Are Religions just businesses in disguise?

[_richardMdBorn]

I know a few businesses that are just religions in disguise.

Good point!

[_Runtu]

Let me clarify that I don't believe the GAs are "in it for the money." They'd have to be crazy to do that, as there isn't much money to be made by the leadership, for the most part. I think most of them are believers, but then most of the folks I've seen who have "made it up the ladder" are not really the gonzo types (as Sethbag said) but have organizational or financial skills that the church needs. In short, the church is in the business of self-preservation, which it does through growth and income, hence the obsession with reporting mechanisms and tight control of procedures and expenses.

[_dartagnan]

The Church does in fact use a typical business model, but it is interesting how many people think businesses borrow "inspired" methods from the LDS Church. Missionaries and return missionaries alike have told me that other organizations borrow from the Church, methods that have been proven effective. I guess this is their way of dealing with the overwhelming similarities between LDS and other business methods.

After all, is the Church led by divine revelation or an aggressive marketing dept? The latter is unthinkable, so it must be the case that other organizations are ripping off our divinely inspired methods. From the BRT model in the missionary discussions to tear-jerking commercials, it all began with the first presidency at some point.

You see, that was the spirit making people cry while watching LDS commercials; it has nothing to do with the brainchild of LDS marketing experts. Those LDS videos the missionaries show to investigators, like "On the Way Home,"... it blew us away when we found out some of them were not LDS actors. The Church paid professional actors, like the captain from "C.H.I.P's," to cry and pretend he was overwhelmed by the LDS missionary presentation. Those "experiences" by the various couple in the "Our Heavenly Father's Plan" video, were also conjured up and acted out by professional actors. If genuine testimonies from real converts are good enough for the general membership every first sunday of the month, then why not throw a few of them on the videos?

I have even been told that the MTC is evidence of the truthfulness of the Gospel because missionaries learn languages so quickly. I was told that the CIA sends its agents to the MTC because it is such a great facility to learn foreign languages, but that they take longer to learn the languages because they don't have the spirit! Let's face it guys, I have been to the MTC, and missionaries do NOT learn the languages there. They walk away with not even a working knowledge of the language. This is just more myth.

What took the cake for me was when I found out the circumstances around the 1978 lifting of the priesthood ban. The Church was trying to expand throughout the world in areas where avoiding negro bloodline would be virtually impossible. Brazilians for example, could not justify paying tithing to build temples that they could not attend. The church then went into business mode and decided divine revelation must take the back seat. But they couldn't just do it like that because the membership has been conditioned to view revelation as the ultimate authority. So in a stroke of genius, Brigham Young's previous revelation was overruled, and it was another "continuing revelation" that overturned it.

[_Runtu]

What took the cake for me was when I found out the circumstances around the 1978 lifting of the priesthood ban. The Church was trying to expand throughout the world in areas where avoiding negro bloodline would be virtually impossible. Brazilians for example, could not justify paying tithing to build temples that they could not attend. The church then went into business mode and decided divine revelation must take the back seat. But they couldn't just do it like that because the membership has been conditioned to view revelation as the ultimate authority. So in a stroke of genius, Brigham Young's previous revelation was overruled, and it was another "continuing revelation" that overturned it.

Yep, people would be shocked to find out just how little inspiration and revelation are involved. An example: About 15 years ago, the director of the priesthood department, Hoyt Brewster, came up with the idea of republishing "For the Strength of Youth." Like any business proposal, it went through various committees and was eventually approved and published. Within a week of its publication, I heard my bishop tell our young men that he had it on good authority that President Monson had written the entire thing over a weekend after some intense prayer.

And in your example, a common-sense change of policy becomes a worldwide revelation.

[_The Nehor]

What took the cake for me was when I found out the circumstances around the 1978 lifting of the priesthood ban. The Church was trying to expand throughout the world in areas where avoiding negro bloodline would be virtually impossible. Brazilians for example, could not justify paying tithing to build temples that they could not attend. The church then went into business mode and decided divine revelation must take the back seat. But they couldn't just do it like that because the membership has been conditioned to view revelation as the ultimate authority. So in a stroke of genius, Brigham Young's previous revelation was overruled, and it was another "continuing revelation" that overturned it.

Then why went it made sense and President McKay wanted to overturn it did he not back in 1954? If anyone was interested in a worldwide Church he was. He talked about it quite a bit.

[_Runtu]

Then why went it made sense and President McKay wanted to overturn it did he not back in 1954? If anyone was interested in a worldwide Church he was. He talked about it quite a bit.

I suspect McKay would have if he'd had the support of the Twelve. He didn't. As late as 1969, a proposed removal of "the ban" was rejected, largely because of Lee's and Petersen's opposition.

[_dartagnan]

To go against Brigham Young or to overturn a previously enshrined revelation is not a task I would want to be responsible for. There is too much risk involved. But in the late 70's the benefits were worth the risk, especially in the wake of the civil rights movement. It took little foresight to realize the LDS faith would be rejected as a racist Curch in the upcoming decades. In the 1950's it really wasn't that big a deal to deny blacks anything, let alone priesthood. By the late 70's it was the epitome of political incorrectness.

In any event, it is clear that this "revelation" was not some out of the blue decision by God. It was a serious, path-changing problem the first Presidency had to tackle if it wanted to keep the Church alive and growing. The surrounding social circumstances throughout the world influenced the decision to remove the ban. Calling it revelation seems ad hoc.

[_Runtu]

To go against Brigham Young or to overturn a previously enshrined revelation is not a task I would want to be responsible for. There is too much risk involved. But in the late 70's the benefits were worth the risk, especially in the wake of the civil rights movement. It took little foresight to realize the LDS faith would be rejected as a racist Curch in the upcoming decades. In the 1950's it really wasn't that big a deal to deny blacks anything, let alone priesthood. By the late 70's it was the epitome of political incorrectness.

In any event, it is clear that this "revelation" was not some out of the blue decision by God. It was a serious, path-changing problem the first Presidency had to tackle if it wanted to keep the Church alive and growing. The surrounding social circumstances throughout the world influenced the decision to remove the ban. Calling it revelation seems ad hoc.

Interesting, isn't it, how people say that the church's not overturning the ban during the 50s or 60s and instead waiting until much later, when the Brazil situation forced its hand, is evidence of divine revelation.

One of Mormonism's greatest strengths is the ability to wrap every act, even the most pedestrian, in a shroud of mysticism.

[_The Nehor]

Then why went it made sense and President McKay wanted to overturn it did he not back in 1954? If anyone was interested in a worldwide Church he was. He talked about it quite a bit.

I suspect McKay would have if he'd had the support of the Twelve. He didn't. As late as 1969, a proposed removal of "the ban" was rejected, largely because of Lee's and Petersen's opposition.

I don't doubt McKay could force it through if he really thought God wanted him to. Lee was obviously not too anti- as later on Pres. Lee spent three days fasting and praying about the issue.

[_Runtu]

I don't doubt McKay could force it through if he really thought God wanted him to. Lee was obviously not too anti- as later on Pres. Lee spent three days fasting and praying about the issue.

Based on my interactions with the Twelve, I doubt anyone could "force" anything. On every decision I had any connection to, the goal was consensus. I saw several well-received proposals either rejected or watered down severely because one or two members did not agree.

And for the record, I'm not saying Lee was a racist, just that he opposed the change in 1969. I agree with dart that the change happened because circumstances made it necessary.

As for whether they believe "God wants them" to do anything, I wouldn't know.