Informed Consent

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 5810
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: Informed Consent

Post by Moksha »

Kishkumen wrote:
Wed Jul 28, 2021 11:27 am
I really hated Microsoft Windows.
For good reason. Didn't one of the out of print Apple manuals describe it as the Whore of Redmond? There is absolutely no reason users should ever hear of exploding batteries. Those are stories made up by the Adversary of Huawei. Listen to iTunes and banish all thoughts of informed consent.

Financial transparency would just spoil the fun surprise at the end of the MLM rainbow.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Informed Consent

Post by Kishkumen »

Moksha wrote:
Wed Jul 28, 2021 1:44 pm
For good reason. Didn't one of the out of print Apple manuals describe it as the Whore of Redmond? There is absolutely no reason users should ever hear of exploding batteries. Those are stories made up by the Adversary of Huawei. Listen to iTunes and banish all thoughts of informed consent.

Financial transparency would just spoil the fun surprise at the end of the MLM rainbow.
Nicely played! Wow!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
User avatar
Dr Moore
Endowed Chair of Historical Innovation
Posts: 1812
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:16 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Informed Consent

Post by Dr Moore »

Moksha wrote:
Wed Jul 28, 2021 1:44 pm
Kishkumen wrote:
Wed Jul 28, 2021 11:27 am
I really hated Microsoft Windows.
For good reason. Didn't one of the out of print Apple manuals describe it as the Whore of Redmond? There is absolutely no reason users should ever hear of exploding batteries. Those are stories made up by the Adversary of Huawei. Listen to iTunes and banish all thoughts of informed consent.
Moksha almost inadvertently outed John Dehlin as the Sectarian Minister, who having finished his performance tour in LDS temples, now devotes himself to non-profit charity work.
User avatar
Dr Moore
Endowed Chair of Historical Innovation
Posts: 1812
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:16 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Informed Consent

Post by Dr Moore »

Kishkumen wrote:
Wed Jul 28, 2021 10:43 am
In your view is it just individual leaders who are the problem or is it leadership structure? Is Dehlin motivating the leaders to make better decisions or is he seeking radical restructuring?
Well, it would only be my speculation based on listening to his podcasts and knowing a few things about his professional background. I think we should really hear from John on this.

Corporate activism is a tricky business. It is all about leverage vs power. If you have leverage, you can force people with power to do things differently. If you can't get that leverage, you're just a survey respondent.

If you think like corporate activists, then all issues are the fault of leadership. So the public side of your campaign must convince as many people as possible that there is something deeply wrong with leadership. That may seem obvious, but just saying "they suck" or listing grievances doesn't get very far. You need leverage. Which means, you have to painstakingly connect every negative outcome and every missing positive outcome directly to a failure of leadership.

As a recurring corporate example: leadership does too many acquisitions that end up dilutive to the business over time, despite sounding good when executed. Disgruntled investors who want change can't simply complain about these outcomes as a matter of fact, because management will have a hundred reasons why it isn't their fault and the next deal will be a good one. So you have to go back through and figure out the meta-story, the forest from the trees story that captures why this team is unworthy of trust. So you go digging and learn through careful study of the SEC filings that this leadership team has only one KPI on which compensation is set: growth in total EBITDA dollars. You know that other leadership teams in this industry are evaluated based on a balanced scorecard which considers market share, organic profitability, and return on invested capital. The meta story, you learn, is that this company's leadership does bad acquisitions because they're perversely incentivized to do bad acquisitions, which is illogical and unreliable, but easily fixed with a good compensation consultant. There is your leverage.

So whether one individual is a crook, or an idiot, or suboptimal leadership structure, bad decisioning processes, faulty assumptions, perverse incentives, weak board governance, it's all just facets of the same gem. The gem being, all of the ways to apply leverage to get leadership to make hard changes. Alternative is take away their tickets to lead (get them fired) and elect new, better leaders.

In a sense, Dehlin is doing this rather effectively as a public activist. Every time a prospective member drops the missionaries, or a member stops paying tithing, goes inactive, resigns, or even shares a Mormon Stories episode with a friend, LDS church leaders lose the right to act as leaders for one more person. He's slowly kicking them out of their jobs, unless they change.

And we have seen a lot of change, right? But this only emboldens Dehlin to press for more. Eventually, either everyone will leave, which is a win for social justice. Or, leaders will finally fix the root of what causes harm to individuals and families. How far does that fix extend? Maybe in Dehlin's mind, it will never stop until we get a full apology and confession that they're just guys making things up with good intentions. Or rather, a democratic secular church leadership model. Who can say - I haven't heard John articulate the end game and that would be very interesting to hear from him.

So my view on "informed consent" is it's just one high-leverage point, but a pretty good one. Informed consent resonates with every age group. Kids. Youth. Adults. It hits right at missionary work. It impugns the integrity of leadership with marvelous succinctness. And importantly, the remedy is so easy, right? Just be honest. Tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. It demands SEC-like transparency on history, finances, governance. All of it. If you consider leverage per word, "informed consent" might be the most brilliant and effective LDS activism slogan of all time.

And to be clear (per my catch-22 comment above), I think John is fully aware that the remedy isn't simple AT ALL. Not if the goal is greater church retention and membership growth. But Dehlin isn't like Value Act or Starboard going after a corporate target for aligned investment gains. He's more like an environmental activist going after Exxon to make the world a better place. Same playbook, different returns profile. John doesn't own stock in the growth of Mormonism, but he is personally deeply invested in a more positive outcome for Mormonism. He wants Mormonism to do less harm in the world more than he wants Mormonism to grow.

But informed consent is just one point John uses to apply leverage on leadership. Listen to just about any Mormon Stories episode and what happens? Eventually, he will run down the same litany of points linking bad outcomes to systemic failures in the LDS church leadership model -- individuals, structure, incentives, the works. He's reiterating his case, attributing all of the bad outcomes and the missing positive outcomes to failed management, all assembled and packaged in a leverage playbook. He is pretty consistent about repeating the message while continuing to collect more data to bolster the case. Church leaders are right to be afraid of him.

This is all just my opinion. Again, it would be helpful to hear from John Dehlin himself on this. Analogies are only as good as the storytelling power of the key overlapping theme. I would say the corporate activism analogy has relevance only insofar as John expects positive net benefits to Mormons and society at large through whatever causation exists between the leverage he's applying and "inspired" changes made by LDS leadership.
User avatar
pistolero
Deacon
Posts: 222
Joined: Wed May 05, 2021 10:38 pm

Re: Informed Consent

Post by pistolero »

On one level it seems entirely reasonable to pursue informed consent. Eg. compare LDS vs JW.

LDS explicitly only teaches you enough to help you feel and recognise the spirit. They are open about this. Once you've been reeled in, there is eternity to learn all the minutae of gospel doctrine. You hear phrases about the importance of "the spirit" such as "if you can talk them in to it, you can talk them out of it".

The JW approach is much more about indoctrination before big decisions are made.

Both are shoddy organisations in my opinion, but I think it's entirely reasonable to call out the LDS approach and call for more information before making commitment.
User avatar
Gadianton
God
Posts: 3842
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 11:56 pm
Location: Elsewhere

Re: Informed Consent

Post by Gadianton »

And to be clear (per my catch-22 comment above), I think John is fully aware that the remedy isn't simple AT ALL. Not if the goal is greater church retention and membership growth. But Dehlin isn't like Value Act or Starboard going after a corporate target for aligned investment gains. He's more like an environmental activist going after Exxon to make the world a better place. Same playbook, different returns profile. John doesn't own stock in the growth of Mormonism, but he is personally deeply invested in a more positive outcome for Mormonism. He wants Mormonism to do less harm in the world more than he wants Mormonism to grow.
This has been a very unexpected and strange, yet brilliant analysis. I don't think John will agree with it, because that kind of takes the 'authenticity' out of it. I don't see environmentalists as the kind of people who wish to be so reduced, especially to terms that are themselves potentially amoral. Unless of course, you have evidence that environmentalists have agreed that this is their strategy. So yeah, I think you've nailed John D. as well as I've ever seen a nailing of John D.
Holy Ghost
Nursery
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2020 6:54 pm

Re: Informed Consent

Post by Holy Ghost »

Kishkumen wrote:
Tue Jul 27, 2021 11:54 pm
Finally, cultural biases and preferences have changed. The people who de-emphasized or even excised references to seer stones and the like were moving away from these things because they were unsympathetic to their use, not because they were hiding things to deceive others, in my opinion. Divining remained pretty popular into the early 20th century in Utah and then became much less popular. Leaders did not want members to use these things.

In short, the reasons for telling different stories over time are organic and complex. Christian critics of Mormonism have used this against the LDS Church as an effective mode of attack, but even a passing familiarity with Christian history shows that Christianity in general is filled with similar phenomena. I like Sandra Tanner as a person, but nothing like an objective view of her ministry can save it from charges of applying a double standard.
I like sausages. I do not want to be reminded of how they are made when I am enjoying a sausage. I also do not need to have myths about how they come about, like sausage are angel farts or something as ridiculous. Instead, I can just enjoy eating the brats.

I think organizations, including churches and social clubs, can be sausages. "Here's what we do, here's the benefit for you now." If I were to join the Elk's club (B.P.O.E.), I don't care about its founding. I go, observe what's going on, and if it's for me, I join. Sure, they have on the website some brief write-up about their early and later history, but the Elks do not make claims based on that founding that go to their legitimacy, or claim that the club is a necessary portal though which one must pass to please an unseen maker or to obtain the promised eternal bliss after death.

So if the organization decides to present its origin story, why is it doing so? To give legitimacy to it. In LDS terms, to show its authority is from God. So in an appeal to legitimacy, as a selling point to strengthen the adherence of current followers and to attract new ones, is it not deception and misleading to give a skewed, white-washed version?

Could it not be said that the stock broker leaves unsavory things out about the company whose stock he is trying to sell is not hiding things to deceive the potential investor because telling her those unsavory things would be unsympathetic to the solictor's use?

In my opinion, the LDS church ought to either (a) give a full and fair rendition of its history, or (b) not give any version and make no mention of its history. It is, in my opinion, misleading for the LDS to give a selected, partial history as part of their sales pitch.
Post Reply