Follow us @WheatnTweet!
Brigham Young, Emma Smith and the “corporate church”
By: Stephen MarshBottom line: a corporate church is sometimes a much better idea than it looks on first criticism. I know, there is a lot of discussion about the “corporate church” and how that is a bad thing.
Except, well, except in many ways it is not.
In law school when we went over the legal issues in my Trusts class. Dallin Oaks who was teaching the class, was a strong proponent for approaching Emma Smith with more love and understanding than many had in the past. The issues are complicated, regardless of how often people try to make the simple black and white without shades of gray (or grey).
Brigham Young saw the property as something to help finance the exodus and avoid the handcart companies. Emma, who had mostly lived a life of hardship and loss, saw the property as (a) hers by law [everything over the maximum amount of property was the property of the trustee holding the property on his death, by law), (b) a poor compensation for the loss of her husband, the deaths of children and the hardship she had sufferred and (c) not very much.
The entire mess was the result of not having a corporate church and not having enough lawyers. That created entanglements between Joseph Smith’s property and that of the church.
Hampered by a shortage of lawyers, over time, Brigham Young ended up in many of the same types of entanglements. To quote a quote about Brigham Young:
“It was finally determined that his estate was worth approximately $1,626,000, but obligations of more than a million dollars to the Church plus other debts and executor’s fees reduced the family’s claim to $224,000. When seven of his dissatisfied heirs challenged this settlement, however, that matter was settled out of court and the Church agreed to give the heirs an additional $75,000.” (The Story of the Latter-day Saints, by James Allen and Glen Leonard, second ed. 1992, Deseret Book, p.385).
Was it, in some ways, hard to tell where Brigham Young’s estate left off and the property of the church began? Obviously, to the tune of $75,000.00 in settlement after litigation broke out.
That is still a lot of entanglement, though it was, apparently, easier to untangle (or at least generated less ill will) that the first round of entanglements between Emma and Brigham. Following that the “corporate church” as a seperate entity evolved.
Is that problem with us now, when we have a corporate entity for the church? It has not been for quite some time. Would it have prevented the complications between Emma and Brigham? Probably not all of them, but it has worked very well since.
You can compare those early problems with what happened with Spencer W. Kimball, David O. McKay or Gordon B. Hinckley. Their estates were modest, and appear to have passed without much issue or entanglement.
The difference is the status of the church as a separate legal entity with a separate legal existence.
Thus John Taylor’s estate would be quite a bit less than Brigham Young’s and there were virtually no entanglement issues, since the corporate entity of the Church and the trustee in trust system had been more fully developed by then.
Everyone who comments on the “corporate church” says it is a bad thing. But seriously,would we rather have the Church hold all of its assets or that the leaders personally maintain them and pass them on at death? Is it better for a temple to have an, err, private doctrine on women’s access during certain times of the month or for there to be a clear, direct and relatively quick way to solve such an issue?
What do you think?
I think you are mis-defining or otherwise not correctly understanding the way the term ‘corporate church’ is used as a pejorative most of the time. I don’t know that the issue is about its corporate organization or the legal intricacies of the corporation. The rub is when the behavior on less corporate matters is more reflective of a corporate culture than a church, or perhaps more appropriately compared to what one would like to think of as a humanitarian or charitable organization. It becomes a negative term when we talk of building malls and donating millions to law schools here in the state while people continue to go hungry around the globe. It feels heavy like a big company when flexibility is sacrificed for the sake of homogeneity and “message”. It smells bad when it’s corporate weight it thrown around the halls of the state capital. I feels icky when it’s about shell games with tithing, tax exemptions, classification of missionaries as employees, etc.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
24
I’ve wondered this myself. The corporate nature of the church affords it the same strengths that a corporation enjoys, among them: common vision, reduced cost of entry, replicability, uniformity, smooth channels of communication, and a reproducible book of SOPs, as it were.
The Church also suffers from some of the same issues that corporations do, unfortunately.
I’ve argued in the past that corporateness may be a necessary stage in the development of the gospel timeline, precisely because of the aforementioned strengths, and possibly because worldwide reach may be more important than some of the things we’ve lost along the way. I don’t know, but it seems like the stability we have now as opposed to 150 years ago works well for our culture.
Controversial! What do you think?
3
Thanks for sharing perspectives
Like this comment?
2
I think that the original tension between Brigham Young, et al, and Emma Smith resulted less from a clear, legal way to divide the late Prophet’s assets, and more from the relative destitution of both parties.
Today’s Church leaders are comfortably compensated, and many are already independently wealthy. Neither of these was the case in Nauvoo, a situation compounded by the city’s depressed real estate market and the Church’s scant holdings.
I imagine that were the Smith’s not directly dependent on the Church for their livelihood and were Brigham to have a way to quickly liquidate a wealthy Church’s assets, both parties would have been able to part much more amicably, even absent a strong corporate organization.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
6
Great post, Stephen.
Like this comment?
3
james — I should note that I took out an afterword about the mall, to not sidetrack things, and I appreciate that you object to the law school on the general theme that the law school does not generate enough over all good for the structural church to make up for what it costs.
But, the Sierra Club actually gave the mall praise, and when I was at the law school it ran at a net profit for the institution, even then.
So, cutting the law school, as you suggest, would mean less money available over all. Cutting of your nose to spite your face.
The mall, well, most of the criticism is extremely uniformed, though it is entertaining.
Bonnie — I think the problem is that “corporate” = “administrated” and without that you get chaos and other problems. Kind of like people who do not have boundaries.
I note someone gave you a “dislike” that does not seem to have any foundation, which is somewhat what you can expect from many discussions about what you have to trade off if you have boundaries and stability.
But the “corporate church” is an exercise in boundaries, from keeping the estates of leaders separate from that of the Church to establishing identity.
All – many of the discussions I have seen attacking the “corporate church” are like those that attack programs for the arts because if you cancelled all public spending on art and education you could put it into healthcare for the poor …
But there is a place for art and there is a place for teaching children and investing for the future and while resources are not infinite, that does not mean we knock down all the forests and turn them into firewood.
Like this comment?
2
ethie –excellent points.
Like this comment?
2
Yes, Stephen, there is a trade-off. I wonder sometimes, however, if there isn’t a better way to negotiate those necessary tensions between opposites to create an ultimate harmony. How would we structure a church entity so that it retained all the benefits of corporateness and all the life of independent, small, lithe, creative enterprises. Microsoft attempts by spinning off independent units, and the church has done that with IT. Is it possible to do that with stakes? I wonder if that isn’t the intent, although in our implementation it sometimes goes awry. I know your OP spoke more of the legal aspects of corporateness, but when I hear it it’s more often a reference (pejorative, as James notes) to the culture. What could we do about that?
Like this comment?
3
I think that this really oversimplifies the issues between Emma and Brigham. My recollection is that Brigham rushed back to Nauvoo after hearing of Joseph’s death, but didn’t visit Emma to pay respects for six weeks. There was also the issue of polygamy and Brigham and Heber C Kimball marrying many of the women that Joseph had been sealed to. The situation was thoroughly bungled in a way that adding more lawyers was unlikely to have helped.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
7
John, I think we agree that “The issues are complicated, regardless of how often people try to make the simple black and white without shades of gray”
As to lawyers, other than the humor, I was thinking of them frontloaded, not rearloaded. Planning things out in advance rather than used to create differences in the messes after the fact.
Rearloading on lawyers is often rather problematic and not as good a source of humor than frontloading legal planning.
Like this comment?
2
I’m currently at the other end of an internet connection that has been buggy and often slower than dial up. I may not be able to interact with this topic for a while, but, again, appreciate everyone’s comments.
Like this comment?
1
I think the issue between Emma and Brigham Young was about more than just money, and I see both sides. There was church property and the money was needed to migrate West.
At the same time, Emma was lied to by Joseph about polygamy in many occasions, with the tacit collusion of other Church leaders who knew what was really going on. She had no other income other than what people gave Joseph and their family for support for her entire marriage. She could rightfully argue that Joseph’s successor should come from his heirs, as that wasn’t settled either. So, I think it was about much more than just money.
In the current climate, I think there are 2 ways “corporate” is used with regards to the Church. In the sense you describe in this post, it is a legal entity used to separate accounts, claims, etc. This is common and perfectly fine. Essentially all non-profit organizations also do this for legal and financial reasons, to avoid the situation described above.
The second form of “corporate” is a “company designed to make a profit”, and the Church does this as well. This is the problem most people have when they talk about the “corporate Church”. We have private for-profit hunting reserves run my missionaries volunteering their time. We have commercial real estate, hotels, and land. We build multi-billion dollar malls. And this is the form of “corporate” that causes problems for a non-profit organization.
The biggest problem with the Church with regard to this is its secretive nature. It is a “non-profit” “corporation” which also apparently makes billions of dollars in profits, or at least enough to build multi-billion dollar malls without using any “donations” but, as they claim, just through proceeds from prior business investments. This makes many people uncomfortable, and it has nothing to do with the Church’s “corporate” status.
The non-profit “corporations” to which people are most comfortable donating are completely transparent with their finances. They show how the money is being used. People may or may not agree with how the money is used, but the information is out there. Additionally, most non-profit organizations don’t have a “for-profit” arm that builds billion dollar malls, etc.
With regards to the Church, we are told “Trust us”. Perhaps that makes sense as we trust our church leaders, but if there were any other non-profit organization in the country running things the same way, it would raise at least a few red flags.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
20
Well said, Mike S. You made my points without the distracting elements of my examples which I agree, Stephen, cause a lack of focus.
Like this comment?
1
this post is misguided. people don’t object to the church being a corporation, that is a legal necessity. They object to the church putting corporate values ahead of christian values.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
17
Mike S.
You hit the nail on the head. Great comments.
Why can’t the Church be more open with its finances? What have they go to lose by being more transparent?
Also I think it is somewhat misleading when the Church states that they fund their “for profit” businesses from the proceeds from prior business investments. That may be true today, but at some point in the past the original investments would have been funded by tithing to some extent.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
4
#14: Wow,
I agree. There is nothing about the COB in our study of things. No pondering, no reading of the canon, no sermons___but there it stands__that big tall building, so real.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
4
Bob,
Do you mean the COB is sort of a great and spacious building?
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
4
#17:remlap,
No. But sometimes I worry about the tail wagging the dog :)
Like this comment?
1
Technically speaking, the LDS church is not a corporation, and hasn’t been since the days of polygamy persecutions. The corporation was dissolved by Congress due to anti-polygamy sentiment. Since that time, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has legally been a “religious organization.” It is not incorporated. Rather, several different corporations exist under its control, such as the Corporation of the President, Intellectual Reserve Inc., and several landholding/development corporations.
Like this comment?
1
The problem isn’t how the church is legally organized, but how the church organization acts.
“Men must learn that in presiding over the Church we are dealing with human hearts, that individual rights are sacred, and the human soul is tender. We cannot run the Church like a business.”- David O McKay
People shouldn’t be treated with the cold calculus of a business decision. You can’t assign people friends as a corporation would run a business projects. You have to deal with people as not as a business calculation. Our ward now just emails all the elders in the quorum their assigned day to clean the church toilets. No asking if that works for them. They take volunteer work for granted. They don’t view it as volunteer work. They view it as an employer/employee relationship. It isn’t a request, it is an expectation.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
9
remlap #15
My understanding is that at least one reason (among many) why the Church closely guards its financial details is to protect its assets during court proceedings.
Numerous civil suits have been filed the past few years against the Church for sexual abuse perpetrated by lay leaders. The Church usually settles these claims before it is found liable for damages, because it would have to disclose its net worth during that stage of proceedings. I remember a case in Oregon a few years ago where the judge had ordered the Church to disclose its assets so that the court could determine damages. I believe that this action prompted the Church to settle out of court.
I assume that Church leaders feel that were the Church’s massive net worth public record it would find itself in court more often answering both legitimate and frivolous claimants.
Like this comment?
1
#20 anonlds said, “No asking if that works for them. They take volunteer work for granted. They don’t view it as volunteer work. They view it as an employer/employee relationship. It isn’t a request, it is an expectation.”
In a ward I lived in, there was a ward garden and the person in charge of recruiting volunteers told people when they were going to help. There was no asking; there were only assignments. Needless to say, the people rebelled and the garden was a flop.
#21 ethie,
That behavior shows me that they are terrified of anyone finding out their assets; it does not show me that they don’t want people suing them for more and more money. They will do anything to avoid disclosing the truth, even pay off people who try to take them to court. It really causes me to wonder just what is it they have to hide? What are they doing with the funds? Why are they too afraid to be honest with us, the people who are the base for their income.
Like this comment?
4
Stephan,
I would love a clear explanation of the exact legal status of the church. I understand it is complicated and it would be appreciated by many.
I to think that this is more a question of values and practice than it is of legal structure. It is tied up in Harold B. Lee’s correlation and the explicit effort to use the tools of corporate management to help scale the church. There is actually much to recommend this approach. It is good at efficiency etc. However, I think many and I would include myself among them worry that as one person said here “the tail is wagging the dog”. These corporate logics have a way of surplanting religious logics. The corporate logics have succeeded in making the church financially stable and prosperous which is better than teetering on the edge of bankruptcy as it had in the past. However, we are foolish if we don’t recognize that this strength comes with strong temptations. It is so easy, oh so easy, to begin serving Mammon, even without realizing it. Yet God says we can’t service him and Mammon at the same time.
So my question is, “What checks are in place to help the institution guard against serving Mammon?” I have no problem with using the correct legal entities to set up the church. What I am having an increasingly hard time with is the lack of transparency regarding how it uses and manages its money and assets. Other churches, large churches, have good, transparent governance structures. This helps not only keep credibility in the eyes of their members but it also I think helps the leadership guard against their own natural and corporate man. Just the sheer act of having to publicly justify the basic resource flows is an act that staves of so much trouble. When opacity and large amounts of money mix there is eventually bound to be trouble! Why not guard against this? I feel that as a tithe paying member that I actually have the right to know how my tithing is used. As a donating member I feel I should have the right to transparency on how the donations are used. Now I don’t particularly believe the church has anything to hide, but that begs the question why hide it? Because transparency is inconvenient? If we keep being opaque I predict the day will come when we will unfortunately have something to hide. I don’t want that for my church.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
6
RAH — which churches? Greek Orthodox, Catholic?
For the longest time the Church was very close to a no net. Spending everything that came in. Surpluses were very small and transitory.
That has changed. However, no matter what they do results in criticism. Silence creates fewer hostile attacks than anything else.
But you can look at the attacks on the church over the mall, over building a law school, etc. the threads on the mall, alone have been almost legendary in scope. Not to mention the people who claim the right to complain, second guess and dictate over ever element of every dollar.
On the other hand, prosperity created problems of its own. That it has lasted more than five or six years creates potential issues.
Should be interesting to see what happens.
But the level of criticism and hostility that details about the mall created pretty much tells me that silence is likely in the future.
Like this comment?
4
#24:Stephen M ( ethesis),
I would say, in today’s modern computer database mining world, “You can run, but you can’t hide”. I don’t think silence will hold up as a firewall(?)
Like this comment?
1
I am surprised that no one has brought up the new version of the donation slip. You know, the one you submit with your donations, detailing where you want the money to go, such as toward humanitarian aid or the PEF. The new version states that all funds become the property of the Church and may be used in whatever manner they want. Yes, I paraphrased, and I am quite sure they paid a law firm to word it in formal legalese, but that’s what the fine print on the bottom of the new form means.
Like this comment?
1
It appears my responses have been swallowed. Do not know if the filter got them or just a very bad Internet connection.
Like this comment?
1
#24:Stephen M ( ethesis),
I would say, in today’s modern computer database mining world, “You can run, but you can’t hide”. I don’t think silence will hold up as a firewall(?)
Without a lot of hacking …
Otherwise, there is the yearly edition of an Arizona newspaper that reports on the Church.
Still, I would like to see more clarity and knowledge.
Corporate style reports would be nice. ;)
Like this comment?
2
Just curious. What would ($224,000 + $75,000) in dollars at the time of Brigham’s death amount to in 2012 dollars? That does seem like a pretty fair amount of personal wealth after you escalate it over more than a century.
Like this comment?
2
[1877] $299,000 = [2010] ~$6,046,702.07
via http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi
Like this comment?
2
Jon has it pretty much right. I originally had a lot more analysis of Brigham Young’s net worth in the essay, which I edited out.
There are those who claim he was wealthier than George Sorros, and those who claim he was like the guy down the street. Closer in value to the “Millionaire next door” (the ones analyzed in the book of the same name) than other things.
The whole issue of what a dollar was worth in the past is an interesting one.
How many televisions could he have bought? Not many. How many days pay of a typical laboring man was he worth? A lot more.
But Jon’s number is a pretty solid one, once you drill down to what the dollars meant and what could be done with them.
Like this comment?
1
True, so in perspective:
Average income for family:
[1877] ~$738 = [2010] ~$14,924.64
(which would purchase a family food, clothes, heating, with ~$44 left over according to:
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=141
Average wage for American family in 2010:
~$41,673.83
We truly live like kings in multiple ways, food is cheaper, heating is cheaper, clothes are cheaper and, relatively speaking, we are much wealthier.
Regardless, Brigham was a wealthy man. Power buys wealth in the old days just like it does today. Things don’t change. Also, the more money one has the easier it is to make more money (if you’re smart enough not to get it stolen from you).
Like this comment?
1
Thanks Jon. The relative change
is interesting as well. I think we are often not as aware of how much better life is in some ways.
Like this comment?
1
These discussions about “two different definitions” of corporate (the legal and the interpersonal) leads me to wonder if there is an inevitable correlation between the two. Actually, come to think of it, it’s the correlation in the church and not the incorporation, that drives the top down cookie cutter organization of human hearts that rankles. Yet being correlated also has benefits. I tend to think we have to fight the business-like aspects at every turn because human nature and history tell us they always creep back in. Calling it out is a healthy reminder IMO.
Like this comment?
1
hawkgrrrl, wasn’t that one of things that Jesus was fighting against? You read a lot in the D&C about the underlings not being able to tell the leaders what to do, isn’t that what Jesus did? John the Baptist just went and started his own church, just like Alma the elder, right. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Like this comment?
1
Jon – exactly!
Like this comment?
0
A corporate form offers advantages in separation between leaders and the institution.
In addition, in things like correcting local practices (such as when some temples started barring women from doing baptisms for the dead during their time of the month), it offers strong advantages.
Most critics of the Church constantly harp on how they want more of the advantages in motion (e.g.: not only should you disapprove of “x” — you should take extra steps).
At the same time, I remember a general authority stating that if Nephi had a copy of the handbook of instructions and correlation, then …
One of the reasons behind not promulgating the handbook earlier has been to allow for more flexibility.
The problem is that the features that rankle are the features that also benefit.
For example, in traveling, I can pretty much count on the same Sunday School material being covered wherever I go. That is a benefit to me. Yet it rankles some people that there is not more flexibility.
You can read, constantly, in the Bloggernacle about how people are not happy with various philosophies of men being taught in classes. The same people are often not happy when they hear at conference at how we ought to follow the manuals and avoid the philosophies of men (though philosophies of women seem ok) in class.
Or take the mall. From the Wall Street Journal analysis, we know it is more of a 400 million dollar project than a five billion dollar one.
The developer put in 70 million in cash. The Church put in land. Others invested or committed cash.
So, Bob, what did the Bloggernacle conclude from its datamining? I’m pretty sure they did not even get to the Wall Street Journal analysis, just lots of screeching about how the Church surely miss-spent four or five billion dollars they should have spent on
…. (see various wish lists, etc.) …
Jon — Jesus was not an underling, unless I grossly misunderstand the place of the son of God in things.
Anyway, hope that responds to the tension I see.
On the one hand, structure provides a number of benefits. On the other hand, it does lead to a reduction in flexibility.
But the benefits are huge. Kind of like the benefit each of us has by having a skeleton.
Like this comment?
1
Stephen,
But Jesus was an underling in the society he lived in. He was not part of the hierarchy. He was “just the carpenter’s son.” He fought against he hierarchy by reproving them over and over again for false practices, kind of a theme in the gospels.
Like this comment?
1