DiscussMormonism.com

Darth Symmachus wrote: Only a business mind like Eyring's could taste a divine savor in the CEO's decision to delay a meeting, and it says much about what sorts of evidences and experiences the Brethren believe are impressive to them, and should be to everyone else.

Dr Moore wrote:

Darth Symmachus wrote: Only a business mind like Eyring's could taste a divine savor in the CEO's decision to delay a meeting, and it says much about what sorts of evidences and experiences the Brethren believe are impressive to them, and should be to everyone else.

Clickbait advertised this thread as the worst thread ever on MormonDiscussions.com. I disagree! Really interesting discussion, brief as it was.

The appeal of apostolic syndicated decision making to business folk should be obvious. Everyone with experience in the corporate world knows the risk of allowing one’s own ego to harm the outcome of a high stakes scenario by making poorly informed choices. The stories are everywhere, from business school cases to hushed gossip in coffee rooms. People and idea diversity as a core corporate value did not come naturally — it was borne from the ashes of ruined careers and instances of fraud.

And yet, I will humbly risk an invitation to this year's holiday after-party by disagreeing with the eloquent professor Symmachus. I believe that the modern LDS apostolic revelatory process is too easily misinterpreted as a simple affinity by business people for business patterns.

It is surely a bit more complicated than that. How do we know this? Because plenty of what happens in the church is not familiar to corporate process or done in accordance with everyday business principles. For one, take the most fundamental value: God is in charge and He is the source of truth and governance over the church. I can't think of any way to reconcile that governing concept with the application of business process analogues in church leadership. Not even with a clever analogy involving shareholders, boards of directors and senior executives. It just doesn't fit; business theory is spiritually agnostic.

In my experience, the appeal of a council-driven revelation process is not about parroting familiar systems, but rather is rooted in a single, possibly subconscious, goal: personal risk avoidance.

Think about it, and please cast aside your harshest skepticism about what leaders do or don't believe for a moment. Humor me and let's agree, for a moment, that the 15 LDS Apostles share the following three common beliefs:

1) The church is God's kingdom, chosen and set apart from a wicked world
2) The church's leaders are authorized as God's mouthpieces to the church and to the world
3) The church's doctrine is simple at its core, but mysterious at the edges due to the divine principle of "line upon line" and mortality as a test of faith

Now this is God's kingdom on earth, so it will take care of itself. It has to; this is the stone cut out of a mountain without hands that will fill the whole earth! It is a privilege and honor to serve. Whom God has called, God qualifies. The apostle is but an instrument in God's hands.

But he is an instrument with free agency. And there's the rub. Success is certain, but for the individual there is one looming fear. One risk, one possibility that keeps those guys up at night after they've finished praying over the church, the missionaries, the leaders and the world. One thing they all fret and worry about.

This is God's kingdom, so don't screw things up!

And that's the difference from a corporate executive mindset.

Executives are paid to do a job, ultimately answering to a board of directors. Directors and executives are fiduciaries with primary duty to maximize shareholder value, within the law. For this service, they are compensated with money. The job is to MAXIMIZE shareholder value, and the compensation is money, A LOT of money. And to accomplish the job they are required to assess and take monumental risks, every day, with imperfect information and scarce resources (people, time, money, whatever). Their pay is conditional on doing the job. Fail and someone else is hired to do the job. Get tired and someone else is hired to do the job. Get cold feet about taking risks and someone else is hired to do the job.

Church Apostles are also compensated for a job, but the pay is nothing like a corporation. It isn't monetary - that's trivial dollars, negative vs opportunity cost for all but a few. And it isn't working out their exaltation - that's been assured by the SA. No, the pay is simply this: the satisfaction of serving as a highly visible representative of God, creator and master of the universe, through all the world and among fellow Saints. Nothing else about their "compensation" is conditional. What an honor, though, to serve betwixt the creator of the universe and all mankind!!! Best of all, God has already assured a W for His team. The kingdom will roll forth. Truth will prevail. There is no question about that. There is a unique kind of apostolic humility, because each apostle surely knows that their individual contribution adds nothing to the final outcome, yet knows their potential to do great harm in the short run. How awful to consider being the one who caused suicides, divorces, resignations, or abuses! I can't imagine. But, what a humbling pleasure to be a tool in God's hands in His great work.

Apostolic Bonus: since you speak for God as his special witness, men and women all throughout the church will reverence you and do odd things around you to avoid offending you as a proxy for God. Accept that gift, expect or demand it -- it only enhances reverence for God. The apostle is but an instrument, God is the architect. And by the way, while they are standing as you enter the room, for God's sake remember, the only thing you have to worry about is to NOT SCREW THINGS UP.

So I think the processes have evolved to solve for personal risk avoidance. Not all at once. Brigham and Joseph sure did things differently than Nelson and Monson. But gradually, you can see this principle in the evolution of everything in church leadership, especially when it comes to declaring doctrine.

Think about it from an apostle's point of view. At best, he personally has a neutral impact on the final outcome. His work changes nothing from what God has assured will happen eventually. But that doesn't mean one guy can't do serious harm to the church and souls-unknown in the short run. All he has to do is avoid that, and everything else is golden.

By the way, as I type, I'm reminded that a phrase very similar to this was uttered by my mission president quite often - be an instrument, teach the lessons with the spirit, and behave like adults out there so you don't screw things up. Something to that effect. It was quite effective as a fear tactic to keep certain missionaries in line, or at least away from public view when they got out of line.

And how does a fallible human avoid screwing things up while serving as the putative mouthpiece for God?

Current day LDS apostles offer pretty impressive examples.

One element is to shift every important revelation or doctrine onto a committee. Unanimity means no risk of one person futzing up the united front. This concept, revelation by consensus, is immensely comforting to someone concerned only with not screwing up the kingdom. Of course, it isn't a Catholic Conclave, so it has to be marketed correctly. But it matters because again, this isn't a corporate environment geared to maximize positive outcomes. This is environment where the positive outcome is certain, and the primary self-imposed directive is to minimize harm to the kingdom. And if this or that apostle has a special gift to lend, well that's seasoning on the stew, right? My grandmother absolutely loved Neal A. Maxwell for his poetic alliterations.

Additionally, testifying of the sacred quorum-based process washes any individual of culpability for poorly informed group decisions. It also assists in fixing problematic statements of bygone apostles by force-fitting this requirement on to them too, a scalpel into "well considered" opinions.

Another element is to avoid or delay at all costs the making of risky bets. Wait for the data. Wait until it's obvious. Wait for the members to demand it. Wait for the world to force the issue. Prophesy about nothing specifically testable - danger danger! But do point out seemingly miraculous events and attribute them to prophecy.

Finally, there is no failure in God's kingdom, only greater understanding and tests of faith. But if something appears to fail, there can be no doubt that God had a reason for allowing the group to make mistakes. Never apologize for anything, ever. Good outcomes are God's grace. Negative outcomes are God's test of faith. It isn't an apostle's place to apologize for God. The calling and its sanctified channel to God must be protected at all costs.

This framework may at times make God the bad guy, but is an important institutional innovation to simultaneously protect the sanctity of the calling while also preventing any individual apostle from introducing new screw ups.

That's my theory, for what it's worth. They don't all get it right all the time. But they do try. And it continues to evolve, right? Wasn't it just this year that we learned, formally, that doctrine is decided by virtue of being a belief held unanimously by all 15 apostles?

Physics Guy wrote:The New Testament has Jesus impressing fishermen with miraculous catches of fish. Perhaps boardrooms are today's fishing boats, but disciples are still impressed by miracles in contexts that they already know. I also think, though, that the New Testament shows a non-trivial transition between the original blue-collar community of Galilean hicks and the cosmopolitan faith that went with Paul to Rome. Unless you can make a transition like that, a faith that's expressed in a certain context is probably not going to have appeal outside that context. So the thread question of whether the Mormon Church can retain non-business people seems like a serious one to me.

What surprises me is to notice how Mormonism seems to have been business-y right from the start. Joseph Smith himself tried to run a bank and a hotel as side gigs while being Prophet. Apparently Mormonism was always a religion of business people. Maybe from a critical point of view that shouldn't be so surprising: con artists are entrepreneurs in their way. From a religious studies point of view it seems interesting, though. How much can you understand about Mormonism by thinking of it as a re-imagining of Christianity for a commercial middle class?