Working on a rough draft

Changes.

Introduction

There have been four changes in the Church in the last fifty years that seem to have altered the shape of the modern church and its direction.  They are:

1. A move from the Church as a single tribe "the blood of Israel" or a large family to a collection of super families or affiliated tribal groups.
2. A move from blue collar ethos to white collar professional standards (with a change in image and expenditures that make sense to white collar professionals and that alienate blue collar members).
3. A loss of Church centered social organizations and programs -- so that if your family organization or tribe does not provide them, the Church offers no social connection for you (which also works to drive members who are not part of a tribe away from the Church).
4. A move from being mostly Democrats to mostly Republican.

The Blood of Israel

In the 1960s and 1970s, as Dr. Shipps has noted, the Church acted like an ethnic group or tribe you could join rather than be born into. Every where you went you had people who treated you and acted like extended family.  They shared culture and background and, honestly, often generational roots and ethnic heritage.

Now it is much more important to be part of a large family in the Church.  People are often told that as converts they are not really suitable as marriage candidates.  General authorities as a class come from a group of elite family groups.

Many Church employees and Church related businesses (e.g. Temple Clothing, etc.) are tied into the kinship groups.  In many places (though not all) the Church is not so much one extended family as a collection of tribes or clans with outliers no longer able to join just by joining the Church.

The Blue Collar Divide

The Church also had a working class, blue collar ethos and was proud of it. Under David O. McKay, with the financial issues, general authorities served a great financial sacrifice. The Church presented as being run by a lay clergy and volunteers and the lack of compensation and frugality was part of the ethos and public presentation of the Church.

People could drive by President Kimball's small plaster house. It looked like a 1200 square foot three bedroom, one car garage home.

Now, the image of the Church is tied to that of white collar professionals -- successful white collar professionals.  We look at Romney and Cannon for our role models.  

Mission Presidents are expected to present as successful professionals.  Mission homes are residences suitable for professionals to live in (and, honestly, testing has shown that presenting to the public this way has a positive impact on missionary work).  They have allowances for decoration to both improve the presentation and to give comfort to the families living in them.

Loss of Community

It used to be that a "Mormon Church" was a community center.  A common by-word was that you could tell the LDS chapel because it was in constant use every night of the week.  Members expected the road shows and dance festivals and athletic leagues and steady dinners and other activities to provide a community core that embraced them.

That has ceased.  Social needs are no longer expected to be met by the Church (with the goal that members by going out into the community will bring the community back to the Church).

Thus rather than the Church being a community -- one that met social and emotional needs -- it has gone to a Church that serves a basic, simplified ration of religious training, and encourages the members to find service opportunities on their own.  To find social opportunities on their own.  To study and learn the gospel on their own.

Political Change

David O. McKay and his sons were all Democrats.  Utah governors were always Democrats.  That has really changed.  The Church has gone from a more liberal Church in many ways to one that is more conservative politically.

Taken Together

The changes can be seen in many places. Rather than general authorities flying coach (as they did in an era when there were no frequent flyer miles at all), they now fly enough that they generally get free upgrades for all their flights (like just about any professional who flies a lot). No one is surprised to see them in first class.

Rather than staying in member's homes and eating with them, they stay at hotels and buy meals (and are much healthier in spite of being older -- this has been a major health improvement for general authorities). Not only do they stay at hotels, they stay at hotels that have the marker "white collar successful" and they dress not as "blue collar, Sunday go to meeting clothes" but as "successful white collar professional dress."

White collar members take pride in this.  Many blue collar members are alienated by this change. 

Church families are broken down into groups of extended kinship groups (which often works to exclude those who do not have large families). That is also reflected in who is called as a general authority and who serves on the general boards of the Church. It impacts who interacts with general authorities (as they no longer stay in homes and have a social circle created by family and friends, not their local ward).

Inclusive social events like road shows, relief society dinners, dance festival and the like are all distant memories (and now the domain of Mega Churches) -- making the extended tribes even more important.  More and more people who leave the Church do so without any social ties to bring them back.

Counter Forces

There are counter forces. The new service to refugees under the direction of the Relief Society may well grow into something serious. Like the Pope, the LDS Church is now seen as successful enough that voluntary financial restraint by leaders may well become a marker for service and sacrifice that will not alienate the target group the Church is aligned with.  In fact, a move towards austerity may well be the sort of thing that creates a positive image.

Instead of staying at Motel 6 being seen as proof of failure, it edges on becoming a marker of humility and proof of the humanity of leaders.

While there does not seem to be an inclusiveness in leadership (to the extent that there has been too much in the way of judgmental scorn heaped on some people over their appearance), that may change as well.

But

All of these shifts mark changes that are slowly spreading out from the center. In parts of the world where the church is inclusive and brings everyone in, with charity and kindness it is still an extended family much like an ethnic group and not devolved into tribalism. In places where it is becoming a playground for quasi-elites (people who want a better quality of member and who socially exclude those who are too poor or otherwise socially lacking), there is a lot of exclusion -- and the church is shedding half of its members or more because that many are rejected. (Pro tip.  50% of any group will be in the bottom half).

In similar fashion, because historically when the Church has mission presidents who share the local poverty, missionary success falls and when the mission presidents present as white collar professionals, missionary success increases there are changes which are reflected in the stipends and the allowances for things such as clothing and decorating and cars that create a gap with many who do not share a white collar professional ethos. The Church's image has improved enough that it may well be able to endure a more fiscally conservative approach (or it may not -- I don't know).

Bottom Line

Those elements all reflect the changes that have come over the Church in the last 40-50 years:

1. A move from one large family to affiliated super family, clan or tribal groups.
2. A move from blue collar ethos to white collar professional standards (with a change in expenditures that make sense to white collar professionals and that alienate blue collar members).
3. A loss of social organizations and programs -- so that if your family organization or tribe does not provide them, the Church offers no social connection for you (which also works to drive members who are not part of a tribe away from the Church).
4. A change in the political flavor of the prevalent members of the Church.

Those are the changes the Church has undergone. Who knows which changes it will face in the future.

The big question

• What do you think?
• What have I missed?
• Where do you think the Church will go in the next 30-40 or even 50 years?

---

And, what do you think I can do to make this rough draft better?