Dec 1, 2010

Secrecy and Control

The recent Wikileaks release of the diplomatic communiques has me thinking about institutions and secrecy–particularly as it relates to big organizations like the Church. Organizations are by nature amoral, since they have no thoughts or feelings in-and-of themselves. Imbalance of information leads to power for the information holder. Secrecy becomes a way to gain an edge over others, and promotes the power and influence of the organization in an undirected, evolutionary way. The secrecy of an organization tends to grow unless checked by either external or internal mechanisms.

A fascinating aspect of secrecy is that it seems to be a zero sum game. The more an organization demands its own sphere of secrecy, the more it seems to be interested in intruding upon the secrecy of others. Take the most secret organizations, like the CIA or the KGB. These organizations spend the most time prying into the privacy of other institutions and individuals while guarding their own details with extreme prejudice. You can almost guarantee formulaically that the more an institution guards it own privacy and secrecy the more it will be intruding into everyone else’s secrets.

The diplomatic communiques are embarrassing because of their central irony. They reveal a disregard for the privacy and secrecy of others while depending on their own secrecy from outsider view. What they reveal is the duplicitous behavior of “diplomats” and bad behavior which relies on lack of transparency. It seems that accountability and secrecy are also in inverse proportions.

The Mormon Church has long been known for its secrecy especially in the later half of the 20th Century. It is no coincidence that this is the period in which the Church’s General Authorities began to be more frequently recruited from secular business backgrounds such as executives and lawyers. Most of the Church’s internal policy and operation is done in complete and most are unaware of the extent of the operations of the Church or its internal workings.

The Church’s secrecy extends to nearly all of its operations and most members are completely in the dark as to the daily dealings of the Church. Since the Church participates in business actives that most would not normally be associate with religious organizations, some of its secrecy can be understood as standard (although not necessarily moral) business practice. The Church uses holding companies and other cooperate tricks to obfuscate its holdings, it buries responsibilities in layers of bureaucracy and middle management, it hides traceability of decisions to the highest officers, and refuses to release basic financial information.

This secrecy extends to the ecclesiastical side as well. We know who the top officers of the hierarchy are, but we have no idea which officer is really responsible for what. We don’t know who is responsible or accountable for decisions. Any checks and balances on the abuse of ecclesiastical power are either not in place or undisclosed. The selection process of leadership, or their eventual removal is completely non-transparent. There is no way to tell if tithing funds are spent on feeding the poor or expanding profitable enterprises.

While guarding their own information, the Church demands virtually all personal information from its membership, even probing into the most intimate details of their lives. I have friends who were asked by bishops or stake presidents details about their frequency of sexual intercourse, positions used, and specific sexual acts engaged in, all in extreme detail. Sometimes these question occurred when the members were underage. I know of instances where bishops have demanded to see pay stubs to verify income levels and donations to the Church. There is literally nothing so small or personal that it cannot be asked by the Church authority, and the membership has no recourse.

This creates a power imbalance between the membership and the Church in which the Church holds all of the cards. Members must pay tithing but the Church does not have to disclose. Members must covenant not to disclose temple secrets, but bishops may freely share personal sexual details with their councilors, high council, stake presidency or whomever else they see fit. Members must fear disclosure of embarrassing information or the innuendo implied in public excommunication without a clear way to appeal if the Church has overstepped its bounds.

there is a strong motivation for institutions to cover up embarrassments for the “greater good”. Think about the Catholic Church priest sex scandals. I believe that for the most parts Cardinals and Bishops who moved offending priests and covered up the priest’s transgression did so not in an attempt to further the cause of molestation, but rather to protect the parish and the Church in general. This motivation also underlies much of the duplicitous and dishonest cover-ups that we just witnessed in the government scandal. But if this behavior is not checked it will always lead to corruption.

I personally believe that the more transparent individuals and institutions are, the more honest and equitable will be their behavior. Hopefully, this diplomatic exposure will force the US to a more straightforward and honest stand in international affairs. Unfortunately, once the shroud of secrecy has been lowered, it is easy to assume that everything behind the curtain is corrupt. I doubt that is true. I believe that for the Church, most of its dealing and actions are done honestly and in good faith. But everything has the taint of secrecy. The Church does itself a disservice by its private action. It would do well to open up and reveal much more, both to increase its moral institutional standing and to expose internal corruption in an effort to dig it out.

By John Larsen Uncategorized 8 Comments