a temple recommend is a matter of following the herd. That is a huge motivation for many, but no motivation at all for those who take time to think about it.

[bigeddy]

Ed,

I have commented elsewhere on what I observed in myself many years ago, as a result of being human in the first place (childhood - 'I'm Not Ok, You Are"), and then the unhealthy overlaying of Moism, in creating a concurrent sense of inferiority and superiority.

I came to appreciate many years ago, wathcing a documentary on the Jehovah Witness' use of teenagers to door knock, that the toxic impact of that is to deeply entrench a sense of being inferior, then compensated for and justified with the weekly dose of 'You are 'Gods Chosen'.

To draw on the comments in some of your papers, it maxes out the shame.

That makes the person an easy target for anything pandering to elitism - Moism, Nazism etc. And, of course, much more likely to open their wallet, and feed the coffers.

Can you comment on that mindset from a professional perspective?

Daryl

I see a couple of truly human, therefore expected, reasons behind the need to be part of the elite. Shame is the first, as you mentioned, and then the fact that as our consciousness expands we identify with an ever widening circle of humanity (and eventually all creatures).

Ken Wilber talks about this a lot in "The Spectrum of Consciousness." I think it is hard to conceptualize. It helps me to look at the story one of my students told about her daughter. We were talking about this in class (the ever widening circle of consciousness) and one woman told the story of her daughter who saw her (the mother) hurting one day and she ran and got her teddy bear and offered it as solace because it worked for her. The daughter was in the egocentric stage (Wilber talks about physiocentric -- egocentric -- family centric -- tribal centric -- ethnocentric -- world centric -- then biocentric as a model of ever expanding growth) and even though she could conceive of someone beyond herself, she could not be conscious of them as being divergent in any way from her with differing needs, wants, thoughts, feelings etc. I see Mormonism (any ism) as a symptom of being in an ethnocentric stage and, while one at that stage can conceive of others in the world, cannot truly be aware that they can be truly "other than" I am. If I am that way then so is everyone else, if my ethno group (be it race, religion, etc.) is that way, needing this or that, then so is everyone else, they just don't know "the truth" yet. So like the little girl offering her teddy bear, I (as a mishy) walked around Japan offering what worked for me to the rest of the world truly believing that because it was true for me it must be true for them (they just were too wicked to see it or admit it yet.) So, elitism is perhaps not a fully accurate term. At any one stage we cannot be fully conscious of another person's reality when they are not part of that circle that bounds me while at that stage. As a mish, I knew the Japanese people were there but I had no consciousness of their reality outside my own. (does that make sense?)

Ed

[bzcutah]

Does anyone know where the latest news on LDS temple recommends are?

The closest I can find are from The LDS Church News, 1/16/83.

I seen this thread, and it relates to some research that I am doing.

If anyone knows a link or a source for that information, I would appreciate the info very much.

[Born Free]

I see a couple of truly human, therefore expected, reasons behind the need to be part of the elite. Shame is the first, as you mentioned, and then the fact that as our consciousness expands we identify with an ever widening circle of humanity (and eventually all creatures). ...........

As a mish, I knew the Japanese people were there but I had no consciousness of their reality outside my own. (does that make sense?)

Ed

Ed,

I am on a learning curve in taking on board Wilber's model, but is has many similarities with the values and world view model I am quite familiar with. From my understanding that is a normal 'healthy' progression.

My concern lies, I suspect, more in the area of toxic shaming, which I do not see as healthy in any way.

A friend and colleague in Sydney has recently completed his PhD on the shame affect. Building upon various research that we come hard-wired for shame, he argues that it is THE civilising affect and that it is intimately connected to our capacity to empathise; that out of that grows our capacity to forgive, without demanding "an eye for an eye."

My hunch is that many religions actively work the sense of stimigatizing shame through inferiority, and then encourage grandiosity to create elitism which expands the sense of separation from our fellow man.

Compare that with it being used pro-socially, where shame can be used to build bridges, and civilize. (I realise that the notion of pro-social shame might seem strange, but Tony's work argues and demonstrates that when we feel shame we exhibit it quite transparently, and others can read it quite clearly, and that that interaction, used well offers a far more creative alternative to punative justice.)

As I write this I am seeing (well at least clarifying in my own mind) that the difference between the inferiority/superiority game which promises growth and movement whilst delivering damnation (in the sense that growth ceases or is blocked), while a healthy humble realisation of our 'human-ness' (while from some perspectives looking like bringing people down), does in fact lift them up, connecting them with an expansive circle that eventually comes to include all life and nature, the process Wilber describes.

That process is also quite consistent with Worthingtons research and published work in the US on foregiveness.

Does that make any sense? Does in fit comfortably with what you said from your perspective?

Thanks for engaging on this issue BTW. I have been trying to sort this for a while, and suspect it may have at least passing interest for others.

regards
Daryl

[silverfox]

Does anyone know where the latest news on LDS temple recommends are?

The closest I can find are from The LDS Church News, 1/16/83.

I seen this thread, and it relates to some research that I am doing.

If anyone knows a link or a source for that information, I would appreciate the info very much.

Not sure what kind of info you are looking for but check out this site

http://www.helpingmormons.org/recommend.htm

This link lists the questions, how they should be asked, a copy of a recommend, (I think it has changed since then, though and now requires a photo on it), etc, etc

Edited to add also these links

http://home.uchicago.edu/~spackman/templeprep

A site by a faithful member - interesting responses to the last few questions.

And on a lighter side see tokens, handshakes, etc presented with a good sense of humor here:

http://nowscape.com/mormon/temple_commend.htm

[bzcutah]

Thanks SilverFox, that helps some.

I am writing an article on depression, and how difficult it is to be LDS and to live up to the standards, and how difficult it is to reach the ultimate goal of 'exhaltation'.

In the Church News article from 1/16/82, it was stated that less than 20% of adult Mormons hold a temple recommend. So that is mainly what I am looking for, is current numbers.

I know those types of things are not often revealed.
But I thought that there may have been a more recent slip in conference as of late.

[silverfox]

Thanks SilverFox, that helps some.

I am writing an article on depression, and how difficult it is to be LDS and to live up to the standards, and how difficult it is to reach the ultimate goal of 'exhaltation'.

In the Church News article from 1/16/82, it was stated that less than 20% of adult Mormons hold a temple recommend. So that is mainly what I am looking for, is current numbers.

I know those types of things are not often revealed.
But I thought that there may have been a more recent slip in conference as of late.

It's not so much that the figures aren't reveals but that they are never accurate - the church manipulates it's true figures like crazy. Let me do some more research to see if I can find statistics that are more recent.

[bigeddy]

Paul,

As I taught seminary professionally for the church I noticed somethng profoundly disturbing. It became apparent to me that when the kids were burdened with shame they could not repent (change and grow). So, I wrote my dissertation ("A Qualitative Study of the Effects of Shame on Adolescents") on the subject to verify what I had suspected.

At the same time I was noticing the effects of shame on my students I had to develop a model of what I saw happening, not just to them but to all of us. I developed a model of affective knowledge and have used it ever since in teaching religion and in doing therapy. I early on recognized the limitations of cognitive therapy (they are profound) and have spent my career trying to understand how, and to effectively practise, changing affective knowledge. I found that I could easily change people's minds, but so what. If I could not change what they knew in an affective way, it did no good. They continued to act in a way that was dysfunctional, only now they had more shame because they continued to act in a way that defied what their head knew was "right".

I looked back to a day sitting in snackrament mtg. in Japan. The congregation was singing the song "Earth With Her Ten Thousand Flowers." The Japanese translation is beautiful. When we sung the last line "God is Love" I had this upwelling feeling of "BULLSHIT". My head knew that, but my gut "knew" that God was a tyrant who could not wait to get his hands on me and beat the shit out of me for all my "sins". I felt the huge discrepancy between what my head knew and what my heart/gut/affect "knew".

I started to ask students and others questions to help me understand where they got their affective image of God. Wow, I learned a bunch. It became very evident that their emotional moments of feeling with the people in what I call "God Position" completely explained where their affect learned of God. I found that, in teaching Seminary, it did not matter what I said--that is cognitive--if I treated the students in a Godly way, I taught their feelings about God; if I gave them moments of feeling that were imbued with compassion, acceptance and benign guidance, they learned, in their feelings, about God.

I went on to create a model of what I call "Structures of Knowledge" that deliniate cognitive and affective forms of knowing. (See, [URL=http://faculty.weber.edu/egardiner/Structures%20of%20Knowledge.htm]). I have used this in teaching relgion at BYU and in all counseling I have done. (At "the Y" my student evaluations where the highest in the religion dept. and they asked me to apply to become a professor in the dept. I told them no way in hell, you have far too much beauracracy for me.) The model helps me understand and treat every problem I see.

How this applies to the shame discussion is the difference in the affective condition of shame vs. guilt. I believe that most LDS folk have no idea what guilt feels like and, not just momos, but most people confuse shame and guilt tremendously which hinders our studies of it. I believe guilt to be the healthy, pro-social form of shame that writers speak of. This affective state has to start with the affective knolwedge that is their proof that "I am a wonderful human being" Then the sense is that the thing I did was somehow painful for another person and I can correct that because I am such a fine human. That behavior is not a part of me but is exterior to me, it is a thing I did, not me. Shame, on the other hand, is the affective knowing that "I am defective, my core is defective, inadequate, bad. So, no matter what my behavior is--or if I change it--I am still a schmuck."

I have used this to effect the growth of many. I don't see true growth when there is shame. I see faking it to appear "good" but an inside "knowing" that despite my behavior--I am still a schmuck. Kids who could handle shaming influences and grow in a pro-social way--truly grow, not faking it--were kids who did begin with the affective sense that is the proof that they are "good." Then they could grow. WHen the affective sense was opposite, they just fake it. Until we clearly understand the difference we cannot follow shame or guilt to their eventual conclusion in the development of the person.

In doing my study I tried a paper/pencil evaluation of degree of shame. I found that 2 kinds of teens scored low on shame--those who had none and those who were loaded with it. This is why many researchers find shame such a hard thing to bring into therapy. The afflicted person can discourse wonderfully about how they have none. They cannot be aware, consiously, that they have it or it will cause more of it. Affective knowledge is not like cognitive knowledge, it is alogical, idiosyncratic, hidden--even from the person holding it, and will defy the light of scrutiny if the person will only hurt more by recognizing it. Researchers also talked about shame and pride being the 2 sides of the same coin. Kind of like what you wrote about the inferiority/superiority thing. Feeling the shame is so incredibly painful that the coin flips and the pride comes out. And, like you so aptly said, the result is seperation from other humans regardless of which comes out.

I watched this happen in a group one day at the hospital where I was doing an internship. A young drug user came it and was disgusted that he had to be in a group with "these people" who were below him, inferior; they could not begin to understand him. Then we began to deal with him and the coin flipped. He went into the full shame and talked about how the group could not understand him because he was so much worse than any of them. I pointed out that he did anything he could to avoid "just being one of us." He had to be above or below us, anything to keep from being on the same level. Cognitively he could not grasp what was happening. It was not a cognitive process. Affectively, when he could clarify what his "gut" knew, he could come to grips with where he was and then start to grow.

Anyway, all studies I have read extolling the socializing virtues of shame are confusing the true affective "knowing" that is going on on the part of the subjects. This is easy to do because cognitively a person afflicted with the affective shame cannot discuss it or admit it--and they are very convincing because they are convinced they have no shame.

Sorry for going on and on.
Ed

[silverfox]

Paul,

As I taught seminary professionally for the church I noticed somethng profoundly disturbing. It became apparent to me that when the kids were burdened with shame they could not repent (change and grow). So, I wrote my dissertation ("A Qualitative Study of the Effects of Shame on Adolescents") on the subject to verify what I had suspected.

Ed

Shame vs guilt. I never stopped to separate the two. This was a good read for me. I wish my kids would have had YOU for their seminary teacher!

[bzcutah]

It's not so much that the figures aren't reveals but that they are never accurate - the church manipulates it's true figures like crazy. Let me do some more research to see if I can find statistics that are more recent.

I've seen that many times. I think the recent exposure of these facts, were the records of members, counting members by the estimated birth rate for the year to come, and counting non-baptized children as members.

I believe that they stopped this practice after all of the attention that was brought to that issue.

Anyway. If there is any reference to the temple recommend holder, and the percentage of them compared to the number of members. THat would be much appreciated.

Thanks!

[Born Free]

Paul,

As I taught seminary professionally for the church I noticed somethng profoundly disturbing. It became apparent to me that when the kids were burdened with shame they could not repent (change and grow). So, I wrote my dissertation ("A Qualitative Study of the Effects of Shame on Adolescents") on the subject to verify what I had suspected. .....

Sorry for going on and on.
Ed

Ed,

No need for an apology, as I for one, have a deep interest in this area, both personally and professionally.

I am cautious to not get stuck on semantics around this issue. I need to compare your learnings more closely with Tony's, as I have the sense there is a very high level of compatability.

Tony's selection for his PhD grew out of the success of Sgt Terry O'Connell here with Restorative Justice. It has proven particularly good at engaging men and boys who, after shaming (as in they have been shamed) backgrounds, arrive at an "I'm OK - You're Not" posture, in which they are impervious to moving on.

I will go back over your material and may get back to you for more info!

Thanks again.

Daryl

[peter_mary]

How this applies to the shame discussion is the difference in the affective condition of shame vs. guilt. I believe that most LDS folk have no idea what guilt feels like and, not just momos, but most people confuse shame and guilt tremendously which hinders our studies of it. I believe guilt to be the healthy, pro-social form of shame that writers speak of. Ed


I was just reveling in this new information (the recognition that guilt and shame are NOT synonymous), and had to share this new learning with my wife. Turns out, she's all over the recognition that there is what she calls "therapeutic guilt," that which allows a healthy person to feel bad about something they did that hurt someone else, or even themselves, and "neurotic guilt," that which people are addicted to, and "shame" which basically says, "I'm bad from the beginning and that's all I'll ever be." Guess I should be asking more questions around the house...

Mostly, Ed, this is a round-about way of saying I really appreciated your thoughts on guilt and shame. The idea that guilt can be healthy, versus shame which is not healthy, is a new little tid-bit for me. Thanks!

Paul

[tjohnson]

Thanks SilverFox, that helps some.

I am writing an article on depression, and how difficult it is to be LDS and to live up to the standards, and how difficult it is to reach the ultimate goal of 'exhaltation'.

In the Church News article from 1/16/82, it was stated that less than 20% of adult Mormons hold a temple recommend. So that is mainly what I am looking for, is current numbers.

I know those types of things are not often revealed.
But I thought that there may have been a more recent slip in conference as of late.

Many years ago I heard a statistic that I have always wondered about... that a very large percentage of Mormon women are on anti-depression prescription drugs. My wife tells me the "guilt" associated with being a woman in the church is unreal. :(

Travis

[free thinker]

Paul,

As I taught seminary professionally for the church I noticed somethng profoundly disturbing. It became apparent to me that when the kids were burdened with shame they could not repent (change and grow). So, I wrote my dissertation ("A Qualitative Study of the Effects of Shame on Adolescents") on the subject to verify what I had suspected.

At the same time I was noticing the effects of shame on my students I had to develop a model of what I saw happening, not just to them but to all of us. I developed a model of affective knowledge and have used it ever since in teaching religion and in doing therapy. I early on recognized the limitations of cognitive therapy (they are profound) and have spent my career trying to understand how, and to effectively practise, changing affective knowledge. I found that I could easily change people's minds, but so what. If I could not change what they knew in an affective way, it did no good. They continued to act in a way that was dysfunctional, only now they had more shame because they continued to act in a way that defied what their head knew was "right".

I looked back to a day sitting in snackrament mtg. in Japan. The congregation was singing the song "Earth With Her Ten Thousand Flowers." The Japanese translation is beautiful. When we sung the last line "God is Love" I had this upwelling feeling of "BULLSHIT". My head knew that, but my gut "knew" that God was a tyrant who could not wait to get his hands on me and beat the shit out of me for all my "sins". I felt the huge discrepancy between what my head knew and what my heart/gut/affect "knew".

I started to ask students and others questions to help me understand where they got their affective image of God. Wow, I learned a bunch. It became very evident that their emotional moments of feeling with the people in what I call "God Position" completely explained where their affect learned of God. I found that, in teaching Seminary, it did not matter what I said--that is cognitive--if I treated the students in a Godly way, I taught their feelings about God; if I gave them moments of feeling that were imbued with compassion, acceptance and benign guidance, they learned, in their feelings, about God.

I went on to create a model of what I call "Structures of Knowledge" that deliniate cognitive and affective forms of knowing. (See, [URL=http://faculty.weber.edu/egardiner/Structures%20of%20Knowledge.htm]). I have used this in teaching relgion at BYU and in all counseling I have done. (At "the Y" my student evaluations where the highest in the religion dept. and they asked me to apply to become a professor in the dept. I told them no way in hell, you have far too much beauracracy for me.) The model helps me understand and treat every problem I see.

How this applies to the shame discussion is the difference in the affective condition of shame vs. guilt. I believe that most LDS folk have no idea what guilt feels like and, not just momos, but most people confuse shame and guilt tremendously which hinders our studies of it. I believe guilt to be the healthy, pro-social form of shame that writers speak of. This affective state has to start with the affective knolwedge that is their proof that "I am a wonderful human being" Then the sense is that the thing I did was somehow painful for another person and I can correct that because I am such a fine human. That behavior is not a part of me but is exterior to me, it is a thing I did, not me. Shame, on the other hand, is the affective knowing that "I am defective, my core is defective, inadequate, bad. So, no matter what my behavior is--or if I change it--I am still a schmuck."

I have used this to effect the growth of many. I don't see true growth when there is shame. I see faking it to appear "good" but an inside "knowing" that despite my behavior--I am still a schmuck. Kids who could handle shaming influences and grow in a pro-social way--truly grow, not faking it--were kids who did begin with the affective sense that is the proof that they are "good." Then they could grow. WHen the affective sense was opposite, they just fake it. Until we clearly understand the difference we cannot follow shame or guilt to their eventual conclusion in the development of the person.

In doing my study I tried a paper/pencil evaluation of degree of shame. I found that 2 kinds of teens scored low on shame--those who had none and those who were loaded with it. This is why many researchers find shame such a hard thing to bring into therapy. The afflicted person can discourse wonderfully about how they have none. They cannot be aware, consiously, that they have it or it will cause more of it. Affective knowledge is not like cognitive knowledge, it is alogical, idiosyncratic, hidden--even from the person holding it, and will defy the light of scrutiny if the person will only hurt more by recognizing it. Researchers also talked about shame and pride being the 2 sides of the same coin. Kind of like what you wrote about the inferiority/superiority thing. Feeling the shame is so incredibly painful that the coin flips and the pride comes out. And, like you so aptly said, the result is seperation from other humans regardless of which comes out.

I watched this happen in a group one day at the hospital where I was doing an internship. A young drug user came it and was disgusted that he had to be in a group with "these people" who were below him, inferior; they could not begin to understand him. Then we began to deal with him and the coin flipped. He went into the full shame and talked about how the group could not understand him because he was so much worse than any of them. I pointed out that he did anything he could to avoid "just being one of us." He had to be above or below us, anything to keep from being on the same level. Cognitively he could not grasp what was happening. It was not a cognitive process. Affectively, when he could clarify what his "gut" knew, he could come to grips with where he was and then start to grow.

Anyway, all studies I have read extolling the socializing virtues of shame are confusing the true affective "knowing" that is going on on the part of the subjects. This is easy to do because cognitively a person afflicted with the affective shame cannot discuss it or admit it--and they are very convincing because they are convinced they have no shame.

Sorry for going on and on.
Ed

Seems to me that the mo-kingdom does little to alleviate either guilt, or shame! It is in their interest to keep people down, and locked in this shamed, or guilty space. They know that if you break out, not only will you be very angry, but you probably will leave the fold!

Leo Buscaglia noted once, and I paraphrase, " The only amount of guilt one needs, is just enough to keep you from thinking you are God" . Norman Vincent Peale listed guilt as a "negative emotion". As a mormon, I mainlined guilt and shame for almost thirty years! Turns out I'm a pretty good guy!

I think it is wise to watch out for guilt. Use it as a tincture at appropriate times, and then move on!

Free Thinker