DiscussMormonism.com

I listened to Gay's address this week. Have to say, I have lost a lot of respect for Bob Gay over the years.

He must certainly have developed an eye for evaluating strong business & people practices. He has decades of combined experience at premier names such as McKinsey, Bain Capital and as a co-founder of HGGC. To have created such a successful career, whether building or buying companies, there are a few things he cannot have faked. Connecting naturally with people, for one. But also, a honed ability to interrogate the logical underpinnings of business stories, with all of the various factors including market dynamics, product, strategy, partners, sales, supply chain, organizational design, financial model, etc. From what I hear around the business community, he has a very high IQ and EQ.

Which makes it all the more baffling to see Bob support the Interpreter, of all things he could choose to support in Mopologetics. True, his father Frank (Bill) funded the William Gay chair of Research which John Gee currently holds. So maybe it's a token of his loyalty to family and preservation of legacy. That could be enough, I suppose.

His speech, though, started with a long draft of sympathy, almost tearful, for what Dan Peterson has "gone through." And yet I just have to ask, does Bob have both sides of the story, or just Dan's? Looking at Bob's service over the past 15+ years, I sincerely doubt Bob has ever taken the time to look at the other side of the story when it comes to the methodological integrity of Dan Peterson, the Interpreter at large, and John Gee in particular. I doubt he has spent any time at all sorting through criticisms of DCP, Gee, or Interpreter, with the high-alert eye he most certainly will have brought to the process of buying & building companies.

I look at Bob and think, well, in his choice to give loyal service to the church (he retired from Bain Capital to be a mission president, and then served as Chairman of the Perpetual Education Fund as a Seventy) he also made a choice to turn a blind eye to what defenders of the church actually do with their platforms, degrees and mandates. It's all so much BS, but there's so much of it delving into arcane places, that even an intelligent person like Bob Gay would have to decide to either (Door #1) just trust them, or (Door #2) trust but verify, meaning taking the time to carefully interrogate their work. From his Interpreter 10-year speech, it's clear Bob has chosen door number 1 when it comes to Mopologetics. And that is his choice to make, but it kills my respect because I know for a fact that Door #1 is a choice Bob Gay could NEVER have gotten away with in his profession - not at McKinsey, not at Bain Capital, not with HGGC. Door #1 assures career suicide in the investing world.

So Gay seems willing to do the opposite with Mopologetics compared with his profession. Maybe he's just old and tired, or solving for family & church loyalty at this point. It's baffling to see someone of Bob Gay's stature out lending his name (and likely some of his impressive wealth) to the deans of Mopologetics.

I have more respect for Gay's partner at HGGC, Steve Young, who at least has shown the courage to distinguish dumb loyalty from tradition and community. Steve led a wonderfully brave "No on 8" movement in the Bay Area LDS community in 2008, much to the chagrin of Salt Lake City. Were it not for his last name, Young might have been ex'd for openly defying Monson's "Yes on 8" mandate to CA stake and local leaders. And now, it is one of the worst kept secrets in California that Steve and his wife are physically-in but mostly mentally-out. Bob Gay, however, by supporting the objectively dishonest work of Interpreter and Dan Peterson, gives every indication that he's checked his cumulative career acumen at the door for dumb loyalty.

Dr Moore wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 11, 2022 6:37 pm

Which makes it all the more baffling to see Bob support the Interpreter, of all things he could choose to support in Mopologetics. True, his father Frank (Bill) funded the William Gay chair of Research which John Gee currently holds. So maybe it's a token of his loyalty to family and preservation of legacy. That could be enough, I suppose.

I think you summed it up right there. Toss them a few bucks, give a small speech that reinforces the narrative, and then move on until the next time they come hat in hand.

- Doc

Dr Moore,

What you are saying here reminds me of the words of a friend of mine who is a member of the LDS Church and knows the problems just about as well as anyone if not better. I was sincerely asking how it was that the LDS Church could support Mopologetic shenanigans, and he made the persuasive argument, nonetheless damning of the integrity of the LDS Church, that with so few defenders, apologists with ironclad loyalty to the Brethren were a difficult thing to find, and, for that reason, you would not find the Brethren ever explicitly criticizing the Mopes in public or bringing them to heel.

Knowing that loyalty is the #1 value that Mopologists bring to the table, and that the Brethren prize this commodity above truth and Christlike behavior, I find none of this to be surprising news.

Dr. Moore:

Do you think there is any way to get Gay to look at the criticisms of the Mopologists? If he really is the sort of person you describe--someone to whom integrity matters--then I would think that cluing him in to the evidence would be doing him a favor, no?

Dr. Moore wrote:names such as McKinsey, Bain Capital and as a co-founder of HGGC. To have created such a successful career, whether building or buying companies, there are a few things he cannot have faked. Connecting naturally with people, for one. But also, a honed ability to interrogate the logical underpinnings of business stories,

I'm going to offer a different view. I can appreciate the talent and ability a guy like this has, but I can also appreciate Joseph Smith's genius in its own right.

Bain Capital tried to outsource my job many years ago. I survived it, made more money in the process, and later left entirely on my own terms. But many others weren't so lucky. Here's what they did in a nutshell: A high level executive with experience firing people was brought in; a lying piece of filth. Immediately, employee engagement programs were put into place, with renewed emphasis on employee value. It was an engineered distraction, because it takes a couple of years to plan such a big transition. Once the plan is complete, everyone is called into a room and told they're goners. Then, everyone is taken individually, and a gun is put at their head with an NDA-- different sets of terms, so that nobody can communicate.

They failed in the sense that, they ultimately had to re-hire and fire the outsourcer. But Bain made millions and the senior execs including that guy also made millions in golden parachute money for their failure. Executives these days don't have to put much on the line because they don't have to take a job unless offered huge termination bonuses upfront. Interestingly, Warren Buffet called this practice one of the biggest challenges to business, during the 2008 financial crisis.

It comes as zero surprise to me that a successful businessman with a high IQ and big family name feels the same kind of privilege that general authorities and apostles feel, I mean, there's a reason why church leadership and business models of executive privilege where members or employees all owe leadership something go so well together. This guy would probably have to live on the street for a few days before the compartmentalization within his brain would ever allow him to question anything regarding his importance in the world.

---oh, and before I forget, at my job prior to that one, a Mormon guy was brought in to lie, restructure, and then fire half the company. I survived that also. Mormons are really good at this lying thing. The difference was in the Bain instance, the company was successful beyond belief and fell for a trend that Bain had a lot of recognition for that obviously wouldn't have worked for them. They got sold on hype and a package of concepts and high-level drawings that don't actually turn gears. In this other example, the company was doing bad and downsizing was actually necessary. However, you have to admire the way the butcher loves to wield the cleaver. That guy had so little self awareness that during his stint he tried to promote the church to a crowd of people he was brought in to fire.

Dean Robbers,
You make good points (about dishonest bloodthirst) and I’m not going to invalidate your experience or discount the potential for narcissism or whatever you would call it. There are some CEOs who take actions that come through in a callous, if not boneheaded or dishonest, way. I will mention the current CEO of Snowflake (Slootman) as a contemporary example. I’ll just say that executives at Bob Gay’s level don’t get where they are by accident, by overlooking hard questions or just taking people’s word for it on critical information.

Dr Moore wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 11, 2022 9:14 pm

Dean Robbers,
You make good points (about dishonest bloodthirst) and I’m not going to invalidate your experience or discount the potential for narcissism or whatever you would call it. There are some CEOs who take actions that come through in a callous, if not boneheaded or dishonest, way. I will mention the current CEO of Snowflake (Slootman) as a contemporary example. I’ll just say that executives at Bob Gay’s level don’t get where they are by accident, by overlooking hard questions or just taking people’s word for it on critical information.

I'm sure you're right that the talent level varies at the top. Okay, is there any difference between this, and an accomplished Mormon physicist who is compartmentalized and can do great physics but has a simple testimony and refuses to look at evidence?

If you have connections in the business world then I'll admit I'd be fascinated if you could get Gay to consider the other side of the story even if only for a couple minutes.

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 11, 2022 7:03 pm

What you are saying here reminds me of the words of a friend of mine who is a member of the LDS Church and knows the problems just about as well as anyone if not better. I was sincerely asking how it was that the LDS Church could support Mopologetic shenanigans, and he made the persuasive argument, nonetheless damning of the integrity of the LDS Church, that with so few defenders, apologists with ironclad loyalty to the Brethren were a difficult thing to find, and, for that reason, you would not find the Brethren ever explicitly criticizing the Mopes in public or bringing them to heel.

Knowing that loyalty is the #1 value that Mopologists bring to the table, and that the Brethren prize this commodity above truth and Christlike behavior, I find none of this to be surprising news.

Foxes, henhouse, and all. So, Mopologists bear no risk of a punitive outcome so long as the “loyalty” box is checked? This is not a system capable of self correction nor of reliable governance. It is an exquisitely lawless system. It should not be trusted because it is incapable of being monitored for good faith. The only reasons to perpetuate such a system are gross negligence or conspiracy to hide something. Take your pick.

It‘s odd. The church is uber-corporate about some things. It certainly promotes men with corporate chops. And yet, it seems to deliberately leave certain flanks wide open to catastrophe with weak or non-existent control structures.

Dr Moore wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 12, 2022 12:02 am

Foxes, henhouse, and all. So, Mopologists bear no risk of a punitive outcome so long as the “loyalty” box is checked? This is not a system capable of self correction nor of reliable governance. It is an exquisitely lawless system. It should not be trusted because it is incapable of being monitored for good faith. The only reasons to perpetuate such a system are gross negligence or conspiracy to hide something. Take your pick.

It‘s odd. The church is uber-corporate about some things. It certainly promotes men with corporate chops. And yet, it seems to deliberately leave certain flanks wide open to catastrophe with weak or non-existent control structures.

It is interesting. I don't think that Mope misbehavior rises to the level of anything that the Brethren would get worked up about. First, they probably don't follow this closely. Second, they are not sinking a lot of money into it. Third, it seems to work on the Danite principle of plausible deniability for the guys in charge. The Brethren say things that encourage the Mopes without explicitly endorsing them, so the Brethren can always say they had no idea or whatever. The Interpreter crowd has long experience of working their shtick in just the right way to attract donor support and ecclesiastical support while not ruffling too many feathers.

Some interesting observations, but I need to (slightly) disagree. I think that the Brethren—some of them, anyhow—*do* care about what the Mopologists are up to. The very fact that they were booted out of the Maxwell Institute would seem to be evidence of that. And prior to the purge, there were rumors swirling about BKP intervening in the Mopologists’ attacks on Rodney Meldrum. Meanwhile, when it suits them, the Mopologists will boast about their “connections” with the Brethren, and they will simultaneously try to discredit other LDS (such as Meldrum) who do the same.

I still think their conflict with the Heartlanders is a powder keg. Loyalty can be an asset—sure. But at the expense of destroying other Latter-day Saints’ faith? One gets the sense that the Interpreter Mopologists are trying to prove that they are *more loyal* than the Heartlanders, but this is proving to be a difficult and deeply problematic task.