Rise Of The Institutional Church -Mormon_ (OPEN)

Pure Mormonism ^ | October 31, 2010 | Alan Rock Waterman

[greyfoxx39]

Rise Of The Institutional Church

In 1961 Church headquarters announced a new program that it called “Correlation.” This new way of doing things was introduced in conference by apostle Harold B. Lee. It was described as a benefit, sold as a way to coordinate and unify all the various programs of the church.

What it ended up being was a stifling means of control, not only of individual wards, but also of many individual members. The policies of correlation took decades to fully implement, and most of us didn't even notice the subtle changes. Although it was begun during the administration of President David. O. Mckay, it has since been learned that President McKay neither implemented nor controlled the program, and on at least two occasions he expressed concerns about it privately. Still, the Correlation juggernaut continued on for the next four decades.

Correlation represented a gradual and subtle shift in the way the church came to be governed at all levels. What it resulted in was top-down control of the church and its members. Like the frog in the pot, few members really noticed what was happening to their church until it was fully cooked.

Even I don't remember the exact moment I realized the meaning of the word “church” had changed for me. But at some point, without realizing it, when I spoke of “the church,” I was no longer referring to the place I went on Sunday to worship; I was now subconsciously referencing a monolithic institution headquartered in Salt Lake City and controlled by an accordant group of men in dark suits.

Where previously friends and I might have perhaps wondered what the scriptures said about this question or that, now we found ourselves asking, “What has The Church said about it?” or “What is The Church's position on that?” We spoke as if “The Church” was, if not God himself, some commensurate entity that existed on its own, separate from the Creator, but somehow equal in authority to Him.

Gone by this time were the Roadshows, because the central authority couldn't trust us hippie teenagers not to write some funny bit into the script that someone might find inappropriate. Gone also were the fun church bazaars, rummage sales, and pancake breakfasts. With them went many of the extracurricular activities, other than scouting and some tightly controlled dances.

Gradually there was not much to do outside of Church on Sunday, and those meetings were crammed all together into three hours of stultifying boredom that was so unbearable that as soon as church was over no one felt like staying around to visit. After church you just wanted to get home. Since ward members no longer lingered, they didn't get to know each other well, and the sense of community in many wards began to weaken.

"The Church” whatever that used to mean, was now morphing into some kind of giant monolithic authority. “Church” no longer meant us, the aggregate community of believing Saints. The Church was now THE CHURCH.^TM  The Great I Am.

Bishops now tended to be chosen more for their administrative skills than for their deep knowledge of the gospel and love for others. It was no longer so important that such men knew how to shepherd the flock. What the Church^TM needs today is someone who can “run the ward.” We need managers. Go-getters. High achievers.

Daymon Smith quotes a department head relating an odd inversion of charity occurring on the local level throughout the church. Rather than fulfilling their chief duty of tending to the poor and needy, these bishops believe "that they're expected to keep expenditures as low as possible. There is a sense of pride among bishops and stake presidents who send fast offerings from their units to the general Church.”

The New Mormon Church

I may not have recognized the frog as it was boiling, but Dr. Smith gives us the exact date it finished cooking. January 1^st 1990 was the day the Church^TM dropped all pretenses.

From that day on, it was announced, all tithing monies collected from local congregations would be sent directly to Church headquarters, and the Church would then dispense a portion back to the wards. This was all sold as a more efficient way of running things. But it turned the traditional church of Christ on its head, requiring the members to send in their money to a corporate entity that was far removed from them and which became the sole judge on how contributions would be spent. Nothing about the doctrine of Common Consent was mentioned in the announcement.

President Hinckley and Elders Packer and Monson announced the news at a priesthood satellite broadcast. The details were sketchy, but the new program, said Monson, “eliminated the need for local units to raise budget money as their...expenses are now funded almost entirely from general Church funds.”

Now the Church would fund everything through a “ward budget” it dispensed, based in part on attendance at Sunday services.

"The Church?” Smith asks rhetorically. “Yes, the speakers were quite clear...They know by the Church they mean The Corporation.

You were not included in those decisions, because you are not a member of that Church^TM.

At best you are a subsidiary of the corporation. Like those Mormons promised as human collateral to the banks at the turn of the twentieth century, It is upon the promise of your future tithes that the corporation counts you as an asset. You are a resource, a cow to be milked when the bucket runs low.

Daymon Smith says that over a three year period, his ward sent Church^TM headquarters “a flat million in tithes.” 
 

"In return for their generosity,” says Smith, “members receive an annual return held in trust by the ward accountants. For my ward it was $7 a head, officially.”

What does the Church^TM do with all those billions? It “sends out materials (print, DVD, and so on), builds chapels, funds missionary efforts (partially)... and who knows what with the rest of the billions.”

"Rarely does your money feed the hungry, clothe the poor, or provide for other non-religious forms not published by the Church Office Building or sent forth from the COB.”

“By the time the money comes back from the COB, the Church has generously tithed to the needy from its multibillion dollar revenue stream something on the order of one percent, often in used, tattered clothing and rice and wheat and so on...For all its bluster and public relations about humanitarian aid, The Corporation, in other words doesn't follow its own rule of tithing.”

"I would not be surprised,” adds Smith, “if more was spent on PR than on those good works which are PR'd before men.”

In 1837 Joseph Smith taught that tithing meant a mere 2 percent of one's net worth, after debts were paid. That was back when we had a church. 

Somehow over time the corporation has convinced us that we should hand over to it 10 percent of everything before expenses, and some believe that includes money received as birthday gifts. Corporate spokesmen have even hinted from the pulpit recently that some of us should consider turning over 20 percent to them.

"When instituted by Joseph Smith in the 1830's," writes Smith, “tithing wrought a very small revenue stream, and it was designed to be small in order to prevent just the sort of dominating “Church” that now governs and patrols, steals the very name, and surveys and takes and gives what it believes best to congregations.”

"Mormons are warned from the pulpit not to rob God, so they send their money to the bishop. Aware of poorer congregations, and of starving Mormons on some god-forsaken land, locals tighten belts and send as much as possible to headquarters.”

"And it all disappears, then suddenly we are handed another pamphlet, another manual, built another chapel or temple, beamed another satellite broadcast. The rest of the money just sits in banks and investment portfolios reviewed by money managers in Salt Lake City, who see in growing numbers the Lord's General, Sacred Funds, and that means the Corporation's, and they its priestly stewards.”

"Many Mormons who attend chapels,” Smith continues, “are good, kind, and decent; many are not. Mormons in these wards are often willing to sacrifice for others, to help, and yet these desires are turned, collectively, too often by the corporate interests against the works of light.”

 

Buy This Book

I've barely touched on the information available in Daymon Smith's book, and I haven't mentioned the various ways in which the corporation's directors waste your money on expensive meals, cars, credit card accounts, and unbelievably generous salaries that they have chosen to dub “modest allowances” or “stipends.” The house that the current president of the corporation lives in is said to be valued at $2.1 million. He didn't buy that house with his own money.

You can hear several hours of interviews with Daymon Smith over at Mormon Stories Podcasts where he discusses the history of correlation, how the corporate Church^TM struggles to serve both God and Mammon, and more on the transformation from church of Christ to corporate hybrid.

You can find his doctoral dissertation here, and over at By Common Consent there is a nine part discussion with Smith on the history of correlation that starts here.

I can't stress the importance of these materials strongly enough. If you lack a knowledge of the changes wrought in the church through correlation and corporate influence, your understanding of Mormon history in the twentieth century is woefully incomplete and innacurate. It's as simple as that.

 

************************************************************************************************************************************

Author Alan Rock Waterman

Carmichael, California

"I've had a lifelong interest in what the early Latter-day Saints understood to be the "pure theology" of The Restoration, unfiltered by many of the common assumptions prevalent among a majority of modern Mormons today.

In Joseph Smith's time, a teaching was accepted as valid only if obtained through divine revelation from God. Today, much of what passes for doctrine among my fellow Saints appears to contain "the philosophies of men mingled with scripture."

I've been further intrigued by warnings of the falling away of the latter-day saints in our day as foretold in the Book of Mormon, and this blog was created as a forum for discussing some of the possible signs of that prophesied derailment."

Author Alan Rock Waterman

Carmichael, California

"I've had a lifelong interest in what the early Latter-day Saints understood to be the "pure theology" of The Restoration, unfiltered by many of the common assumptions prevalent among a majority of modern Mormons today.

In Joseph Smith's time, a teaching was accepted as valid only if obtained through divine revelation from God. Today, much of what passes for doctrine among my fellow Saints appears to contain "the philosophies of men mingled with scripture."

I've been further intrigued by warnings of the falling away of the latter-day saints in our day as foretold in the Book of Mormon, and this blog was created as a forum for discussing some of the possible signs of that prophesied derailment."

[greyfoxx39]

Disclaimer: I am former LDS and "anti" mormonism. I post articles from official mormon sources among others, that often relate to current discussions taking place on the forum to provide a means for open discussion in the Religion forum.

 

FROM THE RELIGION FORUM MODERATOR:

Open threads are a town square. Antagonism though not encouraged, should be expected

Posters may argue for or against beliefs of any kind. They may tear down other’s beliefs. They may ridicule.

On all threads, but particularly “open” threads, posters must never “make it personal.” Reading minds and attributing motives are forms of “making it personal.” Making a thread “about” another Freeper is “making it personal.”

When in doubt, review your use of the pronoun “you” before hitting “enter.”

Like the Smoky Backroom, the conversation may be offensive to some.

Thin-skinned posters will be booted from “open” threads because in the town square, they are the disrupters.

http://www.freerepublic.com/~religionmoderator/

 Thin-skinned (emotional, whiney or mercurial temper) posters are the disruptors on open threads.

 

[greyfoxx39]

Ping

[Zakeet]

In 1837 Joseph Smith taught that tithing meant a mere 2 percent of one's net worth, after debts were paid. That was back when we had a church.

The author is wrong!

In 1833, Rigdon and Smith instituted the United Order (i.e. communism) and decreed that it would remain unchanged until the Second Coming (D&C Sec.5 IRRC).

In 1837, Smith and Rigdon crashed the area economy in the Kirtland Safety Society Fiasco -- one of the most brazen counterfeiting and bank frauds in U.S. history, which contributed significantly to that year's financial panic and market crash.

In July 1838, while in a battle (literally according to Hubert Bancroft) to seize control of the Saints' financial resources Joseph killed the United Order and replaced it with the Law of Tithing. As far as I know, then and now, a tithe has always been 10 percent of a person's income.

[Alex Murphy]

At best you are a subsidiary of the corporation. Like those Mormons promised as human collateral to the banks at the turn of the twentieth century, It is upon the promise of your future tithes that the corporation counts you as an asset. You are a resource, a cow to be milked when the bucket runs low. Daymon Smith says that over a three year period, his ward sent ChurchTM headquarters “a flat million in tithes.” "In return for their generosity,” says Smith, “members receive an annual return held in trust by the ward accountants. For my ward it was $7 a head, officially.”

[Godzilla]

LOL

[Paragon Defender]

Seekers of truth,

If you peruse the Free Republic religion forums you will notice a pattern. There's an anti-Mormon group of people here that spends a great deal of their time attacking the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. They post regurgitated propaganda on an almost daily basis.

They have a misguided obsession. You can witness many different tactics employed that you might find quite interesting. The straw man argument is a big favorite and is frequently preceded by cherry-picking quotes or other material. After the "quotation" the attacker will misrepresent what has been said or what was meant and then attack their own interpretation.Later they will have the audacity to claim they were "only" quoting our own material.  

They will of course insist ad nauseum that they are merely using our sources and are therefore innocent of any deceptive practice. LDS persons have no issue whatsoever having our scriptures or leaders quoted as long as it is presented fairly and accurately. This is rarely (if ever) done.

Another favorite is posting scripture or statements which on their own really present no dilemma. They make something out of nothing while never bringing up a single objection that hasn't been addressed a hundred times before.

You might note a couple of other tactics used to try to antagonize is the use of disrespectful or insulting terms or language and/or pictures. That's a Christlike thing to do right? Yeah I don't think so either. It does speak volumes about them though.

Sometimes they cruise the headlines of the day seeking any story that might be twisted into making the Church look bad. Anything will do, just watch the progression of posts following it and see what I mean.

After reading their posts, I invite you to seek the truth about whatever "issue" they seem to be "revealing" or "exposing". I promise that if you do so with honest intent, the "ahah" moments you will have will be many and frequent. You will start to recognize the tactics employed to cleverly twist and attack and will likely chuckle the more you see. In actuality, there's nothing new here. It's all been addressed many times before.

The latest twist in the anti-Mormon propaganda machine is to actually go to the links provided, but then they cherry pick what they want, then quote and straw man attack that. Clever. It almost appears that they are helping you, the seeker of truth out by doing some footwork for you. Not so much. Don't be insulted, look for yourself. It's not the haystack they want you to think.

Here's a few links to get your started from a different viewpoint. I have found that the vast majority of the "issues" brought up can be found and addressed at http://www.fairlds.org/ but here's more:

http://scriptures.lds.org/
http://www.lds.org
http://www.fairlds.org/
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/
http://www.mormonwiki.com/Main_Page
http://www.lightplanet.com/response/index.html
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDS_Intro.shtml
http://www.answeringantimormons.com/index.htm
http://promormon.blogspot.com/

Now you will likely notice the "you never address our points" posts pop up as usual. All after providing the answers just as you have here.

Sometimes it is claimed that these sites present a needle in a haystack. Far from it. But if you give up before you try you won't know will you?

Will you wear blinders too? Seek truth. Find out for yourself. Want to chat with someone on any topic? A few of these sites provide just that. So do your homework sincere seeker of truth. Listen and read from both "sides". Make up your own mind.

I witness to you of these truths and wish you the best, in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Amen.

 

[Alex Murphy]

I have found that the vast majority of the "issues" brought up can be found and addressed at http://www.fairlds.org/....

FAIR has this disclaimer, albeit in tiny print, at the bottom of their main page:

FAIR is not owned, controlled by, or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of FAIR and should not be interpreted as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief, or practice.

[Elsie]

 

 

HI!

 

 My screen name is Paragon Defender; but you can call me PD (if you are SINCERE, that is.)

 

I provide TRUTH to ALL who would care to seek it (if they are REALLY sincere) and I do it OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER  again.

I am pleased to offer my services for the Betterment of Mankind.

Please feel free to ask me ANYTHING and I'll sincerely post my link list again.

Remember...

I am normal too; and I am a MORMON!

 

Sincerely,

PD

 

 

[Elsie]

 

 

HI!

 

I'm just an everyday sort of guy
I live in western Illinois, America's heartland
I'm basically a story writer, I love to be creative
Everybody likes a good yarn! Right?
When I was younger I bounced between jobs, gold digger, glass looker
But then I started writing and I knew I'd found my calling
I've written three books and I've developed a loyal following
Although my readers are very loyal they are a small group
So I've had to go deeper, better penetrate my marketplace
I started a small bank......that didn't go so well...for the depositors anyway he he he
I set up subscription fees, real estate investments and I even bought an Egyptian mummy.
I'm a real family guy, I think a man should take care of his women....woman I mean. I only have one wife...I'm completely normal in that way...you know....just having one wife...who is for sure way older than 14 years old.

My name is Joseph Smith Jr., and I'm a Mormon

 

 

 

http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon629.htm

[Elsie]

Heck; only TWO of those 'links' are Official!

[svcw]

Only two of the sites sighted by PD are official, which is really ironic since he goes apoplectic if when you (or a non lds) posts from non official lds yet fully documented sites.

[Elsie]

ironic

You spelled hypocritic wrong.

[caww]

If you lack a knowledge of the changes wrought in the church through correlation and corporate influence, your understanding of Mormon history in the twentieth century is woefully incomplete and innacurate. It's as simple as that.

Exactly...and most Mormons haven't a clue their 'church' is indeed a corporation....an organization wholly being funded by the people. To their loss.

When I first began looking at Mormonism it was quite apparent they are an international corporation with investments in real estate, and not just their temples, investments and a host of other business ventures bothe here in the states and on the world stage. Which is why I kept referring to them as an organization.

Every political organization/power knows it must find a resource for pumping revenues into it. People of faith are more times than not a "soft" touch and they know it. Cloak it in any type of faith or religion and you'll have an inflow of money. Pick one that has historical roots, no matter the nonesense , all the better. Give them a roll to play and ladder to climb for success and they'll keep the beast fed indefinately. Defections are planned for with recruiting techniques finally tuned to replace the outgoing. Tell them it's for God and it's all a slam dunk.

Interesting though...God is certainly using the internet to quelch the "faith" people are putting in their church or organization as people become more and more informed...So when God says not to put ones faith in any man He ment it.

I just think God is detaching the faithful from the ties that bind in all areas of life these days. He is preparing us to keep our trust in Him and Him alone as times continue to esculate out of mans control...world wide. He knows when and what is coming...

[Elsie]

Exactly...and most Mormons haven't a clue their 'church' is indeed a corporation ....an organization wholly being funded by the people.

[Elsie]

He is preparing us to keep our trust in Him and Him alone as times continue to esculate out of mans control...world wide.

AMEN!

 

 

John 6:28-29 

Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"

Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

[greyfoxx39]

Don’t bother pinging me to your spam posts...they aren’t improving with time.

[svcw]

More like this over time:

[T Minus Four]

"I would not be surprised,” adds Smith, “if more was spent on PR than on those good works which are PR'd before men.”

[T Minus Four]

"Even I don't remember the exact moment I realized the meaning of the word “church” had changed for me. But at some point, without realizing it, when I spoke of “the church,” I was no longer referring to the place I went on Sunday to worship; I was now subconsciously referencing a monolithic institution headquartered in Salt Lake City and controlled by an accordant group of men in dark suits"