So, what is the nature of the LDS Church system? It is organized legally as an “unincorporated religious association” under the laws of the State of Utah, holding several subsidiary corporations which perform various essential functions of the organization (such as money-processing,¹ intellectual-property-holding, real-property-holding,² for-profit business, etc.).

The Church’s legal status, like that of corporations, partnerships, and other business organizations, is founded on what is traditionally called a “legal fiction” in which the law considers it to be a living entity–a person–who can act and interact with other legally recognized “people” (both natural living humans and other business entities). Individual humans undertake roles within the Church organization, and the actions they take within those roles are taken on behalf of the organization, and are considered legally to be the actions of the organization, not the individual (with a few exceptions for certain crimes, etc.). Thus, while acting within their role, the individuals operating the Church are generally free to worry about the legal rights and obligations of the Church, without worrying about themselves.

This detachment that people who run the Church can achieve–laying aside their own interests and moral sensibilities in order to promote the interests of the Church–may go a long way toward elucidating the behavior of Church leaders, but I’m not sure that it adequately explains the behavior of the members, who aren’t always in the position of operating the Church.  Maybe there’s more to the system than just legal concepts.

Recently, I’ve been wondering just how fictional the Church’s existence as a living entity really is. Is it more than just “alive” for legal purposes?

There is no clear scientific definition for the phenomenon of being “alive” that can easily answer that question. To describe “life”, some scientists have developed a general “living systems” theory, which describes the essential characteristics of things that are commonly considered to be “alive”, like cells and organisms, as well as other systems into which living things are organized, like ecosystems, countries and societies. Living systems theory identifies 20 distinct functions (relating to the processing of matter/energy and information) that characterize living systems. Interestingly, an examination of most business entities (including the LDS Church) reveals that they actually comprise all 20 functions.

Perhaps thinking about the Church as both a living legal entity and a living system can make it easier to understand the people who are part of it.

-PWM

________________________

1. The Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
2. The Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

I have been wondering recently, however, if jumping to that conclusion about people in the Church is really warranted. Could I be exhibiting an error in judgment? Some bias buried in my all-too-human psyche? I think it’s possible.

Okay, probable.

As humans, we make judgments about other people. But we know that we shouldn’t judge people unless we’ve “walked a mile in their shoes.” In other words, it’s important to thoroughly understand their point of view. But what happens when we don’t know enough about the other person to truly comprehend his or her point of view? Well, in order to make our judgment, we have to make assumptions. One assumption that Americans (and other western cultures that cherish individualism) often make is that the other person’s behavior has more to do with the other person’s innate character than any outside influences that may exist.

Thus, if a person is fat, it is probably because of slothfulness or gluttony and not a lack of healthy food options or genetics. If a person is poor, it is probably because of stupidity or laziness, not bad luck or hardship. If a person is a thief, it is probably because of selfishness, not desperation. If a person is an LDS bishop threatening a heretic with Church discipline, it is because of arrogance, not CHI requirements.

Interestingly, when evaluating themselves, people make sure to give full weight to the outside circumstances that influence their own behavior. Obviously, then, most people would acknowledge that environmental factors affect behavior, and that they can limit a person’s options in significant ways. Unfortunately, outsiders can’t always see those limitations, and they make unflattering assumptions about the things they can see.

So, I am acknowledging this phenomenon (which is called fundamental attribution error) as it relates to me and my own perspective. It has affected, and continues to affect, my judgments about the motivations behind the behavior and life circumstances of other people. I’m not saying that innate character traits don’t also have a significant effect on behavior, I’m only saying that it is tremendously difficult (and often impossible) so sort out which of the two is at play in a given instance. I am trying to adjust my assumptions accordingly.

(By the way, because LDS Church leaders and members are also human, fundamental attribution error causes them to regularly misjudge the motivations and personal character of apostates and heretics like myself. The Gift of the Holy Ghost does not make them immune. In fact, I would go so far as to say that a person who believes him or herself to be immune from these kinds of errors will probably suffer through a lifetime of misunderstandings and bad interpersonal relationships.)

-PWM

_______________________