The LDS Church is Not an American Institution

Naturally, I’ll comment.

I think a truly inspired organization will adapt to the needs of the local membership. What matters is that results are achieved, for the good of the membership, and this can be accomplished a number of ways — and working within the thinking of the culture is one way that of doing that.

So, your statement — the Church is NOT an American organization is true. Nor is it a Canadian organization, nor is it a Mexican organization, it is a worldwide organization. If you want to relieve our divine organization of having to behave in ways that elevate it above the ways of any other temporal organization (as many have suggested), then it follows that administration of the Church in foreign lands will respect the culture of those lands.

In which case, recognizing Hostede’s Cultural Values (as Roy alluded to above, when he referred to power-distance) follows. Supplanting one culture on another never really lasts in the long run.

We are now entering a period in our industrial history where this is a greater emphasis on empowerment, participative decision-making, and a more democratic style of leadership. I feel that the way we do things now in our own Church carries the vestiages of the management science approach earlier in the 20th century, as well as the highly authoritarian, top-down approach we say in the 50’s. We still dress that way too (for the men), and still carry the ban on facial hair we saw back in the 60’s when facial hair was synonymous with hippies, drugs and rock and roll. I think a change would be welcome to many.

Currently, I still think it is an American institution. It is led and run mostly by Americans.

The membership is changing, as there are more members outside the US than inside … however, the leadership is still heavily skewed towards Americans.

As with other topics we discuss here…the church will change and adapt to this, but it is a big ship to turn, and turns slowly as a conservative organization with life-time apostles at the helm.

I think the misunderstanding of this principle is one of the things that affects ultra-conservative members FAR more widely than more liberal members.

The immigration issue is a good example. Many members use our Articles of Faith to oppose anything that might be seen as “lenient” toward illegal immigrants, but the arguments they really make, at the core, as often as not are economic and patriotic in nature. (“taking jobs away from legal citizens” – as if lots of legal citizens were lining up to work those jobs – and “real Americans” honor the system in place – and hints that the decline in America is a direct result of those foreigners who are ruining our country)

When the LDS Church asks for compassion in how the government deals with PEOPLE, some members can’t separate a global church’s request for compassion from their Americanism and how they see the Promised Land – even though the Book of Mormon hints that God will lead people to that land in sundry times and in various ways. It’s just as easy to see the illegal immigrants as fulfilling prophecy as to see them as wicked lawbreakers, and that decision can be justified using scriptures and religious themes either way. It’s easy to forget that the LDS Church in NOT “American” and can’t act as an arm of the US Government in any way with regard to this issue.

My point is that it’s really, really hard for many people (including us, frankly) to step back sometimes and see where the Church is acting as a global organization and not just a group of American citizens (or citizens of other non-third-world countries, for example). There are SO many issues that this concept affects, but we often just don’t think about them in that light.

Arwen:

“The church is currently headquartered in Utah, however, that can and probably will change in time. I think Dallin H. Oaks pretty much summed up the way I see members who think the Church is purely an American institution.”

With billions of dollars being spent to enhance and beautify downtown SLC (especially around Temple Square), it would appear the church leadership believes the voice of the church will be spoken out of Utah for a long time. There has been no announcement of “the Temple” being built in the Center Place (Independence, Missouri). I consider the church mainly a Utah church. I have never lived there, but in half a century of membership, the pilgrimages we took from California were always to the City of the Saints (and surrounds), for conferences, BYU educational weeks, and YM/YW tourist type activities. I would go so far as to call the practice, one of absolute “Supreme Directional Control.” When local leadership need an answer to an issue, SLC is contacted. On my mission I wanted to baptize the children of a black man (raised as a Navajo) and his Navajo wives. He was a polygamist (common among wealthier tribal men). My mission president called SLC. The answer back, “OK to baptize, if dad wants to join, also OK, but tell him he cannot marry additional wives and he can’t hold the priesthood.” No mention was made of leaving the wives he currently supported. It was a long time ago, before FLDS rose up in Colorado City.