The Moral Hazard of Institutions and What We Can Do

[jkwilliams]

12 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Well and good though I never said or implied disagreement about policy is an attack. I'm don't know where you're getting that from in my comment. The quoted comment is a character aspersion against the Brethren and those who would support them. 

I can’t answer for Teancum, but the only reason I would cite that scripture is to point out how sometimes we unwittingly focus on the wrong things. I’ve met and worked with a number of general authorities, and almost all have been men of very high character. I have no doubt they are doing their best to do right. That said, there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with something the church does as an institution. It isn’t infallible, or so I’m told. 

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

What's interesting to me is that, not only are we criticized for daring to make a judgment about the morality of a charitable organization stockpiling cash, but we are accused of bad faith, anti-church hostility, and even lack of moral values for the suggestion. Weird. 

That is what is called LDS apologetics.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

That is what is called LDS apologetics.

Well, some LDS apologetics. 

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Right back atcha. 

Underwhelming.

 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I find it amazing all ingenuity and effort it takes for cynics to endlessly find fault in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

Persecution complex.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

To regularly see it and cast it in the worst possible light. 

Any criticism for you is thus even though you claim it not to be. 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

To perpetually demand things of it though they do not support it, or even like it much. 

I gave most my life to the church as I have noted many times.  And hundreds of thousands of $$.  Ultimately the LDS Church can do whatever it wants. I have no say.  Guess what,  When it comes it its huge wealth neither do you.

 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

To shift the goal posts and demand a never-rationalized-or-explained-but-ever-before-us-and-perpetually-vague-and-nebulous "more."

Good lord. I am pretty consistent on this topic actually.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

To either not give credit where due, or else do it begrudgingly, through gritted teeth, as a backhanded "compliment."

Over the top hyperbole.  

[Teancum]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Well, some LDS apologetics. 

IMO, most.

[ttribe]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

My position is laid out in some detail above.

That's the understatement of the century.

[Tacenda]

On 5/25/2023 at 8:05 PM, Hamilton Porter said:

You can see multiple non-LDS people on YouTube speak about how moral LDS are, even if you've been living under a rock in real life. Even some from critics. It's not "anectodal."

You guys act like this is something controversial. 

You aren't Jacob Hansen are you? Listened partially to a Bill Reel conversation with him, and he spoke of LDS having moral superiority.

[Meadowchik]

On 5/21/2023 at 5:22 PM, CV75 said:

So, the Church community and organization are kept moral, that is, aligned with its laws, articles, covenants, practices, etc., by the members perpetuating the Gospel.

"The members perpetuating the gospel" seems to detach the institution itself from any moral standard. How does an individual "perpetuating the gospel" keep the institution from being immoral?

[Meadowchik]

On 5/21/2023 at 7:38 PM, CV75 said:

Public financial reporting is not a moral principle, is not a requirement for the moral behavior of an institution and does not ensure or prove its moral behavior. It is a good business and governing practice, but not all institutions are of a business or government nature/construct.

How is financial reporting NOT a moral practice? Of course it is a moral exercise. It is a way for an institution to maintain the trust relationship between the officers, employers, shareholders, etc...

[Meadowchik]

On 5/21/2023 at 8:00 PM, rpn said:

Or maybe it is just leaving to God what is His.   Trying to retain control over earthly things only works to our benefit when it is part of our own stewardship.   Tithing isn't our money to start with.  It is His portion of the 100% that He has given us.

Like I said in the Whistleblower thread:

If you take tithing as a base principle it is to give of your means to the Lord. There can be uncountable ways to do that and only one of them is giving it to one specific church. 

 

There's nothing in the principle of giving means meant for the Lord and then dropping the ball and wiping our hands of responsibility. On the contrary, because it's meant for the Lord we would need to assure ourselves of where it goes.

 

There's a much higher likelihood that a good God would want people to be good stewards of the means they dedicate to God, and that those who stop tithing to one cause in order and pay to a cause they can better confirm are being good stewards. Indeed they are doing much more to obey the spirit and the letter of the law.

 

Finally it's quite possible that if a church has mishandled tithes, that not only that church's leaders but that church's membership will fall under condemnation.

 

We should know where our means go when they are tithed, and if we don't know and don't try to know, and don't make corrective action when we cannot know or when we know it's mishandled, that's on us.

[Meadowchik]

On 5/22/2023 at 3:01 PM, Nofear said:

Sounds very Singer-like in argument.

 

Can you summarise the video points please?

[Meadowchik]

On 5/23/2023 at 3:46 AM, Analytics said:

I've been thinking about these two claims off and on all day. I happened to have dinner by myself today, and whimsically decided to watch YouTube while I ate. YouTube suggested several videos for me including "George Carlin--Question Everything", "How to Care for a Dog with Degenerative Myelopathy," "Liberal Redneck--The Problem with DeSantis," and "Pool Lesson: Side Spin on the Cue Ball."

For some reason, perhaps because I'd been thinking about whether or not the Church is "overwhelmingly good," I decided to click on a link to a John Dehlin interview with a recently returned sister missionary by the name of Brinley Jensen. Part one of her interview (Episode 1680) from November 1, 2022 is titled "The Dark Side of a Mormon Mission," is a little over three hours long, and so far has 404,283 views. Part 2 (Episode 1681) is entitled "Leaving Early from my Mormon Mission", is a little less than 2 hours in length, and so far has 157,202 views. I don't know if those are typical numbers for Mormon Stories YouTube videos, but from what I saw, this video was refreshing because Brinley comes across so sincerely, telling her own story of what her life has been like as a Gen-Z Mormon. She had a testimony when she started her mission, and you'll need to listen to the interviews learn what happened next.

Are the members of the Church good and decent people? Is the Church itself overwhelmingly good? Brinley's story is an interesting case study into those two questions. 

Missions are an important example of the church's impact sometimes being counter its goals and intentions. It's good to see gradual changes improving the mission experience and reducing harmful mission experiences, but it is unfortunate these changes take so long and are so slow. Unnecessary so, imo.

[Meadowchik]

On 5/23/2023 at 4:40 AM, Analytics said:

The lesson I got from it is that for her, the Church unnecessarily caused most of the problems in her life. It wasn't that the people were imperfect. It's that the institution itself caused otherwise good people to focus on things that weren't healthy for this kid, such as missions, temples, garments, etc. Without the institution and those social dynamics manipulating them, there is no way these people would have thought it would somehow be good to make Brinley do the things the Church wanted her to do. But because the Church is the Church, they felt it was their duty to force her to conform. 

The people are overwhelmingly good. That is true. The church itself? I don't see it.

Yep, you say it well. The people can be good but the institution can do things that people wouldn't otherwise do. 

Take those elders who belittle her prayer for the woman: the elders have been given the special position as priesthood holders that the sister cannot have because she is female. This resulted in her not being able to tend to the spiritual needs of another person and also resulted in her contribution being classed as inferior to theirs. I don't think the story shows the elders were doing anything other than sincerely trying to help the way they were taught, but they still did harm.

[Meadowchik]

On 5/23/2023 at 6:25 AM, Calm said:

This does not say “do it if you think it is wrong”, but it sounds more to me like if a mistake is made where neither leaders nor yourself know something is wrong, you will still be blessed for obedience even if the consequences of doing something wrong must also be dealt with.  Later he was talking about “earthly knowledge”, which sounds more like factual knowledge to me….something along the lines of setting up a settlement in a questionable environment. 
 

It doesn’t sound like he was speaking of intentional moral wrongs, though I understand why some interpret it that way.

It sounds pretty straightforward to me. If it was capital W wrong in all ways, the point is the boy will be blessed for his obedience.

[Meadowchik]

On 5/23/2023 at 7:03 AM, california boy said:

I think it was while I was on my mission when I began to realize that the Church did not have some magical moral compass that would lead me to doing the right thing if I just set aside my own beliefs and deferred to Church leaders.  I grew up in California and the idea that blacks were somehow curses and not entitled to the same blessings as the rest of humanity was a real problem for me.  I remember trying to convince investigators that this was the will of God.  But in my heart, it just felt wrong.  I regret teaching that principle to them.

When I came back from my mission, I talked to Church leaders about being gay.  Church leaders once again told me that what God wanted me to do is just marry a woman and being gay would just disappear.   I remember that first year of marriage, wondering why nothing was changing.  While I had married a good friend, I struggled to move beyond just being friends.  Nothing ever changed.  I was still as gay as I had always been.  

I tried once again to force what the Church was telling me was the true compass back to God with the reality of what I was feeling and the world around me.  Both events shaped my life profoundly.  That loss of trust and faith in Church leaders was devastating to me.  I kept thinking that somehow it was my fault and if I just did everything God wanted me to do, somehow it would work out.

What I never expected to have happen is that after leaving the Church, my relationship with God actually strengthened and I felt more guided by Him than all those years struggling in the Church to follow what I believed to be men who spoke for God.  

That sureness that leaving the Church was the right thing for me only increased with time.  When I read so many of the discussions on this board, I see members trying so hard to make things fit, just like I did.  Willing to excuse the Church over and over again for questionable moral decisions it is still making.  I see more clearly the pretzel twisting faithful members have to go through to try to not falter and stay on the path Church leaders have laid out for them.  Sometimes I want to scream that they should trust God more, He will lead them.  

 

"Look unto me in every thought.  Doubt not, fear not."(Doctrine and Covenants 6:36)

Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.  In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. (Proverbs 3:5-6)

Is there goodness in the Church?  Yes.  Is everything taught by Church leaders the will of God?  Nope.  Is it possible to rely on God to guide your path?  Absolutely.  Doubt not, fear not.   

 

Thanks very much for this.

The closest I have been to believing that there is still some hope for me getting value from religion was when I learned about the institutional framework of the Community of Christ. Seeing a church investing in institutional morality really inspired me.

And the result of the spiritual experience was very powerful for me too, I've shared it before:

 

In that situation, I had sat in conference meetings where CoC members went over their church's practices for institutional governance and accountability. 

Last week I sat in a similar meeting for another institution. The head officer presented member survey results and spoke frankly about the positives and negatives and opened the discussion for improvements.

These to me are essential standards for institutional morality and we will not get away from the need for them as long as humanity endures. 

 

[Meadowchik]

On 5/24/2023 at 11:58 PM, Hamilton Porter said:

The LDS Church is not an established religion like the Catholic Church. There are no countries where it's the state religion, let alone the majority.

It has been established as the dominant influence in Utah for generations. 

[Meadowchik]

On 5/25/2023 at 4:29 PM, Stormin' Mormon said:

  In economics "difficult but not impossible" is just another way of saying "expensive and inefficient"

 

Or the inefficiency can just be part of the learning curve, which will improve with time, energy, and experience.

[Meadowchik]

On 5/26/2023 at 7:58 PM, Vanguard said:

You mean like someone saying -

Quoting New Testament scripture to imply that those who consider themselves Christian and support the Brethren in their decision-making regards to financial matters really only care about money and not alleviating human suffering?

That kind of character attack?

Got it. : (

Quoting New Testament scripture as commentary on church finances is very relevant to the institution and its goals as a whole. 

[Meadowchik]

On 5/26/2023 at 9:44 PM, jkwilliams said:

I can’t answer for Teancum, but the only reason I would cite that scripture is to point out how sometimes we unwittingly focus on the wrong things. I’ve met and worked with a number of general authorities, and almost all have been men of very high character. I have no doubt they are doing their best to do right. That said, there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with something the church does as an institution. It isn’t infallible, or so I’m told. 

It's not and the thing some commenters seem to struggle with here is the idea that the church needs oversight by members. Of course this is understandable because LDS are taught to trust their leaders to have the final say and control over what the church does.

But as my OP says, trusting the institution that much is morally risky. It means your contributing and supporting actions you're not allowed to know about and if you are you're still not allowed any say even if the actions are harmful.

[Nofear]

18 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Can you summarise the video points please?

"Singer’s argument depends on a fairly straightforward moral principle: if we can prevent something very bad from happening without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, then we are morally obligated to do so.

This principle explains why we should save the drowning child: her life is far more important than your outfit.

But millions of people are suffering or dying from absolute poverty and many of us could easily do something to prevent this by donating to effective aid agencies. Further, our doing so wouldn’t require that we sacrifice anything of comparable moral importance: we would just need to spend less money on things less important than human life: e.g., vanilla lattes, Netflix, and other luxuries. So, Singer concludes that it is wrong for many of us not to donate—it’s like letting the toddler drown in the pond to prevent our clothes from getting ruined." (https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2021/03/05/ethics-and-absolute-poverty/)

 

This argument can be applied to individuals and the Church and many others. His argument has caused a lot of ink to be spilled to explain why it is not always so. I'm not saying I adhere to his argument but it definitely something that one should understand.

Edited May 30, 2023 by Nofear

[CV75]

11 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

"The members perpetuating the gospel" seems to detach the institution itself from any moral standard. How does an individual "perpetuating the gospel" keep the institution from being immoral?

See D&C 107: 81 - 84. When the members are moral and perpetuate the Gospel, including the checks and balances that ensure consistency with their standards of morality, their Church activities are moral or brought into line with their morality when exceptions occur. This council procedure is amoral, but it is applied for moral purposes.

11 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

How is financial reporting NOT a moral practice? Of course it is a moral exercise. It is a way for an institution to maintain the trust relationship between the officers, employers, shareholders, etc...

I think financial reporting, like the council process in D&C 107, is in itself is amoral. That is why I call it a business or governance practice (you call it an exercise) irrespective of morality. The views, standards and values of the people and their organizations using it determine whether they consider it a matter or morality.

[Vanguard]

17 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Quoting New Testament scripture as commentary on church finances is very relevant to the institution and its goals as a whole. 

Quoting New Testament scripture to suggest where the hearts of the Brethren are and I would argue, by implication, the hearts of where those who support the Brethren in this issue are is using scripture for character aspersion. You can defend it all you want (which actually surprises me) but that is what happened. It's not only irrelevant but quite below the belt. : (

Edited May 30, 2023 by Vanguard

[Meadowchik]

5 hours ago, Vanguard said:

Quoting New Testament scripture to suggest where the hearts of the Brethren are and I would argue, by implication, the hearts of where those who support the Brethren in this issue are is using scripture for character aspersion. You can defend it all you want (which actually surprises me) but that is what happened. It's not only irrelevant but quite below the belt. : (

The topic I started is about institutional morality, and the church it seems does aim for some moral institutional identity, going by its stayed mission and cannon. And in that cannon is the commentary in treasure and hearts, also in it is the description of the church as a body that should be one. 

In short, the aim is to create an institutional that has character too. And that's where I think the commentary of treasure and hearts applies: if we aim to build and maintain an institution of moral character, one that treasures the good, we have to intentionally construct and correct and make it so, just as we each individually aim to be of moral character treasuring goodness.

That's how it applies imo.

[Meadowchik]

17 hours ago, CV75 said:

See D&C 107: 81 - 84. When the members are moral and perpetuate the Gospel, including the checks and balances that ensure consistency with their standards of morality, their Church activities are moral or brought into line with their morality when exceptions occur. This council procedure is amoral, but it is applied for moral purposes.

I think financial reporting, like the council process in D&C 107, is in itself is amoral. That is why I call it a business or governance practice (you call it an exercise) irrespective of morality. The views, standards and values of the people and their organizations using it determine whether they consider it a matter or morality.

Financial accountability is a moral principle, and for it to be exercised there must be transparency. 

 

Edited May 30, 2023 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

17 hours ago, Nofear said:

"Singer’s argument depends on a fairly straightforward moral principle: if we can prevent something very bad from happening without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, then we are morally obligated to do so.

This principle explains why we should save the drowning child: her life is far more important than your outfit.

But millions of people are suffering or dying from absolute poverty and many of us could easily do something to prevent this by donating to effective aid agencies. Further, our doing so wouldn’t require that we sacrifice anything of comparable moral importance: we would just need to spend less money on things less important than human life: e.g., vanilla lattes, Netflix, and other luxuries. So, Singer concludes that it is wrong for many of us not to donate—it’s like letting the toddler drown in the pond to prevent our clothes from getting ruined." (https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2021/03/05/ethics-and-absolute-poverty/)

 

This argument can be applied to individuals and the Church and many others. His argument has caused a lot of ink to be spilled to explain why it is not always so. I'm not saying I adhere to his argument but it definitely something that one should understand.

Thanks!