Elder Ballard on Scouts, "“The reality there is we didn’t really leave them; they kind of left us,”

[The Nehor]

36 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m, I said comparable to what BSA has faced in the United States. And no TDS symptoms, please. 

So the new ointment has not cleared up the TDS yet? Sorry to hear.

[The Nehor]

18 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Nearly all organizations are bedeviled with group think and poor quality staff.  It is so endemic that no one even questions it.  The "yes-man" approach is a huge problem in all walks of life.  Is it a problem for the First Presidency and Twelve?  I don't know, and can only judge based on specific results.  Dealing with drug abuse is merely one issue, but Pres Ballard's words don't indicate that he has a grasp on the situation, and he is not alone in that respect.  Nearly all leaders of our modern society have the same problem.

In the economy of God, we are all required to use the materials and knowledge we have been given.  When we have the information and means, revelation is not needed.  Where is Brother Brigham when we need him?

So you think tjat because you are guessing?

[Prof]

16 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I would assume they scale down. I still think their biggest vulnerability will be abuse lawsuits.

I agree, that is there biggest.

Another big vulnerability is membership. There membership has been going down for quite awhile.our leaving makes that worse.

Another factor is debt. My understanding is that they owe a lot of money for the Summit. Those bills will soon come due.

[Prof]

There was just a major jump in the national annual fee from 36 dollars to 60. My understanding is that the majority of the fee increase, which was announced at the last minute, is to pay for insurance and legal fees.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

So you think tjat because you are guessing?

Pres Ballard is only one guy.  His failure to give appropriate advice on drug abuse is not at all unusual, but it is sadly typical.  I am not hazarding a guess about the rest of the Brethren, but I hope that their staff has a realistic handle on such issues.  The board of directors of any large corporation cannot actually master the details of managing the entire corp.  That has to be delegated to others.  Since it is precisely "yes-men" who get promoted, I don't hold out much hope for correct decision-making, unless and until there is a crisis or debacle.  That is, after the damage has already been done.

The city fathers of Miami, Florida, and Venice, Italy, for example, are now true believers -- decades too late to save themselves and their citizens.  How's that for decision-making prowess?

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Pres Ballard is only one guy.  His failure to give appropriate advice on drug abuse is not at all unusual, but it is sadly typical.  I am not hazarding a guess about the rest of the Brethren, but I hope that their staff has a realistic handle on such issues.  The board of directors of any large corporation cannot actually master the details of managing the entire corp.  That has to be delegated to others.  Since it is precisely "yes-men" who get promoted, I don't hold out much hope for correct decision-making, unless and until there is a crisis or debacle.  That is, after the damage has already been done.

The city fathers of Miami, Florida, and Venice, Italy, for example, are now true believers -- decades too late to save themselves and their citizens.  How's that for decision-making prowess?

It seems a bit on an overreaction to condemn most of the people in the COB for giving bad advice to an apostle. Maybe he is just right and you are wrong. Seems simpler.

[sunstoned]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Pres Ballard is only one guy.  His failure to give appropriate advice on drug abuse is not at all unusual, but it is sadly typical.  I am not hazarding a guess about the rest of the Brethren, but I hope that their staff has a realistic handle on such issues.  The board of directors of any large corporation cannot actually master the details of managing the entire corp.  That has to be delegated to others.  Since it is precisely "yes-men" who get promoted, I don't hold out much hope for correct decision-making, unless and until there is a crisis or debacle.  That is, after the damage has already been done.

The city fathers of Miami, Florida, and Venice, Italy, for example, are now true believers -- decades too late to save themselves and their citizens.  How's that for decision-making prowess?

I agree.  The Q15 are accomplished businessman, but they can't know everything.  They, like us, are products of their time and their upbringing/environment.  I don't know how the upper echelons of the church function.  But logic would dictate that the leaders should be surrounded with staff that would research and advise in an honest way, without self-censorship. 

One thing that the church leaders have against them is that they have been placed on a high pedestal.  A pedestal that does not allow criticism, constructive or otherwise.  This projects an air of arrogance.  When a leaders says follow me and even if I am wrong you will be blessed.  To many that is arrogance in the extreme, and sets them up as targets. So when one of the leaders stumbles, like all of us do, people note it.

Yes, I know we teach are leaders are fallible.  But I also know that the reality is to claim a leader has made a mistake is heresy. Case in point.  There are prominent members of this board who cannot bring themselves to say a current leader as made a mistake or misspoken.  IMO, this is really sad.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I agree.  The Q15 are accomplished businessman, but they can't know everything.  They, like us, are products of their time and their upbringing/environment.  I don't know how the upper echelons of the church function.  But logic would dictate that the leaders should be surrounded with staff that would research and advise in an honest way, without self-censorship. 

One thing that the church leaders have against them is that they have been placed on a high pedestal.  A pedestal that does not allow criticism, constructive or otherwise.  This projects an air of arrogance.  When a leaders says follow me and even if I am wrong you will be blessed.  To many that is arrogance in the extreme, and sets them up as targets. So when one of the leaders stumbles, like all of us do, people note it.

Yes, I know we teach are leaders are fallible.  But I also know that the reality is to claim a leader has made a mistake is heresy. Case in point.  There are prominent members of this board who cannot bring themselves to say a current leader as made a mistake or misspoken.  IMO, this is really sad.

That is a definite problem.  On the one hand, the LDS Church is a community and does need to act in a unified way.  Quarrelsome and disloyal members can wreak havoc if they lack self-restraint.  On the other hand, blind lockstep can be equally dangerous.  When I was a Jarhead, instant obedience was really necessary.  People's lives depended on it.  As civilians we can afford to be more careful rather than simply going along to get along.  Sometimes a frank word is appreciated.  This can be done with good grace, and I have done it.  I was gratified at the humble and meaningful response I obtained.  I am even more grateful that I don't have to shoulder immense responsibiiities.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It seems a bit on an overreaction to condemn most of the people in the COB for giving bad advice to an apostle. Maybe he is just right and you are wrong. Seems simpler.

I guess you missed my point:  It isn't just the COB, but all offices and all businesses in which such flawed organizational behavior can lead to failure.  One has to call them as he sees them, and yes one can easily be wrong and not even realize it.  That is the final point.  How do we deal with that fact?  One method is to assume that one doesn't know enough, and to consult with specialists.  Another is to examine successful programs (if there are any).  No doubt, getting rid of the BSA-Church relationship came only after long and difficult discussions.

The Jewish rationale (as told to me by Jews) is that we are all in a wooden boat.  When someone begins chopping a hole in the bottom of the boat, something needs to be done.  Now.

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I guess you missed my point:  It isn't just the COB, but all offices and all businesses in which such flawed organizational behavior can lead to failure.  One has to call them as he sees them, and yes one can easily be wrong and not even realize it.  That is the final point.  How do we deal with that fact?  One method is to assume that one doesn't know enough, and to consult with specialists.  Another is to examine successful programs (if there are any).  No doubt, getting rid of the BSA-Church relationship came only after long and difficult discussions.

The Jewish rationale (as told to me by Jews) is that we are all in a wooden boat.  When someone begins chopping a hole in the bottom of the boat, something needs to be done.  Now.

I still do not believe it is happening at all so I see no need to “deal with the fact”.

[Robert F. Smith]

16 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I still do not believe it is happening at all so I see no need to “deal with the fact”.

Well, you may be right, in which case I am wrong.  It is very difficult to see it all sub specie aeternitatis.  Moreover, the changes in LDS Church are coming so thick and fast that it is hard to know where we will all be a year or so from now.  What will replace the BSA?   Will it be successful?  Those of us directly involved in Scouting are wondering.

As to drug abuse, the proof is in the pudding.  Continuous failure does not bode well for the future.

[The Nehor]

26 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Well, you may be right, in which case I am wrong.  It is very difficult to see it all sub specie aeternitatis.  Moreover, the changes in LDS Church are coming so thick and fast that it is hard to know where we will all be a year or so from now.  What will replace the BSA?   Will it be successful?  Those of us directly involved in Scouting are wondering.

As to drug abuse, the proof is in the pudding.  Continuous failure does not bode well for the future.

We were failing on drugs before some states legalized marijuana. While I think legalizing it is a mistake I think there are much bigger causes for our problems. 

[pogi]

On 11/16/2019 at 1:26 PM, The Nehor said:

While I admire blarsen’s Portugal example of how to cope with these problems I believe there are cultural factors in the United States and in a lot of the rest of the world that would make this approach problematic and ineffective and I doubt we would see the same results. Portugal implemented it while coming out of a period of relatively benevolent authoritarian rule. Politically I see even less likelihood of it happening. The United States in particular has bought into the idea that this world is fundamentally moral and if you suffer or do not succeed then the problem is thought to be a moral one and the suffering is deserved. This worldview has a lot of advantages but also leaves blindspots. Add in the scandal of private prisons and unregulated “treatment centers” and companies that profit directly from illicit drug use and you have economic forces benefitting from the problem who will fight change.

So, you are suggesting it wont work in the US because some companies will fight the change?  Why should we allow the greed/immorality of a few dictate national policy?  I don't think these relatively tiny industries have as much power to fight change as you give them credit for.  As to morality in America - I disagree that Portugal views themselves as less moral somehow.  I don't even think you are speaking of morality per se, but you are speaking more to a belief that natural consequences are deserved - more a sense of natural justice than morality.  While there may be some of that in America, I believe that we are also a moral people and do truly wan't to help those who are suffering from addiction.  I completely disagree with your assessment that Americans don't want to help those in need and who are suffering from addiction.  I have faith in America, that we can make changes as Portugal has done.  I think we have more heart than you give us credit for.  While political change may not be easy,  I don't think it can't work in America too.  Continuing with the status quo simply is not the right answer.  It is a failed approach.  We need to acknowledge that and try something new.        

Edited November 18, 2019 by pogi

[pogi]

On 11/16/2019 at 2:49 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Just an aside about my late wife, who was an APRN (Advanced Practice Registered Nurse), and who did not drink booze.  She ended up the victim of the ignition interlock industry here in Utah County, after getting arrested for impaired driving one night on her way to work at the State Hospital.  I picked her up at the police station and she appeared to be unimpaired.  However, the blood they drew and tested showed regular pharmaceutical levels of the powerful drugs she took to control her epilepsy (prevent seizures) -- fully in line with her prescription.

At court she was fined and sentenced to have an ignition interlock system installed on her car in order to detect alcohol, even though her conviction was not alcohol-related.  The DMV was unconcerned with the absurd nature of that sentence, and I was unable to get a member of the State Legislature interested in the idiocy of the law they had on the books (strangely, the Senator I contacted was a nurse from Utah County, but she ignored my request to change the law).  That said, the ignition interlock people were very professional and even sympathetic, but that didn't help much.

Yes, because it is MUCH safer to have her drive off anti-seizure medicine - that makes sense   

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

So, you are suggesting it wont work in the US because some companies will fight the change?  Why should we allow the greed/immorality of a few dictate national policy?  I don't think these relatively tiny industries have as much power to fight change as you give them credit for.  As to morality in America - I disagree that Portugal views themselves as less moral somehow.  I don't even think you are speaking of morality per se, but you are speaking more to a belief that natural consequences are deserved - more a sense of natural justice than morality.  While there may be some of that in America, I believe that we are also a moral people and do truly wan't to help those who are suffering from addiction.  I completely disagree with your assessment that Americans don't want to help those in need and who are suffering from addiction.  I have faith in America, that we can make changes as Portugal has done.  I think we have more heart than you give us credit for.  While political change may not be easy,  I don't think it can't work in America too.  Continuing with the status quo simply is not the right answer.  It is a failed approach.  We need to acknowledge that and try something new.        

It is not a few companies. It is a general worldview in the United States that those who abuse drugs deserve to suffer. I am not arguing as to who is more moral or who thinks who is more moral; I am saying that the worldview is different. 

It is my experience that people in the United States say they want to help those who are suffering but in practice they generally do not unless it is someone they personally care about.

I think we could start with 80% of prescription opioids in the world being consumed in the United States when we are 5% of the population. I would like to see a program like the one profiled in Portugal for addicts but I do not think universal legalization would be a good step here.

[pogi]

28 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is not a few companies. It is a general worldview in the United States that those who abuse drugs deserve to suffer.

I was referring to the "private prisons" and "treatment centers" who profit from illicit drug use. It sounded like you were arguing these companies were a significant block to change. I just don't think they are that powerful.

28 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am saying that the worldview is different. 

I don't think it is so different that it can't work in the US

28 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is my experience that people in the United States say they want to help those who are suffering but in practice they generally do not unless it is someone they personally care about.

The vast majority know someone personally who is suffering from this problem.  I think once someone is touched by it personally, empathy is extended to others, naturally - at least enough for change in policy to be possible. 

28 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I think we could start with 80% of prescription opioids in the world being consumed in the United States when we are 5% of the population. I would like to see a program like the one profiled in Portugal for addicts but I do not think universal legalization would be a good step here.

Until we start investing in prevention and treatment instead of the massively expensive criminalization and drug wars, the problem will only get worse.   We are investing all wrong to make any real changes.  We cannot win the war, and we cannot criminalize it away.  It is a failed approach. 

Edited November 18, 2019 by pogi

[Duncan]

I don't understand this comment of his, on one hand we want gay youth, adults to feel included but at the same time a group that incorporates gay youth doesn't want to be associated with is because of the values we espouse? like do we or don't we want gay youth, adults in the church or not? you can't ask someone to drop their sexuality, or at least for very long, life isn't like that at all. 

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

I was referring to the "private prisons" and "treatment centers" who profit from illicit drug use. It sounded like you were arguing these companies were a significant block to change. I just don't think they are that powerful.

I don't think it is so different that it can't work in the US

The vast majority know someone personally who is suffering from this problem.  I think once someone is touched by it personally, empathy is extended to others, naturally - at least enough for change in policy to be possible. 

Until we start investing in prevention and treatment instead of the massively expensive criminalization and drug wars, the problem will only get worse.   We are investing all wrong to make any real changes.  We cannot win the war, and we cannot criminalize it away.  It is a failed approach. 

They are a big block to change. Pharmaceuticals companies are a much bigger one. Combined that is a lot of lobbying money. Most people are not passionate on this issue. A minority with a passion and a lot of money will often trump a larger group of more lukewarm opponents. You see a similar situation with gun control laws.

I do not find the spread of empathy works that way. Many see their brother or daughter or whoever as a victim of the other addicts sucking them in. It is a kind of “the only moral abortion is my abortion” and the cynical take of an abortion clinic worker who had worked on ten abortions of many women who identified themselves as pro-life while in the clinic: “Most pro-life women oppose abortions with four exceptions: rape, incest, the life of the mother, and me.” While this is not the state of all people or even necessarily most it shows how easily we compartmentalize. I have dealt with people living off welfare that complain about welfare recipients, seen homophobic gays, and talked to many member of the church who think the commandments are good rules.....for everyone else. I hope you are right and empathy fill flourish but I doubt it.

[pogi]

31 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

They are a big block to change. Pharmaceuticals companies are a much bigger one. Combined that is a lot of lobbying money. Most people are not passionate on this issue. A minority with a passion and a lot of money will often trump a larger group of more lukewarm opponents. You see a similar situation with gun control laws.

Whether or not these pose a threat, there is no reason to not fight them.  I think the problem is big enough, and has effected enough people to where, people are becoming open to change. 

31 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I do not find the spread of empathy works that way. Many see their brother or daughter or whoever as a victim of the other addicts sucking them in. It is a kind of “the only moral abortion is my abortion” and the cynical take of an abortion clinic worker who had worked on ten abortions of many women who identified themselves as pro-life while in the clinic: “Most pro-life women oppose abortions with four exceptions: rape, incest, the life of the mother, and me.” While this is not the state of all people or even necessarily most it shows how easily we compartmentalize. I have dealt with people living off welfare that complain about welfare recipients, seen homophobic gays, and talked to many member of the church who think the commandments are good rules.....for everyone else. I hope you are right and empathy fill flourish but I doubt it.

I disagree.  I think empathy does work that way.  Maybe not for everyone, but for many.  The views of many towards addiction in general have changed after they were forced to learn about it and address it with a loved one.  Family members act as a support group for addicts and often become involved in the larger recovery scene - because they know someone. 

If we compare where Portugal was to where we are now, there is NO reason to believe that we can't get there with some work. 

From the article:

Quote

In the early days of Portugal’s panic, when Pereira’s beloved Olhão began falling apart in front of him, the state’s first instinct was to attack. Drugs were denounced as evil, drug users were demonised, and proximity to either was criminally and spiritually punishable. The Portuguese government launched a series of national anti-drug campaigns that were less “Just Say No” and more “Drugs Are Satan”...

...Massive international cultural shifts in thinking about drugs and addiction are needed to make way for decriminalisation and legalisation globally. In the US, the White House has remained reluctant to address what drug policy reform advocates have termed an “addiction to punishment”. But if conservative, isolationist, Catholic Portugal could transform into a country where same-sex marriage and abortion are legal, and where drug use is decriminalised, a broader shift in attitudes seems possible elsewhere...

...“These social movements take time,” Goulão told me. “The fact that this happened across the board in a conservative society such as ours had some impact.” If the heroin epidemic had affected only Portugal’s lower classes or racialised minorities, and not the middle or upper classes, he doubts the conversation around drugs, addiction and harm reduction would have taken shape in the same way. “There was a point when you could not find a single Portuguese family that wasn’t affected. Every family had their addict, or addicts. This was universal in a way that the society felt: ‘We have to do something.’”

Yes, they are now in a culturally different place than we are - but it wasn't always so.  In fact it was worse there at one point, and yet change happened. 

Quote

 

Portugal’s policy rests on three pillars: one, that there’s no such thing as a soft or hard drug, only healthy and unhealthy relationships with drugs; two, that an individual’s unhealthy relationship with drugs often conceals frayed relationships with loved ones, with the world around them, and with themselves; and three, that the eradication of all drugs is an impossible goal.

“The national policy is to treat each individual differently,” Goulão told me. “The secret is for us to be present.”

 

That is inspired!

Edited November 18, 2019 by pogi

[strappinglad]

The cynic in me thinks that the cartels will be a big obstacle to legalization in the US. They have the deepest pockets to influence politicians.

[The Nehor]

30 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

The cynic in me thinks that the cartels will be a big obstacle to legalization in the US. They have the deepest pockets to influence politicians.

Pharma has deeper pockets and more non-monetary offerings.

[blarsen]

20 hours ago, The Nehor said:

So the new ointment has not cleared up the TDS yet? Sorry to hear.

Topically applied ointment won't touch TDS.  It's much more internal and deep seated.

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, blarsen said:

Topically applied ointment won't touch TDS.  It's much more internal and deep seated.

It is like the Force. To those who believe in it it explains everything and ties all of reality together.

Also, they’re both fictional.

[blarsen]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is like the Force. To those who believe in it it explains everything and ties all of reality together.

Also, they’re both fictional.

Perfect example of the deep-seated nature of it:  denying it exists; rather like:  "There is no devil . . . " etc.

[blarsen]

56 minutes ago, pogi said:

From the article:

"Portugal’s policy rests on three pillars: one, that there’s no such thing as a soft or hard drug, only healthy and unhealthy relationships with drugs; two, that an individual’s unhealthy relationship with drugs often conceals frayed relationships with loved ones, with the world around them, and with themselves; and three, that the eradication of all drugs is an impossible goal."

“The national policy is to treat each individual differently,” Goulão told me. “The secret is for us to be present.”

Yes, they are now in a culturally different place than we are - but it wasn't always so.  In fact it was worse there at one point, and yet change happened. 

That is inspired!

This is the policy I thought was so good.  A much, much better approach than the criminalization vector.