Can the Church retain non-business people?

[_Physics Guy]

Yeah, and maybe the distinction I'm drawing between business and peasantry isn't all that sharp anyway. A lot of Jesus's parables have commercial themes. So maybe his original community wasn't all hicks. Or maybe his was an aspirational age in which even the Galilean fishermen were all dreaming of one day managing multiple talents of silver.

Maybe all ages are like that, and nobody has ever been too poor or backward to follow the lifestyles of the rich and famous and imagine they know just how the world of wealth works.

[_Kishkumen]

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.

Great work, Dr. Moore! It is no wonder that your courses are filling up as soon as registration opens!

Here’s where I don’t find myself sympathetic to the portrait you’ve painted for us. If there is such anxiety about screwing things up, then there must be an awareness of the very real possibility of screwing up. Indeed, I would bet that plenty of GAs must say to themselves on occasion, “Boy, I/we/those other leaders really screwed that up!” But instead there is this strange maneuver whereby the anxiety of screwing up ends up becoming the hubris of not acknowledging the possibility of having done so!

As you say, the screw up is off-loaded onto God. The leaders’ failure becomes God’s test of faith for the saints. But one must ask the question: cui bono?

The answer is easy: the leaders. The leaders are elevated to the level of deity as they speak the words that cannot be retracted because they are represented as being divine words. The leader speaks and he speaks the words of God. It is the job of others to carry out those words, no matter how wrongheaded or downright stupid they may be. Then when the crap hits the fan, we can be assured that:

1. The will of God is unfolding, even if it looks really bad in the short run; and
2. The members may take it hard, but the truly faithful will remain;
3. The leaders take no responsibility for screwing things up because God is at the helm, putting words in their mouths/thoughts in their minds.

The end result is a kind of shell game that the members cannot win. God is always right and always responsible. The leaders screw up, but they really can’t and therefore do not take responsibility. The buck stops with the perfect King of the Universe, who can never be held accountable but wouldn’t need to be anyway.

My view is that the leaders do screw up, and they should be held accountable. The Great Work may ultimately be successful, but that does not mean it can’t be a mess in the meantime. There is no real faith in pretending that mistakes are not made by those in charge.

Currently, the system you describe has the (intended) outcome of deifying the leaders.

[_Stem]

Impressive thoughts.

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

It seems to me what they're thinking is this is God's kingdom, so you can't screw things up.

I mean their feelings, impressions and ideas are born out of their joint experiences communicated on a level that suggests they were made for this grand work that God has put to them. There's no risk in their dealings and doings because their imagined God wants them to decide and he'll make it work. That's why Nelson's night time musings are revelations. Those thoughts and impressions wouldn't come to him if he weren't God's chosen prophet.

I think that is the space that covers the God-factor and moves their decisions into the world of corporate America, or world. It's likely not Nelson nor Oaks nor Holland deciding which stocks to buy up. They get told what's best and say, "Ok...God has moved you to decide this and I feel confirmation. Do it." or something along those lines. But, I think their every decision is shrouded in the assumption that this corporation is God's kingdom and needs to be built up, forever. It can't rest on it's laurels. How is that going to happen? Shrewd business decisions. Whether it's these 15 or those whom they've commissioned, that's what needs to happen at a very high level priority. They seem far more interested in the Church growing financially than the Church growing in membership. The membership growth will come if the Church can just become more influential. They can always get excited about their current membership growth trends--like their reliance on Africa now. But in the end, they seem to be most moved by the Kingdom or corporation getting bigger. Membership certain impacts their bottom line. If they had no area of the world to proclaim as growing fast, it'd hurt their bottom line.

[_Dr Moore]

But instead there is this strange maneuver whereby the anxiety of screwing up ends up becoming the hubris of not acknowledging the possibility of having done so!

Astute observation on behavioral trends with senior apostles.

Notice how every new apostle offers as his first address to the church a shaky, heartfelt "I am deeply humbled" statement, and a variation on sleepless nights for all the prayers to be equal to the calling and such. They're not worried about being saved or running out of money. They're terrified of messing up the kingdom!

With passage of time, as you note, the behavior shifts to something that looks more like hubris or disconnectedness. Why?

I suspect the system benefits add up, namely:
(a) sufficiently insulating one's self from risky activities
(b) offloading blame for mistakes to the proper party -- God
(c) repeated testifying about the station of the holy apostleship
(d) repeated celebrity treatment by thousands for whom apostleship is synonymous with God's mouth and mind

So long as you play the game -- stay away from danger danger behaviors, nestle into the committee -- the system removes all personal risk and accountability while slowly elevating the person to the celebrity status of the station. How could anyone resist developing a bit of hubris with a job like that?

Speaking of risk avoidance, I am reminded that the surest sign of a ponzi scheme is high returns with no volatility. I won't elaborate on that, too much, but to note that it isn't the numerator in that equation -- the returns -- that draws attention. It's the denominator -- the volatility -- that gives away the fraud. Too little volatility, eg no risk, gives the scheme away every time.

[_Dr Moore]

They seem far more interested in the Church growing financially than the Church growing in membership. The membership growth will come if the Church can just become more influential.

Stem, you've nailed it with this observation. There is absolutely a big focus on growing the financial fortress, with no specific plan in mind for how to deploy the money, only a mandate to "grow this puppy" as I have been told by two well-placed friends. Consider this: at present rates of return the church is generating more income from its financial investments than it takes in tithing & offering donations every year. And the church spends less than it receives donations, every year -- meaning that the nest egg grows by shrewd financial investing AND by adding unused income, year after year. I can't reveal sources, but those are facts. Some day, I don't know when, probably not for a long time, but I'm confident the day will come, the LDS church will begin to unleash its financial heft and actually begin to change the world.

[_Dr Exiled]

Yes! This is the response to those who demand to know why the apostles aren't driving bentleys, etc. They are bent on financial growth, probably equating it to their version of the prosperity gospel. With enough coin, the future church could do so much good that the world will have to bow to the Mormon lord's wisdom and thrift? What else can they do when their truth claims are obviously lacking?

[_Maksutov]

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.

Great work, Dr. Moore! It is no wonder that your courses are filling up as soon as registration opens!

Here’s where I don’t find myself sympathetic to the portrait you’ve painted for us. If there is such anxiety about screwing things up, then there must be an awareness of the very real possibility of screwing up. Indeed, I would bet that plenty of GAs must say to themselves on occasion, “Boy, I/we/those other leaders really screwed that up!” But instead there is this strange maneuver whereby the anxiety of screwing up ends up becoming the hubris of not acknowledging the possibility of having done so!

As you say, the screw up is off-loaded onto God. The leaders’ failure becomes God’s test of faith for the saints. But one must ask the question: cui bono?

The answer is easy: the leaders. The leaders are elevated to the level of deity as they speak the words that cannot be retracted because they are represented as being divine words. The leader speaks and he speaks the words of God. It is the job of others to carry out those words, no matter how wrongheaded or downright stupid they may be. Then when the crap hits the fan, we can be assured that:

1. The will of God is unfolding, even if it looks really bad in the short run; and
2. The members may take it hard, but the truly faithful will remain;
3. The leaders take no responsibility for screwing things up because God is at the helm, putting words in their mouths/thoughts in their minds.

The end result is a kind of shell game that the members cannot win. God is always right and always responsible. The leaders screw up, but they really can’t and therefore do not take responsibility. The buck stops with the perfect King of the Universe, who can never be held accountable but wouldn’t need to be anyway.

My view is that the leaders do screw up, and they should be held accountable. The Great Work may ultimately be successful, but that does not mean it can’t be a mess in the meantime. There is no real faith in pretending that mistakes are not made by those in charge.

Currently, the system you describe has the (intended) outcome of deifying the leaders.

Brilliant observations.

[_Gadianton]

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.

I don't think it works this way in practice, unfortunately. My experience from lives past, is that executives are better con artists than they are anything else. For every one person who is a visionary, the entrepreneur genius, there are a hundred that contribute very little. They do not take "monumental risks" because they all have contracts they've negotiated should they fail. For instance, a certain executive hired to do monumental changes in conjunction with Mitt's company, failed dismally. He was pushed out or fired, but his contract gave him several million as a reward for exiting the door, and he went on to the next company to do the same thing. Would he have made more had he succeeded? Sure. But the pressure is off. Other executives at that same place played the same game. They came from large institutions where things were relatively efficient and they had one thing on their resume they were proud of, then they go shopping, find a board of suckers and pitch their story. Of course, they need that golden parachute secured before they'll sign the dotted line. Once they have the job, they seek to execute that one thing they think they know how to do to make their new place work like their old place, without any consideration that the new place has a totally different set of problems, and they were probably the beneficiary of efficiency rather than creator of it anyway, and so they work with blinders on to execute that one thing they were hired to do with enough deniability that when they move on a couple years later having achieved nothing, they claim the consolation prize. A startup or growth company doesn't work like an an established fortune 500.

But even if you get the person who was there from the beginning with a hot company, there's no guarantee, because now the person is rich and probably getting way overcompensated, the incentive just isn't there, but then today's world isn't the same one as where that guy made his name. At another previous life, a famous executive was hired for the highest-priced package I believe the company had ever paid. He was rude, difficult, a total primadonna who had strict demands for outfitting everything about his work environment to be exactly like what he had at his old place, down to impossible demands of securing obsolete technology that you can't find anymore because that's what he was used to. I have no reason to think he did a bad job, he was simply vastly overpaid for what he did. You or I, had we happened to take the right job with the right startup 20 years ago could have been where he is. There is talent, but also historical context that matters every bit as much but probably vastly more.

Yet one more example from a startup I worked for long ago, the company had contracts with all these big Hollywood labels, and lured away a few execs with big reputations to get us going with their experience and contacts, and they did little to nothing. One spent 100 grand building a beautiful office for himself and that was about all he did from what I understand.

Hiring execs is itself a random walk, there is no formula for getting a good one if indeed, there are any good ones left. How did things get this way? Warren Buffet said looking back on the financial crisis, that the biggest problem he sees is overcompensation, and these super-contracts negotiated with golden parachutes where there's no risk. How did things get this way? My speculation is that it's a slow boil. A person working two jobs for minimum wage has less negotiation power than I do. But a person who makes 10x what I make or simply has enough to not need a job, has supremely more negotiating power than I do. And so the moderate pay bump an exec got above a professional peer a hundred years ago has slowly worked its way up, in sync, with greater stratification in personal or family wealth -- that's the resistance to market efficiency. As income stratification widens, those making out have greater bargaining power, bumping the pay, and further widening the gulf.

[_SuperDell]

It is a window in to how the highest lucid leader of the Church today conceives of revelation (it's a process, not a miraculous epiphany or theophany...so not really revelation as most people understand that word).

Are you disputing that True Revelation does not come from a magic peepstone in a hat - or with a Magic inspired Pen with a light in the middle of the night?

[_Dr Moore]

I don't think it works this way in practice, unfortunately. My experience from lives past, is that executives are better con artists than they are anything else.

So cynical! You're not entirely wrong, there are a lot of bozos out there. Good managers are hard to find, and great managers with experience even harder.