- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Institutionalization refer to a condition which happens as successful organizations (corporations) age. As they grow, they develops additional levels of leadership, and set-in-place corporate rules. The organization begins to lose the freshness which initially appealed to folks, when it was the new person on the block. Usually a desire for correlation develops and once in place, is nearly impossible to change. Middle age enters into the mind set of its executives (especially middle management), and a fear of change develops. Programs/policies which have run their course are rarely discarded. It seems to me, that the LDS church has entered fully into this condition. When members are reminded what to wear to church, to avoid facial hair, flip-flops, multi-earrings, etc., we have in some ways reached the pinnacle of institutionalization. The problem is, once you are on the mountain top, the only route left is down. Usually the young people object the most, and begin a steady exit toward the doors. I know that committees are in place to look at some of the stagnation within the church. Home teaching is in the trouble. The missionary program (as now practiced) is in trouble. When over 50% of returning missionaries immediately fall inactive, the handwriting is on the wall. I know the leadership in Salt Lake cares but little for what my opinion is. If they did, I would first tell them I love them (I’m in their age category after all – OLD). I would then explain that having to say we screwed up, or that a particular program has run its course, is OK. What is wrong with an apology, if one is needed? If we were all perfect, the church would not have to exist. And if we who are imperfect, are the overseers of the church, then what does that say for the church? I remind my adult kids all the time, of how flawed I am. They laugh and totally agree.
Finally thought. Can the church evolve and become closer to Christ? It is always my goal. I am reminded by my human condition though, that I will never fully reach that goal. And that is where GRACE enters in. Christ lifts me up and carries me on, when I stumble on the trail. The church can become a greater light upon the hill, if it will get over itself in some ways and cast off teachings which insult other Christians. My perception only, as always. Shalom.
Good thoughts, George. One thought: Do you think corporations or organizations become successful and big because of institutionalization, or despite it?
because of it – without question, imo One of my professional specialties is organizational change management, and those companies who don’t institutionalize in significant ways never are large and successful. Once they institutionalize and create stability – then and only then can they begin to de-institutionalize carefully and gradually until they reach optimum institutionalization.
I’m not saying it is ideal for a religion to institutionalize – or, at least, that it’s all rosy when it inevitably happens. There certainly are down-sides. However, if an organization doesn’t institutionalize, it dies – or splinters massively and/or regularly.
Look at the early LDS Church in chronological stages of development. It really was only after the Manifesto that it stabilized enough to survive, and it was only after the beginning of what would become correlation that it began to grow into a large denomination from a totally objective standpoint. Again, there are pros and cons to the process, but it is absolutely critical for extended growth. Now, the key is the speed and extent of the de-institutionalization, imo – and that is a very tricky process.
I agree with what you say, George. I think the reasons for stagnation should be looked at. I think some people get bored out, through tedious processes. Some get annoyed at questions being unanswered or ignored. Some people become inactive because too much is put on their plate etc etc.
You mention age as a factor. Maybe it is. Church leadership tends towards the elderly side, while Joseph Smith, Jesus Christ etc were all on the younger side. Maybe a mixture of ages is the key. I’m also not sure of the process of selecting a prophet – it may stop plotting amongst the seventy and discord but it also often results in one of the more elderly members becoming prophet.
Here are a few of the suggestions I can think of –
* Stop the standardization of everything, it makes life dull. Allow local church cultures to spring up, which are not
* Stop repeating so much of the same stuff, whether it’s Gospel Principles over and over or other things. The LDS has a lot to offer without repeating itself like this.
* Play to people’s strengths and don’t overburden them with more jobs than they are capable of.
* Work out ways to make temple weddings more accessible to all – this could include some kind of ordinances performed outside the temple, and a function elsewhere too.
* Allow more leeway in male dress, including for missionaries.
* More variety of expression within the church, whether that’s more variety in architecture, music, and so on. Church music should be related to the local culture, as RCs often do now.
There is other stuff. I’ve mentioned siege mentality elsewhere, and will put up a thread about it sometime. Siege mentality has understandable origins but is not good for the church.
I can think of many top down directives which would have been better served by a bit of local knowledge. For example, one of our local chapels here was moved from one town into a much larger neighboring one, with the result that they lost a lot of their older members. While the larger town was a new town, and bigger, the smaller town’s congregation was settled and established. By alienating them, a lot of them went inactive, and haven’t been back. We’re talking decades back here. I think a new congregation in the newer larger town would have worked, but you can’t just uproot a tree and plant it elsewhere.
There are a couple of small Book of Mormon believing churches which took root within a decade of the death of Joseph Smith. I’m thinking Cutlerites & Strangites. They exist today, but has never been troubled by institutionalization. They simply never got large enough. In fact, without a sufficient number of priesthood males, even their hopes for ‘quorums of twelve’ disappeared. As the LDS church has evolved through the last 180 years, it has grown proportionally larger. Different types of church government have overseen our growth, from a simple “all things held in common,” until today, when the Corporation of the President is our legal entity, with the name of the church being much like a trademark. With growth has come correlation and employment within the Corporation. I have no idea how many employees work in the church today. I figure a couple of thousand in the church office building, with additional thousands employed in LDS Institutes, Deseret Industry, Family History department, security, janitorial services, etc. Also, it’s known that all high up LDS leadership receive a generous stipend, certainly apropro with a high-end cost of living. I would suspect that institutionalization within LDS parameters, is tied to this employment factor. Is the LDS church the biggest employer in the Salt Lake valley? And if so, would massive layoffs (resulting from any number of factors), impact the local economy severely?
My own experience is with governmental projects in the Aerospace Industry. I saw institutionalization to the max in my workplace, and experienced the distress as cancellations caused thousands of jobs to disappear. The one major difference I see, in Aerospace you terminated your loyalty with that final paycheck. In church, you are called upon to continue to pay tithing and fulfill callings, even when a paycheck disappears. I am open to conjecture and input here. I do know institutionalization can strangle a corporation, cause it to loss its vitality. I also know that new rules are emerging. Think Google, think Facebook, think Internet. Will the psychotic communication growth of the future, change the rules of institutionalization? Make it mostly an antiquated condition? And how will that play out?
Shalom.
SamBee wrote:You mention age as a factor. Maybe it is. Church leadership tends towards the elderly side, while Joseph Smith, Jesus Christ etc were all on the younger side. Maybe a mixture of ages is the key. I’m also not sure of the process of selecting a prophet – it may stop plotting amongst the seventy and discord but it also often results in one of the more elderly members becoming prophet.
I have wondered about this process of Church leaders basically rising up through the ranks based mostly on seniority as well. For example, in my opinion Joseph Fielding Smith demonstrated a general lack of inspiration including his infamous false prophecy that men would never go to the moon but because he lived long enough he eventually ended up as President of the Church. In particular, when they start talking about things like earrings, beards, white shirts, etc. then I really get cynical and think to myself does this honestly sound like any kind of legitimate revelation or does it sound more like the stereotypical grumpy old man? On the other hand, maybe their age is one reason we haven’t seen apostates at the highest levels of leadership in recent years like there were in the early years of the Church because they have all been loyal to the Church for so long that the chances of them turning against it at this point are not very high.
George wrote:It seems to me, that the LDS church has entered fully into this condition. When members are reminded what to wear to church, to avoid facial hair, flip-flops, multi-earrings, etc., we have in some ways reached the pinnacle of institutionalization…Usually the young people object the most, and begin a steady exit toward the doors…I know the leadership in Salt Lake cares but little for what my opinion is. If they did…I would then explain that having to say we screwed up, or that a particular program has run its course, is OK. What is wrong with an apology, if one is needed?
I think some institutionalization and bureaucracy is almost inevitable because without some leadership you will typically end up with relative anarchy and chaos. Where I think the Church has really gone too far is with some of the unreasonable demands like tithing and the Word of Wisdom. Basically, the attitude seems to be that members exist to serve the Church not the other way around. So far they have been able to get away with this as long as members believe that it’s what God wants them to do and that they will be rewarded for it but as soon as some members suspect that maybe it’s just some old men in Salt Lake telling them what to do then the whole thing is likely to fall apart completely like a house of cards.
This is why I think the Church should be proactive and and start to de-emphasize some of these strict rules and move in the direction of being a kinder and gentler Church rather than such a harsh burden to bear. For example, if someone isn’t completely comfortable committing to pay a full 10% of their income as tithing then why not encourage them to go ahead and donate what they can because that would still be better than nothing? Is this the feeling I currently get from the Church? Not at all.
If I don’t pay them a full 10% of my income then it feels like I’m already under the condemnation of the Church anyway so then I start to think that while I’m at it I might as well just ask to be released from my callings too so I can sleep in on Sunday and watch football all day instead. I honestly wish I was the only one who thinks this way but there are many and I suspect that these numbers will only increase dramatically the longer the Church continues to try to hold on to some of the same old hard-line policies and intolerant all-or-nothing attitudes regarding lukewarm Mormons like myself. They could sell some new ideas and put a positive spin on it as an effort to re-activate existing members (Matt. 18:12-14) and focus more on basic Christian principles rather than the letter-of-the-law.
Since Pres. McKay (and excluding TSM for obvious reasons), only three presidents have been in the job more than three years. Pres.s. Smith, Lee and Hunter were all in for brief spells. I don’t think that they were bad presidents, only that their reign was brief. GBH, ETB and SWK were all quite frail towards the end, as far as I can tell. Pres Benson held some very old fashioned views, and got himself mixed up with the John Birchers. I think while he held strong views, he didn’t understand what was happening to youth in the 70s, 80s and 90s at all. He was really a politician of the later 40s and 50s – post-war, start of Cold War, pre-rock and roll… The irony is despite Benson’s hatred of Communism, there is a parallel. East Germany and the Soviet Union had a similar problem – an aging leadership. They had other issues of course, but the fall of East Germany was partly down to the fact that the leaders came from the pre-war generation, and couldn’t stem the tide of western pop culture filtering through. Likewise, the focus on the older generation for the Soviet Leadership led to the USSR being run by Leonid Brezhnev from 1964-82, which was fine to begin with (from a practical point of view), but again, he lacked understanding of the massive global changes happening. And towards the end of his reign, he was incapacitated by a stroke, which made him more or less a vegetable (sorry to use this word), while others did the real job of leadership. His successor, Yuri Andropov, was the Soviet equivalent of Howard Hunter, lasting a mere fifteen months. Now I’m not trying to justify Communism here, but there is a similar problem with an aged leadership.
By the way, what is the problem with beards anyway? They are good enough for most Biblical figures, and most of the early LDS prophets except Joseph Smith. Never understood that.
SamBee: “By the way, what is the problem with beards anyway? They are good enough for most Biblical figures, and most of the early LDS prophets except Joseph Smith. Never understood that.”
I totally agree. My tanned old face looks so much better with my totally white mustache. The beard of an aged patriarch was once considered his earned adornment. And maybe therein lies the problem. Someone, somewhere, thinks that facial hair ties to patriarchy and its twin condition, polygamy. Believe me, there are greater problems than facial hair, waiting just across the moat.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:I think some institutionalization and bureaucracy is almost inevitable because without some leadership you will typically end up with relative anarchy and chaos. Where I think the Church has really gone too far is with some of the unreasonable demands like tithing and the Word of Wisdom. Basically, the attitude seems to be that members exist to serve the Church not the other way around. So far they have been able to get away with this as long as members believe that it’s what God wants them to do and that they will be rewarded for it but as soon as some members suspect that maybe it’s just some old men in Salt Lake telling them what to do then the whole thing is likely to fall apart completely like a house of cards.
…I honestly wish I was the only one who thinks this way but there are many and I suspect that these numbers will only increase dramatically the longer the Church continues to try to hold on to some of the same old hard-line policies and intolerant all-or-nothing attitudes regarding lukewarm Mormons like myself. They could sell some new ideas and put a positive spin on it as an effort to re-activate existing members (Matt. 18:12-14) and focus more on basic Christian principles rather than the letter-of-the-law.
Yep, well said again DA. I agree with you – especially on this type of issue, and I think these comments go along nicely with some of the others that you’ve said about the “decline of the church” “the future of the church” topics earlier this Spring. Don’t know if things will change though?
George – this is a GREAT topic, and I have enjoyed reading the comments. PS – Maybe we should start our own “beard movement” within the church. I’m sporting a “salt and pepper” (much to the chagrin of the BP) even as I type.
I agree; this has been a great topic. I have been thinking about this for a couple of years. There are some books out there that chronicle this institutionalization process. I agree that the institutionalization process is part of the churches current problems. A couple of items that haven’t been mentioned: 1. The missionary program: With President Kimball, it was cemented into our culture and created a secondary caste of young men, who understandably will have high rates of falling away. If anything, they are our own version of ‘untouchables’. The other outcome, that many go and then quickly fall into activity afterward is predictable as well, because the culture is forcing many young men who shouldn’t be going to go. Oh, and once they are out there, it’s really a circus.
2. The scouting program: I know there are a lot of people who support scouting, and it does good things for some young men, but I think in general, its relevance is gone. Even if I’m wrong on that point, it’s appeal is really gone for most young men. Most young men are now just forced through the scouting process and resent it afterwards.
I completely agree with the comments on the curriculum, it is tedious and cliched and does not lend itself to new thought, or even much spiritual growth in my opinion. Discussion has been squelched. The callings are called ‘teachers’, but really they should be called ‘regurgitators’. There is little leeway in what is presented and the questions that are asked. Lesson preparation for the youth classes consists of a three minute read-through, because you really can’t, by policy, do anything but read down through the lesson.
The three hour block has been a blessing, but I think it also creates a culture where everyone arrives at church at five after the hour, rushes into their classes, nods their heads and smiles and then rushes to their sacrament meeting and then rushes home. Very little socialization and bonding. I don’t get to know fellow ward members this way. We make up for this with forced social experiences during the week with minimal success.
I also think that the institutionalization has resulted in a organization that has no nimbleness, and therefore a chasm between doctrine/policy/attitudes and science/history/archeology/modern society has resulted. It’s painted as holding onto principles, but I think there is another component to it. I also have had a mental metaphor in my mind for years about how ‘revelations’ over time painting the church into a corner. Since revelations are cumulative and always true, then each time something is said over the pulpit, the wiggle room for the church and for members decreases. I’m thinking of things like ‘every worthy young man should serve a mission’. That’s a big problematic one, but there are little things too; white shirts, for example.
George wrote:SamBee:
“By the way, what is the problem with beards anyway? They are good enough for most Biblical figures, and most of the early LDS prophets except Joseph Smith. Never understood that.”
I totally agree. My tanned old face looks so much better with my totally white mustache. The beard of an aged patriarch was once considered his earned adornment. And maybe therein lies the problem. Someone, somewhere, thinks that facial hair ties to patriarchy and its twin condition, polygamy. Believe me, there are greater problems than facial hair, waiting just across the moat.
Well, if suits you, have it. Mustaches died a death here in the 70s and 80s, and not many people have them anymore – beards are more common (used to be the other way round when I was growing up). But that’s all to do with worldly fashions, not anything spiritual or Godly.
I was reading a funny book about Pakistan, and it was talking about the two major forces in politics and government- it said you could tell them apart because the military types had mustaches, and the religious fundamentalists had beards! Anyway, I digress, but point is that facial hair is common in some parts of the world. In fact, they don’t consider you a man in some places UNLESS you have some.
I’d say the same about long hair too. Some of the early pictures of male saints show them with hair almost down to their shoulders.
Quote:George asked:
One thought: Do you think corporations or organizations become successful and big because of institutionalization, or despite it?
A quote I remember said that “publishing a rule book is the last act of a dieing organization.” The Church certainly has its rule books up to date. It reminds me much of a McDonalds Restaurant the way every conceivable situation is defined with carefully thought out procedures. I find that both good and bad. It’s good, because I can go to any ward anywhere in the world and know what to expect. I always have a home away from home. And it helps to keep petty tyrants in check.
But I really bristle at the Church correlation committee and how it has so wimped down the “gospel” to milk toast and then tries to enforce that one presentation down our throats by stating in the intro that we should only teach from the manual (See the Gospel Principles manual for an example). Excuse me, but I have never sworn to accept PR/RS manuals as canonized scripture! I will not be constrained but such a narrow / simplistic interpretation of the Gospel. Two weeks ago I taught the HP lesson #10 on the Scriptures. I contrasted them with the Prophets and quoted an essay on Official Doctrine in
Quote:Infallibility of prophets and apostles is not, nor has it ever been a doctrine of the Church. They are wise men, with many decades of life experience, and enjoy a special relationship with God because of their callings. While their guidance is quite reliable, God has not absolved them from the weaknesses of mortality, nor has He eliminated all errors in understanding and judgment. They must be tried and tested like everyone else, and they make mistakes both trivial and sometimes tragic like everyone else.
StayLDS Resource section
http://www.staylds.com/?page_id=29 And I supported the statement with specific examples of documented failings of prophets in the latter days, as well as in the scriptures. Despite all that, I also talked using their council and wisdom for our welfare. My HP group is quite conservative, with one person currently a member of the Council of Seventies. He is a TBM tow the line kind of guy, but he knows better than challenge me because I document myself completely, both historically and structurally. Two lessons ago on Prophets I made the statement that Apostle Franklin D. Richards that the Martin Willey handcart company would safely travel to SLC despite their late departure. But over 200 of them died! I was challenged on the historical fact, so I documented my statement in an email to him. He thanked me for the documentation and nothing further was said.
I too think this is a great topic. In my MBA studies, we studied institutionalization, as well as the need for organizations to grow and change. The analogy of “boxes and bubbles” was used. Boxes describe institutionalized policies that work in a stable environment for a given set of circumstances. Bubbles represent experimental or new policies borne out of changing circumstances such as new competition, the integration of a new division into the company, or the decline or introduction of certain products, for example.
Certain bubbles are highly effective, and these should eventually be institutionalized, forming “boxes”. Then the organization can grow and progress due to the efficacy of these new policies. However, the organization needs to be on guard, and flexible enough to recognize when it’s time to introduce more bubbles into their organization. And I think that is where the Church may be falling down.
On this note, I agree that the policies that worked back in the 50’s and 60’s don’t seem to work as well anymore due to changes in public perception and social attitudes that are hard to change. They are boxes in a time when we need bubbles.
Example:
When people see two young men in white shirts and ties walk up to their door, it often creates a “Shields Up!” mentality because they know they are Mormons, and have preconceived notions given all the anti-Mormon propaganda that has been dragged across our Church. It also reinforces the notion that we are a cult since everyone is dressed the same.
The purpose of white shirts and ties? In my view, to present a clean-cut, trustworthy image — one that is worthy of representing the Lord. This was standard attire back in the 1950’s and 1960’s, but it’s different now. You can be clean cut and still wear a blue shirt, for example. And if our missionaries and members dressed differently, we may have better success when we visit people at the door.
I could cite other examples, but this will go on too long. I hope the higher-ups are looking at this, as I do believe it’s time there was some change to bring the Church up to date with the times.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.