Thanks Skylla!!

[Palerider]

I actually wasn't attempting to start a thread under the "Where's your sense of humor" topic (especially one about gay marrriage). I had things to do and didn't come back to it for a few hours to even look at responses.

 

It was kind of surprising to see how quickly it was going to head for the rut of SSM.

 

What I'm more interested in is the personality type that I've seen in so many who are called to leadership in the church. Not all, but many.

 

My BIL is very well educated. Has achieved great things and received accolades in his chosen profession.

 

And he has been very charitable in his life. Absolutely no doubt about that. His church service has been exemplary.

 

But knowing him as I do, I remember when he was called to be a Bishop, having the thought run through my head that I felt a little badly for the people of his ward. Because I know how I would feel taking my deepest spiritual concerns to someone like him.

 

Don't get me wrong, there are many things I admire about him and he is deserving of that admiration.

 

Then today he sent me the joke.

 

So I posted the "Joke" he sent me, just to see what the general reaction might be and to see if it was "just me" thinking "this is kind of funny but not really, Bob" (not his real name)  

 

And I wondered if it was just me, or if others recognize a certain personality type that seems to end up in church leadership quite regularly?  

[Duncan]

well, not to judge but my previous Bishop knew a lot about the Church, very young, well read and very personable. My current bishop, let's just say he is on a very, very steep learning curve, is all about micromanagement and his nickname given by a counselour in the Bishopric is "Iron Fist". I personally don't have a high opinion of men in general and that is something I should work on, if I have to, I guess

[halconero]

Nah. My first mission president and the second were two completely different people.

 

The first was like unto Moses: Stern, the Lawgiver, Punctual, Intense, Austere

 

The second was like unto a fluffy bunny,

 

I loved them both, but they were very different personalities.

 

The stake president here in Toronto is a soft-spoken, Biomolecular and Evolutionary Science professor from Finland. He doesn't like the spotlight, and barely speaks above a whisper.

 

My father was involved in South American Liberation theology (Marxism crossed with Latin American Catholicism), still leans way far left, is a well-spoken, but kind of awkward man and is currently a Bishop.

 

I could give other examples, from mission leadership, to general authorities, but I don't really see one underlying personality endemic in Latter-day Saint leadership.

[Calm]

I have had a wide variety of bishops. Perhaps in a local area one might get a certain variety but I haven't stay long enough to really see that...maybe I knew my bishops too well in Canada so they appear more different to me than they would someone else (having one of them excommunicated kind of skews the comparison too, but it seems like to me there was one (too) relaxed, a less relaxed one and then a more relaxed chosen again. Stake presidents were quite different as well. Bishops in my present stake are varied as well.

[Palerider]

Interesting responses.

 

It seems to me that most of the Leaders I have encountered in the "Mormon Corridor" were people who, like my BIL, craved or felt very comfortable in a highly structured environment. And when anything came along that sort of tweeked that environment it was perceived as something that needed to be eliminated because it threatened the "Order".

 

Don't get me wrong. Structured environments help us to get things done smoothly and efficiently, but sometimes they can be anathema to creativity or independent thinking that could actually improve the order.

 

And those kinds of personalities that crave structure are more inclined to have knee-jerk reactions when confronted with an anomoly in the order.

 

Rather than really "listening" to the essence of what someone is trying to say they have a tendency to just be "waiting" for their opportunity to give the scripted answer. 

 

I wouldn't be surprised to find fewer of these types of personalities in the mission field, and thinking back on it I'm sure there were less disciplined types out there, but one must ask, "Is that just because they were less "schooled" in the order? 

 

Is it, the longer one is in leadership the more they begin to take on the attributes of group think structure?

Edited January 15, 2014 by Palerider

[Robert F. Smith]

Interesting responses.

 

It seems to me that most of the Leaders I have encountered in the "Mormon Corridor" were people who, like my BIL, craved or felt very comfortable in a highly structured environment. And when anything came along that sort of tweeked that environment it was perceived as something that needed to be eliminated because it threatened the "Order".

 

Don't get me wrong. Structured environments help us to get things done smoothly and efficiently, but sometimes they can be anathema to creativity or independent thinking that could actually improve the order.

 

And those kinds of personalities that crave structure are more inclined to have knee-jerk reactions when confronted with an anomoly in the order.

 

Rather than really "listening" to the essence of what someone is trying to say they have a tendency to just be "waiting" for their opportunity to give the scripted answer. 

 

I wouldn't be surprised to find fewer of these types of personalities in the mission field, and thinking back on it I'm sure there were less disciplined types out there, but one must ask, "Is that just because they were less "schooled" in the order? 

 

Is it, the longer one is in leadership the more they begin to take on the attributes of group think structure?

Group think is always a major risk.  It goes with the territory, be it political, scientific, or religious.  The demand for it in most venues (Mormon and non-Mormon) is all too common, and frustrating.

 

The Brethren put great store by unanimity (I have heard some extraordinary statements made about it), and I know that I myself will sublimate my own wishes on occasion for the sake of unity and harmony.  Many men might compare the need to say "yes, dear" to their wives, even when they have their doubts.     

 

I have some deeply committed friends in academia who believe that throwing intellectual "grenades" is very desireable, and I know of some people who find it very annoying.  I have always had a special liking for the rebels among us, people who know what they believe and won't stand for any equivocation.  People who don't like the cookie-cutter mentality, and who don't mind injecting some discomfort into a quiet and orderly meeting.

 

I may have been fortunate not to have had to deal with Mormon leaders (bishop and above) who are narrow, superficial, cantankerous, and priggish.  I'm sure that there are some real losers out there, and I have heard stories about bishops getting excommunicated and even going to federal prison.

 

However, Paleface, bear in mind that this is only a test.  If it were the real thing, then you and I would be in big trouble.  I'm glad our elder brother decided to take on the real  thing . . . That gives all the rest of us a chance to lollygag around and play pretend.

[Calm]

Interesting responses.

 

It seems to me that most of the Leaders I have encountered in the "Mormon Corridor" were people who, like my BIL, craved or felt very comfortable in a highly structured environment. And when anything came along that sort of tweeked that environment it was perceived as something that needed to be eliminated because it threatened the "Order"....

And those kinds of personalities that crave structure are more inclined to have knee-jerk reactions when confronted with an anomoly in the order.

 

I've had three bishops since coming back to Utah.  I would describe only one of them as not being able to handle anomalies with flexibility and not stressing out.  And all of them were great listeners.  Perhaps it is the location or perhaps I just know how to get the right responses.

 

People who don't like the cookie-cutter mentality, and who don't mind injecting some discomfort into a quiet and orderly meeting.

 

I think this type is necessary and very important and wish there were more of them, but the type that does this because they think it's important to make people squirm, that it is educational and that it helps people to stretch their minds so they can become more critical thinkers like the bombthrowers (or they just see it as entertaining to hear people discuss new ideas, but don't really care about the ideas themselves, more of playing stump the mundane thinker) but aren't really committed to the 'grenade' itself but mostly for how people react to it....I see that as mind games and find it really, really, really annoying.  Usually goes along with a sense of superiority and a lack of actual engagement with the rest of the group.  They tend to be more observers of the group instead of trying to be a part of it.

Edited January 15, 2014 by calmoriah

[halconero]

Interesting responses.

It seems to me that most of the Leaders I have encountered in the "Mormon Corridor" were people who, like my BIL, craved or felt very comfortable in a highly structured environment. And when anything came along that sort of tweeked that environment it was perceived as something that needed to be eliminated because it threatened the "Order".

Don't get me wrong. Structured environments help us to get things done smoothly and efficiently, but sometimes they can be anathema to creativity or independent thinking that could actually improve the order.

And those kinds of personalities that crave structure are more inclined to have knee-jerk reactions when confronted with an anomoly in the order.

Rather than really "listening" to the essence of what someone is trying to say they have a tendency to just be "waiting" for their opportunity to give the scripted answer.

I wouldn't be surprised to find fewer of these types of personalities in the mission field, and thinking back on it I'm sure there were less disciplined types out there, but one must ask, "Is that just because they were less "schooled" in the order?

Is it, the longer one is in leadership the more they begin to take on the attributes of group think structure?

Going again from anecdotal experience, my first mission president was from Ohio, and by far the more structured, knee-jerk, controlled environment type.

My latter was from Provo, and far more loose.

I think it may have something to do with the professions we enter. The former was the vice-president of Proctor & Gamble international. The latter was a field reporter, and used to be independent.

What is your BIL's profession?

[Duncan]

Going again from anecdotal experience, my first mission president was from Ohio, and by far the more structured, knee-jerk, controlled environment type.

My latter was from Provo, and far more loose.

I think it may have something to do with the professions we enter. The former was the vice-president of Proctor & Gamble international. The latter was a field reporter, and used to be independent.

What is your BIL's profession?

 

 

that's true, I think people who work with people are better at that then those who don't, right now 2/3 of our Bishopric don't really work with others i.e a pharmacist who has to follow the rules rigidly and there is no wiggle room and a baker so again same deal but neither are people people and ward council mtg is more like ward conflict mtg

[Ahab]

Sounds to me like the type of leader you are talking about is the type that likes to have things in good order, and is willing if not eager to work at it. The type that wants to get rid of what is bad, or evil, instead of just putting up with it or accepting it as what is often considered to be natural or normal in today's world. As in that "joke" where the point was to remind us of what it once meant to be "stoned" with a connection to sinful behavior. And yes, I have noticed that trend you speak of, and I tbink it is a good thing. Especially when someone also has a good sense of humor.

[MorningStar]

I know all sorts of types in all sorts of positions.

[wenglund]

Some people apparently need to uncharitably stereotype aspects of the Church, not realizing that it serves no one to any good.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 15, 2014 by wenglund

[Palerider]

Group think is always a major risk.  It goes with the territory, be it political, scientific, or religious.  The demand for it in most venues (Mormon and non-Mormon) is all too common, and frustrating.

 

The Brethren put great store by unanimity (I have heard some extraordinary statements made about it), and I know that I myself will sublimate my own wishes on occasion for the sake of unity and harmony.  Many men might compare the need to say "yes, dear" to their wives, even when they have their doubts.     

 

I have some deeply committed friends in academia who believe that throwing intellectual "grenades" is very desireable, and I know of some people who find it very annoying.  I have always had a special liking for the rebels among us, people who know what they believe and won't stand for any equivocation.  People who don't like the cookie-cutter mentality, and who don't mind injecting some discomfort into a quiet and orderly meeting.

 

I may have been fortunate not to have had to deal with Mormon leaders (bishop and above) who are narrow, superficial, cantankerous, and priggish.  I'm sure that there are some real losers out there, and I have heard stories about bishops getting excommunicated and even going to federal prison.

 

However, Paleface, bear in mind that this is only a test.  If it were the real thing, then you and I would be in big trouble.  I'm glad our elder brother decided to take on the real  thing . . . That gives all the rest of us a chance to lollygag around and play pretend.

 

Not sure what you're saying here. I thought we were engaged in the real thing.

[Palerider]

I've had three bishops since coming back to Utah.  I would describe only one of them as not being able to handle anomalies with flexibility and not stressing out.  And all of them were great listeners.  Perhaps it is the location or perhaps I just know how to get the right responses.

 

I think this type is necessary and very important and wish there were more of them, but the type that does this because they think it's important to make people squirm, that it is educational and that it helps people to stretch their minds so they can become more critical thinkers like the bombthrowers (or they just see it as entertaining to hear people discuss new ideas, but don't really care about the ideas themselves, more of playing stump the mundane thinker) but aren't really committed to the 'grenade' itself but mostly for how people react to it....I see that as mind games and find it really, really, really annoying.  Usually goes along with a sense of superiority and a lack of actual engagement with the rest of the group.  They tend to be more observers of the group instead of trying to be a part of it.

 

 

I agree.

 

I think if you're one of those types that just wants to get a buzz out of someone, you're being manipulative and dishonest. Too bad those types don't usually have the neccesary introspection to self-correct or they wouldn't be doing it in the first place. 

[Palerider]

Group think is always a major risk.  It goes with the territory, be it political, scientific, or religious.  The demand for it in most venues (Mormon and non-Mormon) is all too common, and frustrating.

 

The Brethren put great store by unanimity (I have heard some extraordinary statements made about it), and I know that I myself will sublimate my own wishes on occasion for the sake of unity and harmony.  Many men might compare the need to say "yes, dear" to their wives, even when they have their doubts.     

 

I have some deeply committed friends in academia who believe that throwing intellectual "grenades" is very desireable, and I know of some people who find it very annoying.  I have always had a special liking for the rebels among us, people who know what they believe and won't stand for any equivocation.  People who don't like the cookie-cutter mentality, and who don't mind injecting some discomfort into a quiet and orderly meeting.

 

I may have been fortunate not to have had to deal with Mormon leaders (bishop and above) who are narrow, superficial, cantankerous, and priggish.  I'm sure that there are some real losers out there, and I have heard stories about bishops getting excommunicated and even going to federal prison.

 

However, Paleface, bear in mind that this is only a test.  If it were the real thing, then you and I would be in big trouble.  I'm glad our elder brother decided to take on the real  thing . . . That gives all the rest of us a chance to lollygag around and play pretend.

 

So Roberto,

 

How does one differentiate between "apparent uniformity" and "spiritual unity" in the church and does leadership get the two confused?

 

In my experience I think they do. I think the "unwritten order" is a prime example. It almost seems as if the church wants to create a hidden or unspoken language that avoids the critique that might come from actually having it written down. 

[Palerider]

that's true, I think people who work with people are better at that then those who don't, right now 2/3 of our Bishopric don't really work with others i.e a pharmacist who has to follow the rules rigidly and there is no wiggle room and a baker so again same deal but neither are people people and ward council mtg is more like ward conflict mtg

 

One would think that a true "leadership training" would help alleviate some of these issues, but as I recall most of my leadership training meetings were more like "Rah Rah" meetings that were geared towards telling us that the church was true and motivating us like a Zig Zeigler tape.

 

I always felt starved for someone who actually had a high level of experience in dealing with human relations.

 

Getting the individual to adhere to the "program" was what was important, not actually building spiritual unity through positive and genuine interaction.   

[Stone holm]

This reminds me of when our present Bishop was called, he is a very good Bishop, but in the course of his testimony given at the meeting in which he was called he mentioned that he had never read the Book of Mormon all the way through.  Lots of hands to foreheads were heard throughout the Chapel.  Course not sure the Stake President who called him to the position had ever read anything but the Book of Mormon, but thankfully they kicked him upstairs to be a Mission President somewhere.

[Palerider]

Sounds to me like the type of leader you are talking about is the type that likes to have things in good order, and is willing if not eager to work at it. The type that wants to get rid of what is bad, or evil, instead of just putting up with it or accepting it as what is often considered to be natural or normal in today's world. As in that "joke" where the point was to remind us of what it once meant to be "stoned" with a connection to sinful behavior. And yes, I have noticed that trend you speak of, and I tbink it is a good thing. Especially when someone also has a good sense of humor.

 

Yeah, it's great when you're dealing with a car or piece of machinery or a MacDonalds franchise, not so good when dealing with people....

 

"Franchised religion"......now there's a term I think has merit.

[Palerider]

Going again from anecdotal experience, my first mission president was from Ohio, and by far the more structured, knee-jerk, controlled environment type.

My latter was from Provo, and far more loose.

I think it may have something to do with the professions we enter. The former was the vice-president of Proctor & Gamble international. The latter was a field reporter, and used to be independent.

What is your BIL's profession?

 

I'd like to tell you but I have to play things a little close to the chest here. I wouldn't want to accidently hurt his feelings perchance he comes here from time to time. I know the chances are probably slim.

 

I can tell you his occupation is very, very structured with an intense heirarchy.

Edited January 15, 2014 by Palerider

[Duncan]

One would think that a true "leadership training" would help alleviate some of these issues, but as I recall most of my leadership training meetings were more like "Rah Rah" meetings that were geared towards telling us that the church was true and motivating us like a Zig Zeigler tape.

 

I always felt starved for someone who actually had a high level of experience in dealing with human relations.

 

Getting the individual to adhere to the "program" was what was important, not actually building spiritual unity through positive and genuine interaction.   

 

 

we had Elder Bradley Foster of the 70 come for stake conference last year and he shredded ward council mtgs, even had a neat video but absolutely nothing changed. 

[Palerider]

This reminds me of when our present Bishop was called, he is a very good Bishop, but in the course of his testimony given at the meeting in which he was called he mentioned that he had never read the Book of Mormon all the way through.  Lots of hands to foreheads were heard throughout the Chapel.  Course not sure the Stake President who called him to the position had ever read anything but the Book of Mormon, but thankfully they kicked him upstairs to be a Mission President somewhere.

 

I know you believe these callings come as a result of revelation but doesn't your vebiage betray a little......I guess skepticism wouldn't be the right word......

 

Utilitarian? Would that work?   

[Palerider]

we had Elder Bradley Foster of the 70 come for stake conference last year and he shredded ward council mtgs, even had a neat video but absolutely nothing changed. 

 

In a round-about way this almost makes my point. Bro. Foster's training may have in reality been the anomaly that was obliquely rejected by the local leadership who were interested in maintaining the time honored order or staus quo.

 

The anomaly doesn't have to strictly come from the lower echelons.

[Ahab]

Yeah, it's great when you're dealing with a car or piece of machinery or a MacDonalds franchise, not so good when dealing with people....

"Franchised religion"......now there's a term I think has merit.

People have problems that can be solved, so all anyone needs to know how to fix the problems.

[halconero]

I'd like to tell you but I have to play things a little close to the chest here. I wouldn't want to accidently hurt his feelings perchance he comes here from time to time. I know the chances are probably slim.

 

I can tell you his occupation is very, very structured with an intense heirarchy.

 

No worries. I understand the need for privacy.

 

It's sometimes difficult to tell how much our professions/schooling influence our personalities, or if our personalities drive us to those things.

[Stone holm]

I know you believe these callings come as a result of revelation but doesn't your vebiage betray a little......I guess skepticism wouldn't be the right word......

 

Utilitarian? Would that work?

Oh he will probably make a wonderful Mission President.