Prophet And Church Paradigms: Expectations And Anomaly

[Kevin Christensen]

In a closed thread, Canard78 made the following comments to me (echoed by a few others):

They honestly thought... But they were wrong. What else were they wrong about that we've just taken on trust, generation after generation. Priesthood? Visions? Eternal families?

This issue here was the priesthood ban. My case was that Western Culture had transmitted a misreading of the Bible regarding the Noah’s Curse on Ham that had provided the basis of what, in Winter Quarters, provided the ban. And that 3 Nephi had described situations where disciples who supposed they knew on the topic of other sheep, and therefore, did not make inquiries. Speaking to a group of particularly righteous people, in 3 Nephi the savior said, "I perceive that ye are weak, and that ye cannot understand all my words, which I am commanded of the Father to speak unto you at this time. Therefore go ye into your homes, and ponder upon the things which I have said, and ask of the Father in my name, that ye may understand, and prepare your minds for the morrow..." (3 Nephi 17:2-3)

Why suppose that just because a prophet demonstrably did not ponder, prepare his mind, and diligently seek on one topic, that he did not do so on other important topics?

But if they're no more than men muddling through like the rest of us then why have prophets at all?

It is enough to just ask the rhetorical question, and use a verbalized but un-pursued hypothetical “What if?” and close the door without looking for answers? If Joseph Smith is no more than a man muddling through like the rest of us, why can’t any of us do what he did? We could say the same about Brigham Young. I can miss a foul shot almost as well as Wilt Chamberlain. That is not the same thing as measuring his accomplishments fairly.

D&C 1 speaks to this point regarding prophets directly. The “Why” is to proclaim the broken covenants, and the coming judgment, to testify of the revelations, to testify of the savior of the world, “that faith also might increase in the earth; that mine everlasting covenant might be established, that the fulness of my gospel might be proclaimed by” the weak and fallible.

An organizational leader may be a pragmatic necessity, but we teach our children to trust their every word and they themselves tell us they cannot and will never lead us astray. Is this incorrect? Are they actually leading us astray by teaching us they cannot and will not?

Brigham Young emphatically and repeatedly urged the Saints to NOT trust their leaders blindly, but to find out for themselves. (See Nibley’s essay on Brigham Young as a Leader for many examples.)

Take Joseph, Nephi and Alma as paradigmatic examples of what I think the church and scriptures teach.

Joseph himself said, "A prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such."³⁸ The Book of Mormon itself argues that on some matters a prophet might suppose he understood, and not ask, and therefore not receive revelation (see 3 Nephi 15:15-23 on the matter of other sheep). Even revelation may not be all-encompassing. Nephi says of Lehi's experience of a vision, "so much was his mind swallowed up in other things that he beheld not the filthiness of the water" (1 Nephi 15:27). Nephi writes of himself "And now, if I do err, even they did err of old" (1 Nephi 19:6).

Alma is especially instructive on the nature and extent and sources for prophetic knowledge:

Now as to this thing I do not know. . . . But behold, the Spirit hath said this much unto me. (Alma 7:8-9)

Now I unfold unto you a mystery; nevertheless, there are many mysteries which are kept, that no one knoweth them save God himself. But I show unto you one thing which I have inquired diligently of God that I might know. . . . Now when this time cometh no one knows. . . . Now, whether there shall be one time, or a second time, or a third time, . . . it mattereth not; for God knoweth all things; and it sufficeth me to know in this case . . . what becometh of the souls of men is the thing which I have inquired diligently to know; and this is the thing of which I do know. . . . Behold it has been made known unto me by an angel. . . . Now, whether . . . I do not say; let it suffice, that . . . I do not say that . . . but behold, I give it as my opinion." (Alma 40:3-5, 9, 11, 19-20)

Finding that Alma and Joseph and Nephi are capable of making mistakes is not the same thing as finding that they knew nothing and therefore have no authority, and nothing substantial to offer. Alma gives a mix of opinions, speculation, AND the experience of revelation. I found I didn’t have to take Alma’s word and authority blindly. I tested his claims about what he learned from the angel about the life after with modern NDE accounts, and found that if anyone in scripture ever speaks with personal authority on that topic, Alma does. I tested the epistemology in Alma 32 against Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and found that there too, Alma speaks with remarkable authority.

This same sort of thing goes in my approach and appreciation of Brigham Young. It’s fairly common for people to zero in a stock collection of money quotes and sound bites. (See Blair’s essay on Quote Mining at LifeonaPlate). But for a broader perspective, I’ve read Arrington’s biography, Nibley’s Brother Brigham Challenges the Saints, Eugene England’s essay on “Brigham Young as an Orator and an Intellectual” and the Brigham Young Priesthood manual, which I was surprised to discover is my favorite official manual ever. I also found the Dialogue essay on “Conflict in the Quorums” between Orson Pratt and Brigham Young, their disagreements on Adam God and the Nature of the Holy Ghost, to be ultimately uplifting. I’m particularly fond of the quotes in Nibley’s “Brigham Young and the Enemy.” And I personally see the far-reaching implications of Brigham Young’s Winter Quarter’s vision:

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/097-86.pdf

I rather think that there was more to this vision that he reported on this occasion, that it is behind his remarkable teachings on the spirit world. You can get a glimpse of them by looking at “The Spirit World” chapter of the Brigham Young manual, and dipping in to some of the discourses. Raymond Moody’s The Light Beyond quotes “Mormon leaders” on the afterlife, but it turns out to be Brigham Young. Alma provides things that you can’t find in the Bible, and Brigham provides things you can’t find in Alma, but which are confirmed by more recent reports.

Unfortunately it just doesn't work for me. I can't reconcile it. What you share and suggest might be more viable if that was actually what the church teaches.

We’re not a church of orthodoxy, but of diversity, a church open to further light and knowledge. A person’s conclusions about what “the Church” teaches is always based on their “paradigmatic examples.”

I’ve taken the time to figure out how to distinguish what “the church” actually teaches, and how different personality types tend to think, and what sort of personality types tend to end up in certain areas within various spots in church culture, and how people at different stages of the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth tend to relate to authority figures and how they process information at different stages.

Take Kroger and Thuesson’s description of ESTJ, managerial types: “ESTJs are very conscious of the chain of command. For them, work is a series of goals, to be reached by following rules and regulations issued by the upper ranks of an organization’s hierarchy. The system and its regulations are good, self-protecting, and self-perpetuating.” (Type Talk, page 268.) Elsewhere in the same book, they talk about how organizations that lack diversity in type representations tend to demonstrate blindspots. “Get it done at all costs TJs alienated people in favor of results…”Procedure oriented SJs struggled too long determining how it should be done before getting it together.” (page 101). CES and the Church office building will tend to concentrate SJ types. Academia and Law favor TJs.

Knowing something about type, and knowing what the scriptures and the actual prophets have actually said about following authority helps me discern whether I’m seeing revelation, or type preference in action, and often, a particular stage on the Perry Scheme. Calling such attitudes "the church" when they corrolate directly to known type preferences and Perry Scheme Stages seems to me a misreading of the evidence. Given that "the Church" is simply an assembly of people, and people of all types and stages are included in the gathering, I should expect such things to be expressed and taught. It would be anomalous if such notions were absent in the gathering.

Kuhn comments that “research under a paradigm must be a particularly effective way of inducing paradigm change. That is what fundamental novelties of fact and theory do. Produced inadvertently by a game played by one set of rules their assimilation requires the elaboration of another set.” (Kuhn 52)

If I know for myself what Joseph and Brigham and Alma and Nephi and Lehi and others have said, it doesn’t really bother me when other people who have not taken the time to find out for themselves what they have said. My knowledge is not dependent on them. It’s nice when I get the good stuff through manuals and magazines, and there is always the potential for me to learn from church source or in any church setting. But I don’t have to depend on it. "Seek out of the best books words of wisdom..." No official list is given.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited June 27, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[mfbukowski]

Take Kroger and Thuesson’s description of ESTJ, managerial types: “ESTJs are very conscious of the chain of command. For them, work is a series of goals, to be reached by following rules and regulations issued by the upper ranks of an organization’s hierarchy. The system and its regulations are good, self-protecting, and self-perpetuating.” (Type Talk, page 268.) Elsewhere in the same book, they talk about how organizations that lack diversity in type representations tend to demonstrate blindspots. “Get it done at all costs TJs alienated people in favor of results…”Procedure oriented SJs struggled to long determining how it should be done before getting it together.” (page 101). CES and the Church office building will tend to concentrate SJ types. Academia and Law favor TJs.

I would never have noticed those points, or put this information in this context, in a million years.

The doctrinal implications are just staggering. I have wondered why this organization reacts as it does to differing situations, especially in the tendency to "circle the wagons", but now the reason for this is perfectly clear.

This enormously illuminates other discussions we have had. The explanation is not literalism, but in the nature of institutions itself.

Thanks Kevin!

Edited June 24, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Kevin Christensen]

I would never have noticed those points, or put this information in this context, in a million years.

The doctrinal implications are just staggering. I have wondered why this organization reacts as it does to differing situations, especially in the tendency to "circle the wagons", but now the reason for this is perfectly clear.

This enormously illuminates other discussions we have had. The explanation is not literalism, but in the nature of institutions itself.

Thanks Kevin!

You are welcome. In the wake of the great public relations coup of 1993, I gave a talk at an SLC Sunstone on Personality Type and Social Conflict in LDS Culture.

Yes. You are right about the literalistic tendencies and the circling of the wagons reflex. SJ types tend to be the backbones of all institutions. ESTJ types in leadership positions tend to push their own values downward. I think it's interesting to see the effect that Hacker Culture had on corporate America in the 80s when you had companies being run by people with INTJ and INTP values, who could assert them through their organizations. Among other things, flex hours, and loosened dress codes, because INTs care more about results than appearances. The Hacker Ethic is less of a working out of a philosophy than simply an expression of INT values that emerge when they get together. Computers bring them together and empowered them in new ways.

If you know the implications of STJ people (the S for Sensing relating to gathering information from direct sensory input, the T related to deciding in logical step-by-step fashion, and the J indicating a preference for having things closed and decided, the combination of preferences points to people who tend both to literal thinking and deference to tradition. But I also recognize that "administration" is one of the spiritual gifts, and STJ types are very good at it, much better than I am. Such gifts have their place, and such voices have as much a right to be heard as anyone else. But it's not the only gift of value, nor the only voice.

www.typelogic.com, for instance.

I'm an INFP (Introverted iNtuitive Feeling Perceptive), and always feel a bit of an anomaly in most LDS social settings. I go to church out of conviction, not out of a need for society.

Type theory ties in with what Joseph Smith was getting at when he wrote to John Wentworth that "By proving contraries, truth is made manifest." William Blake had earlier expressed similar notions, of the need to keep the different tendencies in tension because un-resisted domination by one side of a contrary not only silences an opposition, but negates the virtues of victor. Thinking that neglects feeling demonstrates ignorance. (Think of Spock and Data in Star Trek and Sheldon Cooper on The Big Bang Theory). Feeling that takes no thought can be heartless (Guinevere and Lancelot's feelings causing the war that destroys Arthur's Camelot, besides ultimately separating them from one another. Love in that case, does not so much conquer all as destroy all.).

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited June 24, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[Questing Beast]

Too many acronyms. I hate acronyms. Anyone entering a topic for the first time is already challenged by terms. To have those terms reduced to two to five letter acronyms is simply too annoying to bother with. I get the gist of this though: that some personality types seek out like-types to work closely with, so there has developed in the Church leadership an "in-bred" acceptance of limited types of approach to that leadership. Those who think outside the in-bred Church paradigm are viewed askance as apostates or flirting with apostasy, or worse as actively fighting against the Church....

[Kevin Christensen]

The acronyms were the reason Elbert gave me for not publishing my Sunstone talk. I felt like taking the acronyms out of type theory is like taking the type theory out of type theory. The mastery of a few acronyms is the key to understanding types, which is in turn the key to discerning (a spiritual gift) and understanding (another spiritual gift) a great many other things in human relationships and development. We are to seek earnestly after the greatest gifts.

Type theory, based on Jung's observations as elaborated by Katherine Briggs and Isabel Briggs Myers is really quite simple.

Four sets of paired preferences, akin to handedness.

Extroversion vs Intraversion as personal orientation.

Sensing vs iNtuition as the means of gathering information

Thinking vs Feeling as the means of making decisions

Judging vs Perceiving as a means of living.

Four pairs of preferences produce 16 basic types. The only preference which has a gender imbalance is that between T and F. More men than women have the T preference, and more women than men have the F preference. To overgeneralize and say that women are more emotional than men, or that men are more logical means you are wrong over 30% of the time. Barely a "C" grade in school. That is behind the Men are Mars, Women are from Venus approach, which I see as misleading a substantial portion of the time. The traditional female stereotype correlates to the ISFJ type. My mom is that type, but that is only 6% of the population. My sister is INTJ, which makes her an upstream swimmer in terms of innate nature versus the pressure of social roles suggested within elements of our culture.

Why the correlation between ESTJ preferences and managers? Extraverted attentiveness, awareness focused concrete practical details of the real world, logical, objective thinking, and a capacity to make decisions. ISTJs gravitate to bureaucracy. Rules and procedures.

SP preferences tend to be the best tool users, athletes, sports fans, and performers, people who live for the moment, in the moment.

NTs love problem solving. They imprint to computers like baby ducks.

NFs the idealists, the Romantics pushing against STJ classicism.

You can look this up on the web, where their are several good sites. Wikipedia has information. There are very high correlations between career choice and type, particularly as life provides more chances for self-selection. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is the most widely used test in the world. All managers in the Pentagon have their results posted in their offices.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Calm]

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is the most widely used test in the world. All managers in the Pentagon have their results posted in their offices.

This has been around since 1962, one would think it would have caught on more than it has, but I guess too many people like to think in two dimensions only (KISS method) as opposed to being more accurate with four sets of two dimensions--like the Mars/Venus or right brain/left brain paradigms.

[mfbukowski]

I just lost a huge post unfortunately. I hate it when that happens.

Kevin this is huge.

I will cut to the chase since I just lost a long explanatory post- but I am certain you will catch my drift anyway.

How do we get the traditional personality types to understand and "grok" Kuhn and the boys? I think you have your finger on the pulse and have diagnosed the problem. The question becomes "what is the cure?"

The future of the perceived "reality" of religious experience hangs in the balance- that may seem dramatic but I don't think it is. At this point it is either Scientism or Anti-realism and the accountants in the tower are not about to go with the latter.

[CV75]

Type theory ties in with what Joseph Smith was getting at when he wrote to John Wentworth that "By proving contraries, truth is made manifest." William Blake had earlier expressed similar notions, of the need to keep the different tendencies in tension because un-resisted domination by one side of a contrary not only silences an opposition, but negates the virtues of victor. Thinking that neglects feeling demonstrates ignorance. (Think of Spock and Data in Star Trek and Sheldon Cooper on The Big Bang Theory). Feeling that takes no thought can be heartless (Guinevere and Lancelot's feelings causing the war that destroys Arthur's Camelot, besides ultimately separating them from one another. Love in that case, does not so much conquer all as destroy all.).

It seems I have particpated in my typing every ten years or so since 1980 . It was in teh 90s that I was shown that each of the eight preferences can also be strong, weak, balanced etc. And that most individuals change their style over time, or learn to be flexible in adopting various styles on a situational basis (though as indicated, some will resist or be culturally discouraged in doing this). At any rate, I have observed that well-functioning councils ideally bring the various types together for spiritual optimization, and also that, as individuals are spiritually optimized, the same thing happens with them internally.

[cinepro]

Brigham Young emphatically and repeatedly urged the Saints to NOT trust their leaders blindly, but to find out for themselves.

He might have said it, but after reading Turner's bio of the man, I'm pretty sure that once he got to Utah, he didn't believe it.

[Kevin Christensen]

I just lost a huge post unfortunately. I hate it when that happens.

Kevin this is huge.

I will cut to the chase since I just lost a long explanatory post- but I am certain you will catch my drift anyway.

How do we get the traditional personality types to understand and "grok" Kuhn and the boys? I think you have your finger on the pulse and have diagnosed the problem. The question becomes "what is the cure?"

The future of the perceived "reality" of religious experience hangs in the balance- that may seem dramatic but I don't think it is. At this point it is either Scientism or Anti-realism and the accountants in the tower are not about to go with the latter.

Kuhn's book has been around since 1962 or so. It has had an impressive influence in certain circles. Resistance from others, and none at all in a wider circle. James Burke did a wonderful TV series on PBS back in 1985 called The Day the Universe Changed, explaining how paradigm shifts have happened through history. Most people watched sports and sitcoms and cop shows instead.

There is a sense in which asking for a cure here is like asking for a cure for physics. From my perspective, it's more a matter of understanding human and institutional behavior better, and then enjoying personal freedom that comes from understanding. The twelve step serenity prayer is about the acquiring "the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference." Gravity doesn't go away, but with enough understanding of physics by enough people, and the price of a plane ticket, I can fly back to Utah to visit my parents. Isabel Myers Briggs calls her book "Gifts Differing", directly alluding to the Biblical description of different spiritual gifts in the New Testament community. David Keirsey's book is called "Please Understand Me," and argues for appreciating differences in temperament, for people to step back and enjoy the difference differences make, and to stop trying to sculpt one another into images of ourselves. Knowing a bit more about what goes on helps me direct my energies in more productive ways.

And there is another sense where it's enough to find that "pure knowledge greatly enlarges the soul, without hypocrisy and without guile." Just understanding what is going on should lead to an enlarged soul, more compassion, tolerance, and patience, and comprehension of what it means to "sustain" one's leaders. (Read the meaning of sustain in a good dictionary.) One sees why people and institutions behave in particular ways, and that it is a multidimensional problem, involving 16 personality types, 9 stages on the Perry Scheme, several conceptual paradigms, and a practically infinite range of cultural and biographical variants. Amid all the chaos and variety, and consequent beauty, I also see welcome evidence of what the D&C describes as "a pattern in all things." Some aspects of the problem take time, human development on an individual basis, and cannot be imposed from above, or without. And for everyone that moves on to a new level of understanding, there are others just beginning their journey. It can never be a one size, one policy, one text, all at once solution.

In terms of practical application, I think it becomes a matter of becoming aware of the validity and the limits of one's own perspectives. It brings enough humility to become aware of the limits on one's own vision, motes in one's own eyes, and enough clarity to encourage speaking our own understandings.

Hopefully some leaven could affect the larger culture in time, but since human growth is involved we are always going to be talking about something that takes time, and is always going to be starting for some and in different transitions for others. In the Perry Scheme, you can't just move from Stage 1 to Stage 9. And with type, some flexibility comes with maturity and experience, but the basic preferences remain consistent over lifetimes.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[mfbukowski]

Kuhn's book has been around since 1962 or so. It has had an impressive influence in certain circles. Resistance from others, and none at all in a wider circle. James Burke did a wonderful TV series on PBS back in 1985 called The Day the Universe Changed, explaining how paradigm shifts have happened through history. Most people watched sports and sitcoms and cop shows instead.

There is a sense in which asking for a cure here is like asking for a cure for physics. From my perspective, it's more a matter of understanding human and institutional behavior better, and then enjoying personal freedom that comes from understanding. The twelve step serenity prayer is about the acquiring "the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference." Gravity doesn't go away, but with enough understanding of physics by enough people, and the price of a plane ticket, I can fly back to Utah to visit my parents. Isabel Myers Briggs calls her book "Gifts Differing", directly alluding to the Biblical description of different spiritual gifts in the New Testament community. David Keirsey's book is called "Please Understand Me," and argues for appreciating differences in temperament, for people to step back and enjoy the difference differences make, and to stop trying to sculpt one another into images of ourselves. Knowing a bit more about what goes on helps me direct my energies in more productive ways.

And there is another sense where it's enough to find that "pure knowledge greatly enlarges the soul, without hypocrisy and without guile." Just understanding what is going on should lead to an enlarged soul, more compassion, tolerance, and patience, and comprehension of what it means to "sustain" one's leaders. (Read the meaning of sustain in a good dictionary.) One sees why people and institutions behave in particular ways, and that it is a multidimensional problem, involving 16 personality types, 9 stages on the Perry Scheme, several conceptual paradigms, and a practically infinite range of cultural and biographical variants. Amid all the chaos and variety, and consequent beauty, I also see welcome evidence of what the D&C describes as "a pattern in all things." Some aspects of the problem take time, human development on an individual basis, and cannot be imposed from above, or without. And for everyone that moves on to a new level of understanding, there are others just beginning their journey. It can never be a one size, one policy, one text, all at once solution.

In terms of practical application, I think it becomes a matter of becoming aware of the validity and the limits of one's own perspectives. It brings enough humility to become aware of the limits on one's own vision, motes in one's own eyes, and enough clarity to encourage speaking our own understandings.

Hopefully some leaven could affect the larger culture in time, but since human growth is involved we are always going to be talking about something that takes time, and is always going to be starting for some and in different transitions for others. In the Perry Scheme, you can't just move from Stage 1 to Stage 9. And with type, some flexibility comes with maturity and experience, but the basic preferences remain consistent over lifetimes.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

You, sir are a very very wise man.

For some reason, I am reminded of this:

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb,

https://en.wikipedia...Dr._Strangelove

[media=]

Oh well. It is all in God's hands - I need to be better at letting go of it

Thanks mucho

Edited June 24, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

James Burke did a wonderful TV series on PBS back in 1985 called The Day the Universe Changed, explaining how paradigm shifts have happened through history.

He did another one called Connections that was great as well.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/james-burke-connections/

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/universe-changed/

PS: I have not watched these yet so am trusting the site works.

You are such an INFP in your comments (INFPs unite!).

[Stone holm]

I love the snippet, "The Catholic doctrine is that the Pope is infallible, but Catholics don't believe it; Mormon doctrine is that the Prophet is fallible, but Mormons don't believe it." I think that pretty much sums up the whole topic. Want to not get called on to give talks or teach classes? Either directly or indirectly suggest that a Prophet was dead wrong on something -- that will usually do it.

[Questing Beast]

...

You can look this up on the web, where their are several good sites. Wikipedia has information. There are very high correlations between career choice and type, particularly as life provides more chances for self-selection. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is the most widely used test in the world. All managers in the Pentagon have their results posted in their offices.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

http://en.wikipedia....learning_styles

Okay, I was writing lines and more lines of what would to you be mere blather. So I deleted it.

I am highly skeptical of such efforts to categorize people in the first place, and doubtful that the methods are reliable enough to be useful much. I don't like thinking of everyone I meet in such a manner. "What's YOUR grouping?" Etc....

Edited June 25, 2013 by Questing Beast

[KevinG]

Hee hee... now we are using Jungian archetypes to explain leadership dynamics in the LDS Church. How fun is that!

I suspect if you typed Apostles, Bishops, Stake Presidents and Quorum Presidents you will find a wide variety of types. Large organizations by their very nature favor those who can quickly assimilate information and make decisions (SJ) however the super-feelers (NF) tend to gravitate towards religious leadership roles and social work.

The bottom line for leadership is not what your tendencies are but if you can direct those tendencies to constructive outcomes.

It would be fun to do a real study on how the super decision makers (SJ) compare to super information gatherers (SP) in their evaluation of Gospel claims when choosing to convert and ongoing research into the finer points of church history and doctrine.

Of course well all know introverts (I) are better off seen and not heard right Kevin?

[KevinG]

I am highly skeptical of such efforts to categorize people in the first place, and doubtful that the methods are reliable enough to be useful much. I don't like thinking of everyone I meet in such a manner. "What's YOUR grouping?" Etc....

Spoken like a true SP...

Seriously... I don't tend to use these types of categorization or style instruments for professional purposes. I have certifications but I have found the best feedback instruments are behaviorally based and provide observable feedback for people to manage their leadership and work behaviors. While the Myers Briggs and other "style" instruments can lead to fascinating discussions they are limited in what they explain (small facets of personality) and not too useful when it comes to understanding and modifying behaviors (learning).

[mfbukowski]

A classical clash of types; the picture alone says it all :

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/men-s-wearhouse--why-we-fired-zimmer-134728434.html

[Questing Beast]

A classical clash of types; the picture alone says it all :

http://finance.yahoo...-134728434.html

I see. I don't' see. What is it that you see in that picture that "says it all"?...

[mfbukowski]

I see. I don't' see. What is it that you see in that picture that "says it all"?...

I see a man with a beard (non-traditional in corporate culture) gesturing and speaking to an older appearing man, perhaps who is not very interested in looking younger, who presents a perfect picture of "corporate culture".

Though the man with the beard is attempting communication, the other man sits dispassionately not even looking at the man with the beard.

Obviously I know that this is a moment in time captured by the camera and there is nothing "real" we can conclude from it- but to me it represented what the story was about: a man with an entrepreneurial spirit who founded a company- a risk taker by nature- who is an independent spirit- is fired from what used to be his own company by those who have taken over, for the good of the corporation and not for the good of the founder.

To me it represented the "types" of on one hand, the entrepreneur risk taker, vs the hierarchical rule-follower. In a sense it represents to me the individual vs the institution.

That's probably all projection on my part anyway, but I think that is why the photographer selected that particular photo- which is older- to accompany the story.

[mfbukowski]

There must be a physical age at which all possibility of changing our understanding of reality freezes into stone. Anybody know anything about that?

College students seem to be convertible, but forget about the older guys. Anyone know anything about that?

[canard78]

Hi Kevin, thanks for opening this thread.

There are two very interesting sub-topics in this. This issue of character types is very interesting and one I'd not considered. I will ponder 'pon it.

I had planned to start a thread on the 14 fundamentals. I may yet do so. I would suggest that they are an overclaim of a prophet's actual role and abilities. I appreciate some of the quotes you've provided. I particularly like the self-deprecation of the BoM prophets. We could do with a little more of that and a little less of this:

“First: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

“Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.

“Third: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

“Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.

“Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

“Sixth: The prophet does not have to say ‘Thus saith the Lord’ to give us scripture.

“Seventh: The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.

“Eighth: The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.

“Ninth: The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.

“Tenth: The prophet may be involved in civic matters.

“Eleventh: The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.

“Twelfth: The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.

“Thirteenth: The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.

“Fourteenth: [Follow] … the living prophet and the First Presidency … and be blessed; reject them and suffer.”

These were read out twice in the oct 2010 General conference:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/obedience-to-the-prophets?lang=eng

and

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/our-very-survival?lang=eng

I struggle particularly with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 14

Do they fit your paradigm? If Brigham did not introduce the black priesthood ban with a divine sanction and if many prophets after perpetuated it without one, how can we say the prophet will never lead the church astray.

Point 4 of the above is wrong as soon as it's said. It even is leading people astray by telling them he never will. And yet many more people seem to believe this paradigm than yours.

I like yours. I just don't think it's how most people see it. I also continue to have reservations about the extent of the depth of errancy possible. The implications for 130 years of non-inspired practice is pretty serious.

Thanks for putting it so eloquently. You've given me something to ponder.

[Stone holm]

There must be a physical age at which all possibility of changing our understanding of reality freezes into stone. Anybody know anything about that?

College students seem to be convertible, but forget about the older guys. Anyone know anything about that?

Oh I don't know about that, this old geezer has changed a number of times, and anticipates doing so in the future until he winds up in a box -- interacting with the younger generation has a lot to do with it, and understandig the "growing up" is highly overrated.

[mfbukowski]

...the 14 fundamentals....

My suggested # 15:

"15. The previous 14 fundamentals are predicated on you having a testimony of each of them."

I don't think anyone is advocating "blind obedience" here, but it sure might sound like it.

Edited June 25, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Without a testimony, it is just somebody talking, so why listen?

[Stone holm]

My suggested # 15:

"15. The previous 14 fundamentals are predicated on you having a testimony of each of them."

I don't think anyone is advocating "blind obedience" here, but it sure might sound like it.

1st, 4th, and 13th are all we really need to know, the rest is sometimes up for grabs. As far as the Prophet not leading the Church Astray, I think that one can look at that in several ways -- the one I have always been most comfortable with is that the Prophet will never lead you into doing something that will land you in outer darkness, he creates a sort of safe harbor -- doesn't mean that where he leads the Church is necessarily the best route to anywhere it just that you won't be held accountable for following him.