"How Corporatism Has Undermined and Subverted The Church of Jesus Christ"

[Calm]

I remember being chagrined when he brought up the circumstances surrounding the 100 Book of Mormon handout program which was in 1985, as I recall.

--Consiglieri

What was the documentation he gave for this?

[Jeff K.]

Of course if it is negative, some will presume the machinations to be true, I give it the same credence I do regarding the idea that temple workers job is to shoo people out of the celestial room. One should not automatically make the presumption that the negative in the Lord's church is true, unless of course you view the Lord's church in a negative way, and hence it becomes a knee jerk reaction.

On the other hand I would suggest reading one of my favorite books, "A Rough Stone Rolling" to see similar presumed corporatism in the early church where pragmatic use of organization and economic systems were often used. It certainly is much more closely documented than the charges the church has "changed" seem to be. In my view the somewhat anecdotal opinion is unsupportable given the more documented history that reflects a different position. It undermines the author to the point of making that individual seem churlish regarding the church.

[Pahoran]

Hi, Brade!

I read Smith's book a few months back, though I had to skip parts because it was kind of tough for me to wade through all the different literary approaches he used.

I remember being chagrined when he brought up the circumstances surrounding the 100 Book of Mormon handout program which was in 1985, as I recall.

I had just gotten married, my wife and I lived in a two bedroom apartment, and we bought 100 copies of the Book of Mormon, marked and inscribed each one, and handed them all out.

As ward mission leader, we even had a big giveaway on Christmas eve for those that other members had bought but couldn't place.

In reading the machinations behind the program, I couldn't help but feel a bit used.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I'm not clear on this. Does Mister Smith's novella make you feel used because you did a good work 25 years ago, or does the fact that you did a good work 25 years ago make you feel used because Mister Smith's novella uses it as the hook for a just-so story?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Ahab]

Just to be clear, the principle "if the books aren't read, then it is wasteful" is a different principle than "It would be wasteful only if the books they gave others to read weren't read by anyone" and "if the books are read, then it isn't wasteful". My question asked, in part, what the case is when the books aren't read, and your original principle just didn't have anything to say about that. You're new principle does have something to say about that, however.

Actually, I'd like to know what 'is wasteful' means in this case. Does it mean, for example, that it was wasteful for the Church to have spent money in its creation? Or, does it mean that that Book of Mormon is waste? Both? Or something else?

The Book of Mormon is a book that is meant to be read, and if nobody reads it, or ever read it, then the book would be a waste of all of the ink on the paper and the time it took for someone, or some people, to write it, and publish it, and distribute it to other people.

A book on a shelf doesn't help anyone. To be useful, someone other than the author(s) of the book needs to read it, and the more who read it, the better.

[consiglieri]

I'm not clear on this. Does Mister Smith's novella make you feel used because you did a good work 25 years ago, or does the fact that you did a good work 25 years ago make you feel used because Mister Smith's novella uses it as the hook for a just-so story?

Regards,

Pahoran

It made me realize I was buying a box of books I had already bought on funds that were tight for a newlywed couple.

Which pigeonhole does that fit in?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Ahab]

It made me realize I was buying a box of books I had already bought on funds that were tight for a newlywed couple.

Which pigeonhole does that fit in?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

The pigeonhole people go in before they receive "Aha!" and "Duh!" moments wherein they realize what they didn't already know, yet.

Now you know.

[Brade]

What was the documentation he gave for this?

I don't have the physical book on hand, but my Kindle copy cites Materials Management Directors Meeting Minutes from the late 80s and some letters from the early to mid 80s.

[Brade]

Of course if it is negative, some will presume the machinations to be true, I give it the same credence I do regarding the idea that temple workers job is to shoo people out of the celestial room. One should not automatically make the presumption that the negative in the Lord's church is true, unless of course you view the Lord's church in a negative way, and hence it becomes a knee jerk reaction.

On the other hand I would suggest reading one of my favorite books, "A Rough Stone Rolling" to see similar presumed corporatism in the early church where pragmatic use of organization and economic systems were often used. It certainly is much more closely documented than the charges the church has "changed" seem to be. In my view the somewhat anecdotal opinion is unsupportable given the more documented history that reflects a different position. It undermines the author to the point of making that individual seem churlish regarding the church.

I've read Bushman's book, and loved it. I agree with you that history indicates that Joseph Smith did and tried to do lots of business like things, and, just to be clear I'm not saying that he shouldn't have. If that's all you're talking about, then sure, same organization through time and all eternity. But, for example, the way property was held by Joseph's organization is a different model than by the contemporary organization, and I'm not making reference here to LDS forms of communalism. Additionally, the early Church had little regard for branding, and things of that sort. Now, look, those things aren't all bad. I think that they are, in some sense, necessary for the Church's existence in the sort of society in which the Church currently exists. However, it does seem that sometimes spending, or branding, or marketing, or correlating, or whatever, get a bit out of line with or in the way of the basic restoration messages of Joseph Smith. Sometimes they serve his messages very well. Other times not. That's all. I'm not some anti-Mormon version of Range Against the Machine, or something.

Also, for what it's worth, I don't think Smith's book does do a very good job of documenting the organizational differences between the early Church and the contemporary Church. And I do think his negative tone gets in the way of important points and questions, and I think his tone is enough of a reason for his book to get easily and completely dismissed by many members. That's his mistake. If you want a toned down, objective, and very well documented work by Smith, then read his dissertation (which I did a few days ago). It's a dissertation from a reputable university, and so it's not as if he could just throw stuff together. It's well documented, and presents a compelling case for significant organizational changes in the Church. Changes which even the leaders who implemented them questioned, lamented, and worried about, according to his research. Changes which even Smith argues were necessary, even if unfortunate, for the Church's continued existence.

[Brade]

The Book of Mormon is a book that is meant to be read, and if nobody reads it, or ever read it, then the book would be a waste of all of the ink on the paper and the time it took for someone, or some people, to write it, and publish it, and distribute it to other people.

A book on a shelf doesn't help anyone. To be useful, someone other than the author(s) of the book needs to read it, and the more who read it, the better.

Here's what I want to know. True or False? If I give a Book of Mormon to my friend, with the sincerest of intentions and concern for his and my soul, and he never reads it, I have wasted my time.

[TAO]

Here's what I want to know. True or False? If I give a Book of Mormon to my friend, with the sincerest of intentions and concern for his and my soul, and he never reads it, I have wasted my time.

False.

The effort on your part will be rewarded in the long run =D.

Also, he might be more humble later on in life, and so when he dies, he'll be like 'oh, it's that book, sure I'll read it' while he's in Prison.

[Jeff K.]

I've read Bushman's book, and loved it. I agree with you that history indicates that Joseph Smith did and tried to do lots of business like things, and, just to be clear I'm not saying that he shouldn't have. If that's all you're talking about, then sure, same organization through time and all eternity. But, for example, the way property was held by Joseph's organization is a different model than by the contemporary organization, and I'm not making reference here to LDS forms of communalism. Additionally, the early Church had little regard for branding, and things of that sort. Now, look, those things aren't all bad. I think that they are, in some sense, necessary for the Church's existence in the sort of society in which the Church currently exists. However, it does seem that sometimes spending, or branding, or marketing, or correlating, or whatever, get a bit out of line with or in the way of the basic restoration messages of Joseph Smith. Sometimes they serve his messages very well. Other times not. That's all. I'm not some anti-Mormon version of Range Against the Machine, or something.

Also, for what it's worth, I don't think Smith's book does do a very good job of documenting the organizational differences between the early Church and the contemporary Church. And I do think his negative tone gets in the way of important points and questions, and I think his tone is enough of a reason for his book to get easily and completely dismissed by many members. That's his mistake. If you want a toned down, objective, and very well documented work by Smith, then read his dissertation (which I did a few days ago). It's a dissertation from a reputable university, and so it's not as if he could just throw stuff together. It's well documented, and presents a compelling case for significant organizational changes in the Church. Changes which even the leaders who implemented them questioned, lamented, and worried about, according to his research. Changes which even Smith argues were necessary, even if unfortunate, for the Church's continued existence.

I am not stating that you stated Joseph Smith "shouldn't have" carried out business. I am stating that the original author felt that somehow there was a change from an earlier time. I point out that such a position is incorrect and reflective of poor scholarship, and a poor understanding of church history. Such leads me to believe it is just another anti Mormon screed, it follows the same pattern.

As to his dissertation, if it is as you have stated, he apprently does not have enough confidence in it to use it when making his position/attack on the church known. Given what I have read by him so far, I remain unimpressed. And I have seen horrible disserations from relatively good universities. I wonder how closely critiqued it was. I wonder if he dare post it here.

From my standpoint, organizational behavior is relatively similar in most organizations. You have people of various levels of competence competing for limited resources in order to pursue what they think is the best course of action. Not every decision by the church is fully inspired and the Lord often allows us to make decisions at times, allowing us to learn from those decisions. So sometimes you will have unsatisfying results, sometimes you will have convincing people with questionable motivations... To use that in order to plaster an entire church/movement is not logical.

[TAO]

Hmmm.... I have a question for you all.

Why does it matter to you how the church spends it's money if it is directed by God?

Would it be all too surprising if God told them to invest in X or Y if it's going to help them in the long run?

Would it be all to surprising that people failed in their investment if they didn't do what God told them to do?

Would it be all to surprising that an action that doesn't seem to have much of an effect now has a good one later?

The church will spend it's money how it spends it, and I trust the prophet on how he directs it.

[Brade]

Well, Jeff, we just appear to disagree over what the historical record shows. And, just to be clear, I don't believe it shows the Church to be false, or its leaders devoid of Priesthood authority.

[Jeff K.]

I would not think of implying that you felt the church was devoid of authority or priesthood. And there is nothing wrong with criticizing organization when you have what may be a better template (otherwise its just whining as some are wont to do).

[Brade]

I would not think of implying that you felt the church was devoid of authority or priesthood.

I'm not implying that you're implying that. I just want to make it clear for anyone following the thread.

[TAO]

I'm not implying that you're implying that. I just want to make it clear for anyone following the thread.

Lol, I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about people in general.

Should have been more clear, sorry =P.

[Brade]

Lol, I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about people in general.

Should have been more clear, sorry =P.

I was responding to Jeff not you.

[TAO]

I was responding to Jeff not you.

Just checking, yah, I have a habit of making statements that others don't quite get lol, so I have to make sure.

[Avatar4321]

Wasn't very impressed with the article. It reeked of condescension and ark steadying. It also reeked of Corporation=evil, which is a bunch of bullcrap. There is nothing evil or inherently wrong with corporations.

I know some people are stunned by the revelation that people in the Church are human. But, it's been true since the beginning of the Church. We aren't Zion yet. The Foundations are still being laid.

I was also amused by how the article ignored pretty clear scriptures, such as the one mentioned earlier about making friends with mammon. Or the one where it says that those who follows God's law have no need to violate the laws of the land.

Needless to say, I would think it be wiser if we simply listened to the Lord and tried to fix the problems in our own life and let the Lord sort out the things in our leaders lives.

[Brade]

Or the one where it says that those who follows God's law have no need to violate the laws of the land.

If you think ignoring that scripture is amusing, then you ought to study the Reed Smoot trials.

[pcarthew]

Hmmm..this is the road to apostasy.

I would not say "road" but "super highway!"