The Moral Hazard of Institutions and What We Can Do

[california boy]

7 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Link doesn't work.

Did you get the link to work??  I just tried it as well and it worked.

[Hamilton Porter]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

Did you get the link to work??  I just tried it as well and it worked.

Yeah I did. Thanks.

[manol]

12 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

By the way, without religion, what other method could we use, reliably, to determine what, exactly, is "good" and "evil"?  How, exactly, do we determine what is good and what is evil?

Imo this is an excellent question.  

Speaking only for myself, there are at least three primary sources I use.  The first and most fundamental is that I believe I can gauge how something feels to my soul (or to my heart and mind, for those who don't believe in “souls”).  Supposedly I have been given "the Light of Christ" (aka "a conscience"?), and presumably I can conduct valid "Alma Chapter 32"-esque experiments without religion in the institutional sense being a prerequisite.  Obviously I'm using terminology here which borrows heavily from a religion you may be familiar with, imo one which has a whole bunch of great teachings, of which these are among my favorites.

Another source I draw from is near-death experience accounts.  These have not been distilled and codified into an internally-consistent belief system, and I hope they never will be. Those concepts and teachings which are most beneficial to a person may (and probably will) change over time as the person evolves (progresses).

A third source is what might be called “great teachings”, some of which are found in the scriptures of the LDS church, some in non-canonical LDS sources (Brigham Young's dream-state conversation with Joseph Smith for instance), and quite a few in sources which have no outward connection with the LDS Church or with any particular religion.   Near-death experience accounts could theoretically have been included here, but in my mind, at this time, they deserve their own category. 

There's a certain welcome agility, one might say, arising from not having a formal association with any particular religion or belief system. I have no compelling need to reconcile new wine (new light and knowledge) with old winebottles (old paradigms). It feels like I have considerably more freedom to change my mind (hopefully for the better!) than before. I still have inertia to overcome in acclimating to new light and knowledge, but it's only internal inertia instead of being both internal and external.   NOT that I would expect my "lone wolf at the cafeteria" approach to "work" for anyone else!  I would encourage EVERYONE to always follow the highest that THEY know!  (<- And they get to decide what "know" indicates in this context.)

And from time to time along the way I find myself looking at concepts found within the LDS Church through a new lens, which gives me a renewed appreciation for my former religion, even if my perceptions often would be foreign to the mainstream LDS church.  Hence my continued participation here. 

 

Edited May 22, 2023 by manol

[Kenngo1969]

To be clear for anyone who might be wondering (or, apropos of nothing ...  ) I don't necessarily believe that, in all cases, religion or "god" is necessary for someone to possess a viable moral framework.  Notwithstanding what I just wrote, while I might wonder how (in Heaven's name ) someone could have a coherent, consistent, workable moral framework without [a] god or without some kind of a Higher Power at its center, If you are an honest, caring, upright, decent, moral individual who believes in doing good to and for others, in doing unto others as you would have done unto you, in loving your neighbor as you love yourself, and in making life as good as you can make it for yourself and for those within your sphere of influence before, finally, you "succumb to the void," more power to you.

I was simply responding to the argument that religion is responsible for a good share of the world's ills and evils, which I don't believe.  While one who professes a certain religion might make evil choices or poor choices, might harm others, and so on, and might concoct some sort of rationale to explain that, somehow, these evil or poor acts are justified by his or her religion, that justification and those acts are the responsibility of the individual and not of the religion, no matter the mental and moral gymnastics to which the person might resort in an attempt to argue otherwise. 

[Nofear]

22 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Is that how it works, goodness makes harm nothing to worry about?

I don't think that's moral. Goodness would help decrease any harm and produce more goodness, and most especially harm the institutional has itself done through its representatives.

Sounds very Singer-like in argument.

 

[smac97]

On 5/20/2023 at 5:07 AM, Meadowchik said:

It's not just a free rider problem, it is about the management of the institution itself. 

It looks like your conflating "free rider" with the institutional problem at the individual level where people absolve themselves of responsibility to keep the institution accountable.

People create institution and as you say sometimes it is to manage people but people have to manage the institutions. Ideally the institution including it's participants will all be part of managing the institution.

Yes.  That is the current condition in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  

Thanks,

-Smac 

[smac97]

On 5/20/2023 at 10:20 AM, jkwilliams said:

There is definitely a danger in ceding your moral judgment to a human institution, even if that institution is led by God.

I agree.

There is also a danger of the individual declaring his "moral judgment" to be paramount and unassailable, and then proceeding to attempt to impose it on others.  Sam Young and Kate Kelly come to mind.

On 5/20/2023 at 10:20 AM, jkwilliams said:

Everything humans touch is messy, even supposed direction from the divine. When we decide that every action of a human institution is beyond question, we can be led into some terrible actions.

I don't think that is happening in the Church.

On 5/20/2023 at 10:20 AM, jkwilliams said:

It’s quite telling that those who express any discomfort or opposition to morally or ethically questionable behavior are usually castigated for being judgmental or speaking evil of the Lord’s anointed. 

I dunno.  The judgmentalism and evil-speaking is often amply evidenced.

On 5/20/2023 at 10:20 AM, jkwilliams said:

Our conscience is usually a reliable guide to determine what is right or wrong, and we ignore our conscience at our own peril.

This sounds nice, but it ignores the remarkable capacity for rationalization and self-justification, for conflating personal preferences and desires with "right" and anything contrary to them "wrong."  Most of us can talk our way out of all sorts of "right" things, and into all sorts of "wrong" things.  All the while our own personal Jiminy Cricket is there, chirping away with encouragements.

On 5/20/2023 at 10:20 AM, jkwilliams said:

We should be wary of those who tell us to set aside our conscience.

I don't think anyone is doing that.

In the end, we must each do what we think is right.  But that needs to involve a willingness for the individual to calibrate his moral barometer.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 5/20/2023 at 1:48 PM, Hamilton Porter said:

I agree to some extent. It's basically a miracle that an institution that doesn't disclose its finances can remain scandal free for so long. And the only scandal involved a reporting technicality.

I don't see it as a miracle.  The Church has good internal controls / oversights / checks and balances in place.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[smac97]

On 5/20/2023 at 1:51 PM, jkwilliams said:

Quote

I agree to some extent. It's basically a miracle that an institution that doesn't disclose its finances can remain scandal free for so long. And the only scandal involved a reporting technicality.

That we know of. 

Given the level of scrutiny that the Church has been under for the past many decades (including overt attempts by folks like Ryan McKnight to induce church employees to pilfer church materials/records and transmit them to him as "leaks"), and given the presence of the internal controls, I think the Church's track record is more credibly attributed to good governance than to "well, we just haven't uncovered the scandals yet"-style speculations.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Given the level of scrutiny that the Church has been under for the past many decades (including overt attempts by folks like Ryan McKnight to induce church employees to pilfer church materials/records and transmit them to him as "leaks"), and given the presence of the internal controls, I think the Church's track record is more credibly attributed to good governance than to "well, we just haven't uncovered the scandals yet"-style speculations.

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree that we should leave considerable space for this possibility. 

[smac97]

On 5/20/2023 at 1:57 PM, jkwilliams said:

Quote

Economists and political scientists often use bureaucratic efficiency as an inverse measure of corruption. It's unlikely a corrupt organization can get returns like that.

I’m just saying there’s no way to know whether there has been any scandalous behavior or not until someone gets caught. 

If the controls, checks and balances, etc. in place are working, then they tend to eliminate or substantially mitigate the size/scope of "scandalous behavior."

We've come a long way since the spendthrift days of Elder Moyle.  I am glad Elder Tanner came along when he did.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 5/20/2023 at 2:57 PM, jkwilliams said:

I don’t think you need a particular ideology to want to better the lives of other people. 

Isn't "want{ing} to better the lives of other people" an . . . ideology?

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Isn't "want{ing} to better the lives of other people" an . . . ideology?

Thanks,

-Smac

Not necessarily. 

[smac97]

On 5/21/2023 at 12:33 AM, Meadowchik said:

Quote

There is definitely a danger in ceding your moral judgment to a human institution, even if that institution is led by God. 

Yes and ceding one's moral judgement to an institution doesn't seem wise, and not something a good God would want. It sounds like something corrupt mortals would require.

With respect, I think making an individual's "moral judgment" paramount can lead to all sorts of terrible things.  This is the philosophy of Korihor, as summarized in Alma 30:17 - "And many more such things did he say unto them, telling them that there could be no atonement made for the sins of men, but every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime."

If my "moral judgment" is paramount, then I can adjudicate anything I do and like as "moral" and anything that opposes me, or that I don't like, as "immoral."  

I think it is far preferable to look for and adopt an moral framework that is independent of the individual, and then seek to improve and strengthen it.  This is, I think, well expressed in the counsel of Alma to his son, Corianton, in Alma 39:9 - "Now my son, I would that ye should repent and forsake your sins, and go no more after the lusts of your eyes, but cross yourself in all these things; for except ye do this ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God. Oh, remember, and take it upon you, and cross yourself in these things."

And in Mosiah 3:19 - "For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father."

“The purpose of the gospel is … to make bad men good and good men better, and to change human nature.”—President David O. McKay, in the film Every Member a Missionary, as quoted by Elder Franklin D. Richards in Conference Report, Oct. 1965

I have long appreciated the Restored Gospel for its exhortation that we do things that require us to rise above selfish desires and preferences, and to make real sacrifices.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

With respect, I think making an individual's "moral judgment" paramount can lead to all sorts of terrible things.  This is the philosophy of Korihor, as summarized in Alma 30:17 - "And many more such things did he say unto them, telling them that there could be no atonement made for the sins of men, but every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime."

If my "moral judgment" is paramount, then I can adjudicate anything I do and like as "moral" and anything that opposes me, or that I don't like, as "immoral."  

I think it is far preferable to look for and adopt an moral framework that is independent of the individual, and then seek to improve and strengthen it.  This is, I think, well expressed in the counsel of Alma to his son, Corianton, in Alma 39:9 - "Now my son, I would that ye should repent and forsake your sins, and go no more after the lusts of your eyes, but cross yourself in all these things; for except ye do this ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God. Oh, remember, and take it upon you, and cross yourself in these things."

And in Mosiah 3:19 - "For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father."

“The purpose of the gospel is … to make bad men good and good men better, and to change human nature.”—President David O. McKay, in the film Every Member a Missionary, as quoted by Elder Franklin D. Richards in Conference Report, Oct. 1965

I have long appreciated the Restored Gospel for its exhortation that we do things that require us to rise above selfish desires and preferences, and to make real sacrifices.

Thanks,

-Smac

But what if the external moral framework is "Whatever God [or the institution] requires is right, no matter what it is"? How is that in any way better than making our own moral judgments? 

[smac97]

On 5/21/2023 at 12:50 AM, Meadowchik said:

What kind of scandal "counts" to you?

"Scandal":

Quote

1. a disgraceful or discreditable action, circumstance, etc.
2. an offense caused by a fault or misdeed.
3. damage to reputation; public disgrace.
4. defamatory talk; malicious gossip.

In terms of financial "scandals" in the Church, what do you have in mind?

The purchase of the Main Street Plaza was not, in my mind, a "scandal," but it did involve some unwise steps by the Church and by Salt Lake City.

On 5/21/2023 at 12:50 AM, Meadowchik said:

The church has gotten in trouble before.

And it will again.  We live in an era of endless laws, rules, regulations, etc. which are constantly expanding, changing, being re-interpreted, being applied in different (and sometimes arbitrary) ways, etc.  Moreover, those who run the Church will sometimes make mistakes.  There seem to be ample safeguards in place, and they seem to be pretty effective - but not 100%.

On 5/21/2023 at 12:50 AM, Meadowchik said:

The church funds IS the scandal for some and the reasons vary.

"For some" being the operative phrase here.

On 5/21/2023 at 12:50 AM, Meadowchik said:

You could say that the church has a budget problem for a long time and that once it got extremely wealthy, it conducted itself unacceptably. 

"Unacceptably" having a pretty substantial "eye of the beholder" whiff about it.

On 5/21/2023 at 12:50 AM, Meadowchik said:

But without financial transparency we can't really know. 

I dunno.  As I have said:

Quote

I also think that most reasonably-informed members understand and appreciate that the people who have access to and control over the Church's finances have put in place numerous safeguards, oversights, checks and balances, etc. so as to reduce the risk of misuse of such funds.  We have the Council on the Disposition of Tithes, the Budget Committee, the Appropriations Committee, the Church Budget Office, the Church Audit Committee, and more.  We get annual reports from the Audit Committee.  Moreover, we see the beautiful temples, the tens of thousands of missionaries, the thousands of church buildings, the Church's humanitarian and philanthropic efforts, the canneries and storehouses, Welfare Square, Humanitarian Square, and so on.

I also think that most reasonably-informed members understand and appreciate that the Brethren are not getting rich.  Their living allowances are static, uniform and fairly modest given the amount of work they do, the skills involved, and the alternatives available to so many of them.

I think we can repose some, perhaps even a lot, of trust in these measures and observations..

We can, I suppose, speculate about undetected "scandals."  Given the amount of scrutiny the Church is under, I think the likelihood of *big* ones happening "undetected" is . . . low.

On 5/21/2023 at 12:50 AM, Meadowchik said:

How does the church do regarding compensating victims of its leaders?

"Victims of its leaders?"  What does that mean?

On 5/21/2023 at 12:50 AM, Meadowchik said:

We cannot know, it doesn't give accountings of that. For example.

Settlements in civil disputes are pretty much always kept confidential.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[smac97]

On 5/21/2023 at 12:54 AM, Meadowchik said:

It certainly can. And tragically it can be completely unintentional. That's why knowledge and safety measures can be so important. 

Are you saying that the Church does not have "safety measures" in place?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 5/21/2023 at 5:31 AM, Meadowchik said:

The OP used a specific example and made the topic more general, which when regarding the church can be applied to not just finances but anything else in the church institution.

That said, compensation for sexual abuse victims IS very much a financial topic. If someone has been abused by a church leader they should be financially compensated by the church for pain and suffering and also possible punitive payments if institutional neglect contributed to the abuse or delayed the compensation.

And if they are compensated, do you really want that published to the world?  The recipient may well want to keep the terms of settlement confidential.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 5/21/2023 at 8:36 AM, Meadowchik said:

There are actual victims of sexual abuse by church leaders and the church is not transparent about it or about how it compensates the actual known victims. 

Do you think that "transparency" in this context might create some difficulties?

On 5/21/2023 at 8:36 AM, Meadowchik said:

So when you assist the church my any of your means, does it ever cross your mind how your contributions may facilitate/perpetuate it's institutional behaviours?

Yes.  And overall, I am very pleased with the Church's "institutional behaviors."

In the context of keeping covenants, though, I cannot adopt a "I'll only obey the Law of Tithing as long as the institutional church acquiesces to my expectations and demands as to how funds are expended"-style of thinking.  That's a fast track to all sorts of rationalizations and justifications for disobedience.

On 5/21/2023 at 8:36 AM, Meadowchik said:

Do you feel accountable for how people get treated by the institutional church?

Only in a very attenuated sense.

On 5/21/2023 at 8:36 AM, Meadowchik said:

Are you accountable?

For the errors of others?  Not really.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 5/21/2023 at 8:52 AM, california boy said:

The Church also tried to hide the full extent it donated to Prop 8, but later was caught and had to pay fines for not disclosing all of it's financial contribution to Prop 8.

 

Malarky.  From your own link: 

Quote

A church spokesman told the newspaper that while "all institutional contributions made by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to the ProtectMarriage Coalition were reported to the appropriate authorities in California," the church overlooked daily reporting requirements in the last two weeks before the vote and did not report contributions during that period until later.

To extrapolate "tried to hid" from "the church overlooked daily reporting requirements" is unreasonable and unfair.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 5/21/2023 at 9:16 AM, Meadowchik said:

More lack of transparency that negatively impacted people.

Who was "negatively impacted" by the Church's failure to comply with daily reporting requirements?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

23 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

By the way, without religion, what other method could we use, reliably, to determine what, exactly, is "good" and "evil"?  How, exactly, do we determine what is good and what is evil?

Well, there's the Korihor approach, summarized in Alma 30:17 - "And many more such things did he say unto them, telling them that there could be no atonement made for the sins of men, but every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime."

"{W}hatsoever a man did was no crime."  There is no right or wrong.  There is only the individual's personal, ad hoc, idiosyncratic sense of "right" (if I like X) and "wrong" (if I don't like X).

Thanks,

-Smac 

[smac97]

34 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

But what if the external moral framework is "Whatever God [or the institution] requires is right, no matter what it is"? How is that in any way better than making our own moral judgments? 

A few thoughts:

First, the interpolation is yours, and I don't think it is warranted.  The Church has never claimed infallibility for itself.

Second, your interpolation seems to contradict the counsel we have received.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

President J. Reuben Clark stated, “We can tell when the speakers are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’ only when we, ourselves, are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost.’” (Daniel H. Yarn, Jr., ed., J. Reuben Clark: Selected Papers on Religion, Education, and Youth, Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1984, pp. 95–96.)

This is in harmony with the counsel of Brigham Young: “I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not.” (In Journal of Discourses, 9:150.)
...
We make no claim of infallibility or perfection in the prophets, seers, and revelators. Yet I humbly state that I have sat in the company of these men, and I believe their greatest desire is to know and do the will of our Heavenly Father. Those who sit in the highest councils of this church and have participated as inspiration has come and decisions have been reached know that this light and truth is beyond human intelligence and reasoning. These deep, divine impressions have come as the dews from heaven and settled upon them individually and collectively. So inspired, we can go forward in complete unity and accord.

Third, I think Elder Maxwell offered some pretty good guidance on this issue here:

Quote

It is difficult for groups and organizations to rise above the level of their leadership, and while our ultimate leadership is divine, our proximate leadership is made up of imperfect humans whose own weaknesses have an inevitable impact upon the family, group, and church and the individuals within these settings.

There appear to be three basic leadership styles, each with its own limitations, advantages, variations, and spin-offs. There is, first of all, manipulative leadership, ranging in its more sinister form from the Machiavellian kind on through to the kind of modest manipulation each of us at times may consciously or unconsciously practice on those around us.

Manipulative leadership has certain advantages: it can at times give short-term results, solve a problem, or pass a crisis by manipulating people, feelings, and causes. It can at times give the followers a sense of action and accomplishment, yet does not require the leader to take into account the feelings and ideas of the members of his group since he is free to manipulate them, to bypass them, or to use their naiveté.

The disadvantages of this form of leadership are: it can be, and usually is, crushingly condescending; it seeks to carry out the wishes of the leader and to meet his needs, not necessarily the needs of the group. It can miscarry badly with an evil leader or end in chaos with a leader who is not sophisticated in his manipulation, and therefore, who is more apt to be exposed early. It uses or ignores people and their feelings without aiming at their growth.

A second basic pattern of leadership is directive leadership, in which the leader seeks to maintain his greater “psychological size” in relation to the members of the group. He is the dominant figure and though he may be very sincere and dedicated, he clearly calls the shots and makes the most crucial decisions.

This kind of leadership has these kind of advantages: it often can get results with considerable speed. It gives followers a sense of action and accomplishment. It gives them a certain sense of security, especially with a leader who is a rallying point around which they can flock. It avoids some limitations of group inadequacies, since the leader can call on group members for help where it is appropriate but need not be bound by sharing all decision-making with them.

We have all seen examples of this kind of leadership in a crisis. It is not a popular form of leadership in some quarters today, but we must be reminded that it has real advantages. [Former United States President] Herbert Hoover observed that while the American people like the “common man,” when they are in a crisis, such as war, they want the “uncommon general.” …

But there are disadvantages to directive leadership: it can create very dependent followers who rely too much of the time for too many things in too many circumstances on the leader. No doubt Brigham Young spoke from this kind of concern when he lamented:

“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they will settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way.” [Discourses of Brigham Young, sel. John A. Widtsoe (1941), 135.] …

President Young was striking at an essential principle of followership and leadership in this particular instance. It is not only important for the growth of the members involved to exercise their own claims on God for assurance about the direction of the kingdom, but it is also important for followers to prepare themselves to follow in such a way that their influence could be much more helpful to the leaders in reaching shared goals. Not only do followers who proceed, as Brigham Young said, “with a reckless confidence” fail to develop themselves in their own power and resources, but also they deprive the leaders of the kind of support they deserve and need at times from followers who are themselves developing the skills required. The 58th Section of the Doctrine and Covenants indicates that the Lord expects members of the Church to accomplish much on their own without incessant institutional insistence or prodding. It is neither realistic nor wise to expect leaders to provide all of the answers all of the time, to provide solutions to all of the problems that will arise. This would require leaders to be omniscient; further, it would require of them the kind of sustained energy and time which is simply not humanly possible to give over protracted periods of time.

The counsel by Brigham Young is just as appropriate for today as it was when he gave it. It is particularly needed in a Church that is growing in its size, scope, and strategic situation in the world today.

There is another subtle principle at issue here. It is linked with the counsel Jethro gave to Moses when the former suggested ways in which Moses might lead his people more effectively. Jethro urged Moses to delegate, not only for the sake of the people, but also for his own sake, because, as Jethro observed: “Thou wilt surely wear away, both thou, and this people that is with thee: for this thing is too heavy for thee, thou art not able to perform it thyself alone.” (Exodus 19:18.)

Even with his superior, divine skills, there were times when Jesus needed to take himself out of the pressing context in which he was situated to confer directly with his Father in heaven. He needed to be able to receive, especially since he was giving all the time. There is a genuine people-fatigue which can overtake leaders in situations; it is in these circumstances that they desperately need to have effective followers, not followers who are dependent upon them for advice at every turn of the road.

Over-dependency can thwart the purposes of God, who desires our individual growth and development, and followers who can be much more effective and supportive of leaders by sharing the commitment of the leader.

Directive leadership also has the potential disadvantage that the leader is often not aware of all the facts and feelings present among the followers. The talents of the followers and members of the group cannot be as fully developed unless they share more extensively in decision-making and implementation. This kind of leadership can miscarry even with a sincere, dedicated directive leader because he does not strive to mobilize the full resources of his group, nor is he himself always sufficiently omniscient to avoid error.

Directive leadership with all the advantages it possesses can encourage an attitude in some leaders toward followers when they are trying feverishly to impart instructions and information to them. It is almost as if these leaders in these situations wanted to dispense quickly whatever it was they had to say—instructional or informational—and be done with it! There are situations in which we can honestly shift spiritual responsibility by merely telling others, but this should not become a total leadership style. Rather than displaying the kind of love which is a “completely patient science,” some of us are willing to sacrifice for mankind, as Dostoevsky wrote, if “the ordeal does not last long but is soon over, with all looking on and applauding.”

Very often the talented directive person becomes very impatient with clumsiness and mediocrity in other people. The talented person may also bridle under the supervision of someone whom he believes to be inferior to himself. Abraham Maslow has observed: “When the pigeon bosses the eagle, the eagle is miserable.” But in a Church of eagles and pigeons, people need to learn to follow as well as how to lead, and there are times when pigeons temporarily lead eagles, and the eagle has a responsibility to learn from this experience as does the pigeon. But the talented also have other burdens as Maslow has observed too. They can become so anxious over their superiority that they hold back the full impact of their talents for fear they will be seen by others as being too dominant and too adequate. What often arises in these situations is a kind of false display of humility. If, however, the “pigeons and the eagles” have a commitment to each other and each other’s well-being, there is a way they can draw on each other for appropriate skills, talents, and help—but this requires a system of openness and trust. …

A third kind of leadership is participative leadership in which members of the group share widely in decision making, in which the group is democratically run, in which procedures are adopted and traditions built to insure that this will be the case. This kind of leadership has these advantages: it often uses the talents, feelings, and facts of group members very effectively. It gives group members a chance to invest in goals and in problem solving so that there is greater group compliance and team work in obtaining these objectives. It often creates excellent conditions for individual growth.

Participative leadership seeks to call upon the maximum resources of the group members. When it succeeds, this kind of leadership results in a higher achievement than the individual alone could produce. Participative leadership assumes that everyone has something to give, which is not inconsistent with the teaching that “For all have not every gift given unto them; there are many gifts, and to every man is given a gift by the Spirit of God.” (D&C 46:11.)

Leadership rests to a significant degree on the kind of decision-making that makes effective use of feedback (communication to another person or group which gives that person information about how he has affected others and how he stands in relation to his goals and intentions). Participative leadership frees those concerned to provide helpful feedback, whereas directive leadership often suffers from the fact that as the leader acquires more prestige and power, his followers may be less and less likely to level with him even though he wishes this were not so.

The disadvantages of participative leadership are that, at times, groups focus too much on feelings and become too immobilized to take needed action. A group may listen and hear only the signal of “an uncertain trumpet.” Group problem solving can, when it miscarries, result in the stifling of individual creativity and can result in a great deal of mediocrity.

Recalling his work on the theory of relativity, Albert Einstein noted “a feeling of direction, of going straight toward something concrete.” This kind of creative insight—“going straight toward something concrete”—could, under some conditions, be stifled by participative leadership. Although discussions with his colleagues might have been helpful to Einstein, creative insights are often obtained in solitude.

A critic of participative leadership has asked “Could the Mona Lisa have been painted by a committee?” This same critic of the group process says that it often leads to the “cancellation of each other’s inner certitudes.” Participative leadership also has the disadvantage, at times, of ending up with unconscious and unintended manipulation of group members by a dominant figure while everyone blithely assumes that they share in decision making, which is not the case.

Each of these leadership styles crashes against the central and recurring problems of leadership such as balancing the need to get the job done and the need to be concerned with the feelings of one’s colleagues and followers. We have all been members of groups where the leader was so task-oriented, so anxious to get the job done, that when it was finally done, at great emotional expense, it did not stay done, because the failure of the group to comply finally cancelled out what appeared to be a successful effort. We have seen, too, how members of the group can become offended or withdraw because leaders were too task-oriented.

We have also seen leaders who become immobilized because of their concern with the feelings of members of the group. The group can genuinely suffer from such a vacuum of leadership. There are certain circumstances in which action must be taken. …

A reading of verses in The Book of Mormon which describe real free agency as acting for one’s self instead of being “acted upon,” (2 Nephi 2:26) shows that the latter is equated with misery. …

Both experience and the scriptures suggest the need for a blend of leadership styles—directive and participative, in which these styles are used in those circumstances most appropriate for them. We have an unique blend in the Church of directive leadership and participative leadership in which everyone grows and everyone moves forward in terms of eternal goals.

(Emphases added.)

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

11 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

While one who professes a certain religion might make evil choices or poor choices, might harm others, and so on, and might concoct some sort of rationale to explain that, somehow, these evil or poor acts are justified by his or her religion, that justification and those acts are the responsibility of the individual and not of the religion, no matter the mental and moral gymnastics to which the person might resort in an attempt to argue otherwise. 

The underlying question that needs to be understood first is what is good and what is evil? For an example that illustrates the problem of relying on religion to define good and evil, we all should agree that tying up your child, placing him on an altar, and then killing him is evil. But if you sincerely believe God commanded yo unto do this, should you do it? In such a case, is your religion commanding you to do something evil, or does it cease to be evil if God commanded you?

As other examples, is it evil to hijack an airplane and crash it into an office building? But what if this act is part of a legitimate jihad against the enemies of Allah? If God rewards you with virgins in the next life, does that cause it not to be evil? Or does it mean God is rewarding you for committing an evil act?

Or what if God commands you to "marry" other women behind the back of your own wife. Is that evil? Even if God threatened you with a flaming sword? Or what if God commanded you to chop off the head of a drunk?

Here is my point: we generally agree on what's good and what's evil based on something more fundamental than religion. Hopefully, most of us will agree that wanton murder is evil, regardless of whether a God or an angel commanded the murder or not. 

If the concepts of good and evil transcend religion, why can't we turn directly to those underlying sources of morality rather than turning to conceptions of "God" that were invented by this or that religion?

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

A few thoughts:

First, the interpolation is yours, and I don't think it is warranted.  The Church has never claimed infallibility for itself.

Second, your interpolation seems to contradict the counsel we have received.  See, e.g., here:

Third, I think Elder Maxwell offered some pretty good guidance on this issue here:

(Emphases added.)

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't get your point, since I wasn't talking about infallibility. You asserted that it is better to rely on an external framework of morality (right and wrong) rather than relying our own conscience and moral judgment. To do the latter, you suggested, would be to invite moral relativism based on Korihor's principle that "whatsoever a man did was no crime." There isn't much difference between that and outsourcing our moral judgment to an institution that teaches "whatever God requires is right." Sure, you can say that the church doesn't claim infallibility, in which case we are supposed to ponder and pray over whether we should obey counsel from leadership that we find morally problematic. But then that just returns the moral judgment back to ourselves, as we are the ultimate deciders of what is right and moral. Of course, church leaders over generations have taught that we are to set aside our objections, moral or otherwise, and follow our leaders, who will not lead us astray. It's a bit of a pickle.