The Moral Hazard of Institutions and What We Can Do

[Meadowchik]

53 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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.

* To everyone: I will come back when I can respond to more replies but for now I just wanted to say...*

This is a very good point you make and it's also very related to my OP. 

The human institutions that set moral standards are a type of externalizing morality. But just like any other institution they present us with the moral hazard of potentially abandoning morals through the institutional machinery especially if we're not aware of what's happening. Anytime we abdicate our moral decisions to another authority we risk them betraying our convictions while they're acting on our behalf.

That's not to say that we should never use external moral systems, but just to say we must seek ways to prevent and correct institutional immorality if we want to our support of the institutional to be moral.

But back to the basics what you skillfully elaborated on is what I was thinking, that no usage of an externalized system is objective. There will always be our own subjective elements put in the process, starting with selecting that system in the first place.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Quote

Quote

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:

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

I don't get your point, since I wasn't talking about infallibility.

Sure seemed like it.  "Whatever {the institution under discussion, namely, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints} requires is right, no matter what it is" sure sounds like an expectation of Godlike perfection.  Infallibility.

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

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.

I did not juxtapose one as being exclusive to the other.  Or if that is the impression I gave, I will here apologize and clarify.  

My point was to critique the notion of "making an individual's 'moral judgment' paramount."  "Paramount" as in "chief in importance or impact; supreme; preeminent" and/or "above others in rank or authority; superior in power or jurisdiction."

If I were living along on a deserted island, with no access to other people (and hence nobody to influence or affect by my decisions) and with no access to any other person's or group's ideas or ideals (and hence nobody from whom I could glean ideas, learn from, etc.), then my "moral judgment" might be all there is.  But since I live in a society, this is not really an option, or else it is far from the best one available. 

I think we need to learn from each other, from the Marketplace of Ideas.  When it comes to discerning "right" and "wrong," I think we as individuals are too easily swayed by personal preferences, biases, greed, selfishness, heat-of-the-moment justifications, and so on.  Better, then, to temper such inclinations by looking for an adopting an external moral framework, one that has stood the test of time and experience, one that is not easily swayed by the individual's foibles, one that teaches us what we need to hear, even when it's not what we want to hear.

This moral framework, this lodestar, can then help the individual calibrate his own moral compass.  

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

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."

Well, no.  Again: 

Quote

Quote

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

I don't think anyone is doing that.

"I don't think anyone is 'telling us to set aside our conscience.'"

That is my point.  And this:

Quote

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.

In the end, we must each follow our own moral compass (or barometer, whatever metaphor works for you).  But that compass/barometer will occasionally need to be calibrated.

 

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

There isn't much difference between that and outsourcing our moral judgment to an institution that teaches "whatever God requires is right."

You have substantively misunderstood my position.

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Sure, you can say that the church doesn't claim infallibility,

And I say it again here.  It's an unfortunately necessary thing to emphasize, as such a claim is too frequently implicitly or explicitly asserted against the Church.

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

in which case we are supposed to ponder and pray over whether we should obey counsel from leadership that we find morally problematic.

That's not the only thing we should do, of course.

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

But then that just returns the moral judgment back to ourselves, as we are the ultimate deciders of what is right and moral.

Actually, I think God is.  

This is why I like the analogy to a compass or barometer.  The compass belongs to the individual, and the individual can make decisions on where to go by looking at where the compass is pointing.  But that's the point.  The compass is, or should be, calibrated.  Its function is to discern proper direction.  The individual being the "ultimate decider" of north, south, east and west?  Sure.  Go for it.  Feel free to make up your own cardinal directions, and good luck at that.

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

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.

Well, not really.

First, you seem to be equating "lead us astray" with infallibility.  With the Brethren never making any mistake to any degree, ever.

Second, the governance of the Church has multiple safeguards in place.  The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.  The general requirement for unanimity.  The Standard Works.  The oversight of the Presiding Bishopric.  

Third, we should attune ourselves to the checks and balances that are built in to the Restored Gospel:

Quote

An all-powerful judge is not much different than a king. Therefore, Mosiah wisely sets up a system of checks and balances. He does this not with three branches of government but with a system of accountability by which judges can be tried for not performing according to the law which has been given. In this system, the lower judge may be judged of a higher judge and the higher judge may be judged by a group of lower judges.

An analogous system has been set up in latter-day church government. When a priesthood leader transgresses, he is judged by a higher authority. When a president of the high priesthood (member of the First Presidency) transgresses, he is judged by a group of lower authorities:

And inasmuch as a President of the High Priesthood shall transgress, he shall be had in remembrance before the common council of the church, who shall be assisted by the twelve counselors of the High Priesthood;

…Thus, none shall be exempted from the justice and the laws of God, that all things may be done in order and in solemnity before him, according to truth and righteousness. (DC 107:82-4)

See also here:

Quote

Suppose that Gordon B. Hinckley really started misbehaving, sinning left and right, and generally leading the church astray. Some might find this unlikely on theological grounds, after all President Woodruff said:

• The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.

The implication seems to be that the Lord will “call home” any prophet who strays too far from the divine “programme.” Looking at the scriptures, however, suggests another possibility: Excommunicating the President of the Church.

According to D&C 107:82-84:

• And inasmuch as a President of the High Priesthood shall transgress, he shall be had in remembrance before the common council of the Church who shall be assisted by twelve counselors of the High Priesthood; And their decision upon his head shall be an end of controversy concerning him. Thus, none shall be exempted from the justice and the laws of God, that all things may be done in order and solemnity before Him, according to truth and righteousness.

The procedure from this passage is a little cryptic. The “common council of the Church” referred to is the Presiding Bishopric (See D&C 107: 74-76). In his book Priesthood and Church Government, Elder John A Widstoe had this to say about the judicial authority of the Presiding Bishopric:

• Should occasion ever arise that one of the First Presidency must be tried for crime or neglect of duty, his case would come before the Presiding Bishop with his counselors, and twelve High Priests especially chosen for the purpose. This would be a tribunal extraordinary – from which there is no appeal.

A couple of interesting points about the procedure. First, the twelve high priests who sit in council with the Presiding Bishopric are not the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, although presumably despite their ordination as Apostles they could serve. (Although the First Presidency is made up of “high priests,” Apostles regularly serve as members.) Indeed, as far as I know, the only times that this judicial machinery has been used – to excommunicate various counselors of Joseph Smith – the twelve high priests were not the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, but rather the local high council. However, as Widstoe suggests, there is no reason that they need to be high councilors, and the Presiding Bishop seems to have the authority to select any twelve high priests, regardless of their current office. The second interesting point is that the First Presidency is afforded fewer procedural protections than are other members of the Church. There is no appeal from the Presiding Bishopric, furthermore it is not clear if the procedural requirements that apply to other church proceedings apply here. For example, would President Hinckley have a right to have his bishop speak on his behalf?

Fourth, the notion that leaders of the Church should pretty much be followed without question with unquestioning loyalty is, in my view, misguided.  As I have previously noted here:

Quote

My rule of thumb is to give a presumption of good faith to the Brethren.  To give them the benefit of the doubt.  To assume that what they are saying is in accordance with the Standard Works, and with the Spirit.  Again, I think such a presumption would be subsequently vindicated almost all of the time.  

However, although I give the Brethren the benefit of the doubt, this is - in legal vernacular - a rebuttable presumption.  That is, I leave open the possibility that a leader in the Church may, in the words of President Smith above, issue remarks which "do not square with the revelations."  That he may say "something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works."  That he may say "something that contradicts what is found in the standard works."  We must leave that possibility open, because our leaders have told us that it is a possibility.  So if a leader in the Church says something that I feel may be problematic, I feel obligated to test it.  To think about it.  To study it.  To discuss it with those whom I find trustworthy.  To weight it against the Standard Works.  And most of all, to pray about it. 

When I was in the military, huge amounts of time and effort were expended to drill into us the concept of rank and structure, and of following orders.  However, these concepts are not absolute.  In fact, there can be extreme and unusual circumstances in which a solder is required to disobey an order.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

It's generally called a "duty to disobey," and is empowered by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The UCMJ is more concerned about the need to obey orders, but specifies the conditions when military personnel may feel justified in not following them:

• If the order is "contrary to the constitution" or "the laws of the United States."
• If the order is "patently illegal, ... such as one that directs the commission of a crime."

Paying the Price for Following Bad Orders

Over the years, there's been a recognition that "duty to disobey" is sometimes warranted. Former National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden, for instance, has suggested that military members could be justified in refusing to torture prisoners.

The most famous of them, perhaps, have been instances where prosecutors felt that people should have disobeyed orders. Nazi defendants in the Nuremberg Trials after World War II argued, to limited effect, that they were just following orders. U.S. Army Lt. William Calley used the same argument in defending himself against murder charges following the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam. (He ultimately served 3 1/2 years in military prison.)

The generalized statement of "When you are in the Army you are obligated to follow the orders of your superiors" is not incompatible with the foregoing "duty to disobey."  Virtually every law or moral principle allows for exceptions in extraordinary or very unusual circumstances.

Similarly, the generalized statement of "the prophet will never lead us astray, meaning that we can always trust them" is not incompatible with the foregoing statements from Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. Lee and others.  

Fifth, we have been given prophets and apostles for the express purpose of following them:

Quote

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.

(Ephesians 4)

The problem is when we rely on them too much, and/or when our reliance on them is predicated on tacit expectations of infallibility.  

Brigham Young really nailed it here:

Quote

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. This has been my exhortation continually.

These sentiments have come to mind in the past when I have raised my hand to sustain new leadership in the Church.  When Pres. Monson passed away, I was saddened for a time.  He was a good man, even a great one.  He will be missed.  However, a bit later I raised my arm and sustained Pres. Nelson.

Prophets and apostles are good and decent men.  But in the end, they are servants.  In a way, I am happy to see them pass on to the next phase of their journey, as I fully expect for the Atonement to apply to them, to wash away their sins and weaknesses, leaving them for what they really tried to be.  "Well done, thou good and faithful servant..."

My job is not to sustain them unless they have weaknesses.  My job is to sustain them despite their weaknesses.  And meanwhile, I should look to see that my own house is in order.

I think I'm in the Church, come what may.  I believe any member of the Church can be led astray, including leaders (witness the many who apostasized in the early days of the Church).  I also reject the notion of inerrancy (though I note that it is quite possible for a church leader to make a mistake, or even many mistakes, and yet not be "astray").  

However, I subscribe to the position that the Church and its leaders, collectively, will not be led astray.  

I believe in the prophecy found in Daniel 2 and in how it has been interpreted.  

I agree with Wilford Woodruff that "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God."  I think that's right.

I believe in The Book of Mormon, in its testimony of Jesus Christ, and of the implications that are associated with the prophetic mantle involved in its production, preservation, and transmission to us.

I believe the sentiment expressed here (attributed to Joseph Smith): "‘I will give you a key that will never rust, —if you will stay with the majority of the Twelve Apostles, and the records of the Church, you will never be led astray."

The Church is not perfect.  But it is, in my view, overwhelmingly good.  I love it a lot.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

* To everyone: I will come back when I can respond to more replies but for now I just wanted to say...*

This is a very good point you make and it's also very related to my OP. 

The human institutions that set moral standards are a type of externalizing morality.

Nobody can credibly claim to have a purely "internalized" morality.  Each of us has been influenced by people and events around us, by our interactions with such things.  

All systems of morality have an "externalized" component.  

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

But just like any other institution they present us with the moral hazard of potentially abandoning morals through the institutional machinery especially if we're not aware of what's happening.

There are plenty of "moral hazard{s}" involved in each of us crafting our own idiosyncratic moral code.  Plenty.

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Anytime we abdicate our moral decisions to another authority we risk them betraying our convictions while they're acting on our behalf.

I don't think anyone is recommending such "abdication."

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

That's not to say that we should never use external moral systems, but just to say we must seek ways to prevent and correct institutional immorality if we want to our support of the institutional to be moral.

I'm on board with this.

Thanks,

-Smac  

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

...

Second, the governance of the Church has multiple safeguards in place.  The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.  The general requirement for unanimity.  The Standard Works.  The oversight of the Presiding Bishopric....  

For me, these are not safeguards against the moral hazard of institutions. Rather, in the case of the Church, they are the cause.

The relevance to the following quote from Psychology Today is obvious.

Groupthink is a phenomenon that occurs when a group of well-intentioned people makes irrational or non-optimal decisions spurred by the urge to conform or the belief that dissent is impossible. The problematic or premature consensus that is characteristic of groupthink may be fueled by a particular agenda—or it may be due to group members valuing harmony and coherence above critical thought.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/groupthink

If somebody were to deliberatly design an institution to maximize group think, wouldn't such an institution look a lot like the Church? As a case study, we should be able to agree that Ensign Peak Advisors submitting dishonest 13Fs was morally problematic. I would further suspect that if a competent attorney presented the relevant law to anybody in the Presiding Bishopric, any employee of EPA, or any employee of the Church, as individuals they would have conscientiously been honest in how they filled in and signed the reports. But put them all together in a group that has "a general requirement for unanimity," that are led by people who are decades past their cognitive prime, and you are asking for suboptimal decisions. 

 

Better safeguards would include:

• Replacing the general requirement for unanimity with a culture of free and open debate.
• Getting rid of the power hierarchy.
• Empowering compliance officers, attorneys, and CPAs with respected and valued voices.
• Replacing the standard works with modern books on ethics.

And most importantly:

• Transparency.

[jkwilliams]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Sure seemed like it.  "Whatever {the institution under discussion, namely, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints} requires is right, no matter what it is" sure sounds like an expectation of Godlike perfection.  Infallibility.

I did not juxtapose one as being exclusive to the other.  Or if that is the impression I gave, I will here apologize and clarify.  

My point was to critique the notion of "making an individual's 'moral judgment' paramount."  "Paramount" as in "chief in importance or impact; supreme; preeminent" and/or "above others in rank or authority; superior in power or jurisdiction."

If I were living along on a deserted island, with no access to other people (and hence nobody to influence or affect by my decisions) and with no access to any other person's or group's ideas or ideals (and hence nobody from whom I could glean ideas, learn from, etc.), then my "moral judgment" might be all there is.  But since I live in a society, this is not really an option, or else it is far from the best one available. 

I think we need to learn from each other, from the Marketplace of Ideas.  When it comes to discerning "right" and "wrong," I think we as individuals are too easily swayed by personal preferences, biases, greed, selfishness, heat-of-the-moment justifications, and so on.  Better, then, to temper such inclinations by looking for an adopting an external moral framework, one that has stood the test of time and experience, one that is not easily swayed by the individual's foibles, one that teaches us what we need to hear, even when it's not what we want to hear.

This moral framework, this lodestar, can then help the individual calibrate his own moral compass.  

Well, no.  Again: 

"I don't think anyone is 'telling us to set aside our conscience.'"

That is my point.  And this:

In the end, we must each follow our own moral compass (or barometer, whatever metaphor works for you).  But that compass/barometer will occasionally need to be calibrated.

 

You have substantively misunderstood my position.

And I say it again here.  It's an unfortunately necessary thing to emphasize, as such a claim is too frequently implicitly or explicitly asserted against the Church.

That's not the only thing we should do, of course.

Actually, I think God is.  

This is why I like the analogy to a compass or barometer.  The compass belongs to the individual, and the individual can make decisions on where to go by looking at where the compass is pointing.  But that's the point.  The compass is, or should be, calibrated.  Its function is to discern proper direction.  The individual being the "ultimate decider" of north, south, east and west?  Sure.  Go for it.  Feel free to make up your own cardinal directions, and good luck at that.

Well, not really.

First, you seem to be equating "lead us astray" with infallibility.  With the Brethren never making any mistake to any degree, ever.

Second, the governance of the Church has multiple safeguards in place.  The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.  The general requirement for unanimity.  The Standard Works.  The oversight of the Presiding Bishopric.  

Third, we should attune ourselves to the checks and balances that are built in to the Restored Gospel:

See also here:

Fourth, the notion that leaders of the Church should pretty much be followed without question with unquestioning loyalty is, in my view, misguided.  As I have previously noted here:

Fifth, we have been given prophets and apostles for the express purpose of following them:

The problem is when we rely on them too much, and/or when our reliance on them is predicated on tacit expectations of infallibility.  

Brigham Young really nailed it here:

These sentiments have come to mind in the past when I have raised my hand to sustain new leadership in the Church.  When Pres. Monson passed away, I was saddened for a time.  He was a good man, even a great one.  He will be missed.  However, a bit later I raised my arm and sustained Pres. Nelson.

Prophets and apostles are good and decent men.  But in the end, they are servants.  In a way, I am happy to see them pass on to the next phase of their journey, as I fully expect for the Atonement to apply to them, to wash away their sins and weaknesses, leaving them for what they really tried to be.  "Well done, thou good and faithful servant..."

My job is not to sustain them unless they have weaknesses.  My job is to sustain them despite their weaknesses.  And meanwhile, I should look to see that my own house is in order.

I think I'm in the Church, come what may.  I believe any member of the Church can be led astray, including leaders (witness the many who apostasized in the early days of the Church).  I also reject the notion of inerrancy (though I note that it is quite possible for a church leader to make a mistake, or even many mistakes, and yet not be "astray").  

However, I subscribe to the position that the Church and its leaders, collectively, will not be led astray.  

I believe in the prophecy found in Daniel 2 and in how it has been interpreted.  

I agree with Wilford Woodruff that "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God."  I think that's right.

I believe in The Book of Mormon, in its testimony of Jesus Christ, and of the implications that are associated with the prophetic mantle involved in its production, preservation, and transmission to us.

I believe the sentiment expressed here (attributed to Joseph Smith): "‘I will give you a key that will never rust, —if you will stay with the majority of the Twelve Apostles, and the records of the Church, you will never be led astray."

The Church is not perfect.  But it is, in my view, overwhelmingly good.  I love it a lot.  

Thanks,

-Smac

In short, you trust the church/gospel enough to make its teachings and policies yours by default. I’m certainly not going to argue with that, but my point was precisely that: for different reasons, people choose to outsource their moral judgment to an organization or an ideology. It’s not necessarily a bad thing, at least not until you reach the point when your moral arbiters ask you to do something you think is fundamentally immoral. 

Granted, I don’t imagine you will find yourself at that point, but others have and more will (and I’m not talking about the LDS church in particular). But, speaking of Mormonism, Church leaders have been consistent for almost 200 years that, generally speaking, members should subordinate their judgment to that of the church. I have never heard of a member being praised at all for standing on principle and refusing a line authority’s instructions or counsel—quite the opposite, in fact.

Your analogy of cardinal directions is a good one: if I have a compass, should I follow my priesthood leader who says west is east and north is south?

As I said before, I don’t know why I’m bothering here, as you’ve made it clear that anyone who thinks the church isn’t “wonderful” is wrong, period, and probably guilty of a bad attitude at the least. 

Edited May 22, 2023 by jkwilliams

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

In short, you trust the church/gospel enough to make its teachings and policies yours by default.

It's more than a matter of trust.  It's a matter of experience, and study, and prayer, and revelation.  

Yes, I broadly accept and adopt the doctrines of the Church.  The Prophet Joseph Smith declared: "The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it."  (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 121).  

And I don't know what you mean by making "policies yours by default."  I am not the Church, and the Church is not me.  I may approve or disapprove, like or dislike, a given policy, but that doesn't make it "mine."

23 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I’m certainly not going to argue with that, but my point was precisely that: for different reasons, people choose to outsource their moral judgment to an organization or an ideology.

Everyone does this.  Nobody has a "moral judgment" that is entirely their own.  We all adopt and/or are influenced by outside sources, whether it be a formal and systematized ideology (such as is found in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) or otherwise (such as, for example, the broad and decentralized tenets of atheism).

23 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It’s not necessarily a bad thing, at least not until you reach the point when your moral arbiters ask you to do something you think is fundamentally immoral. 

"Fundamentally immoral" is a pretty big declaration.  And also quite a judgment call.

That said, this is where my "rebuttable presumption" comment comes into play.  When I support the Church, I seek to do so "in all that is right."  I think that part and parcel of being a faithful Latter-day Saint is sustaining and following the leaders of the Church.  My rule of thumb is to give a presumption of good faith to the Brethren.  To give them the benefit of the doubt.  To assume that what they are saying is in accordance with the Standard Works, and with the Spirit.  I think such a presumption would be subsequently vindicated almost all of the time.  Nevertheless, I reserve unto myself the ultimate decision to to proceed on something that is morally questionable.

23 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Granted, I don’t imagine you will find yourself at that point, but others have and more will (and I’m not talking about the LDS church in particular).

I think "fundamentally immoral" has pretty strong ad hoc and eye-of-the-beholder elements to it in this context.  

23 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Church leaders have been consistent for almost 200 years that, generally speaking, members should subordinate their judgment to that of the church.

I'm not sure that is an accurate statement.

23 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I have never heard of a member being praised at all for standing on principle and refusing a line authority’s instructions or counsel—quite the opposite, in fact.

Such instructions being "fundamentally immoral" would be, I think, quite a rare event.

23 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Your analogy of cardinal directions is a good one: if I have a compass, should I follow my priesthood leader who says west is east and north is south?

No.  But should you follow your own reckoning which says west is east and north is south?

23 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

As I said before, I don’t know why I’m bothering here, as you’ve made it clear that anyone who thinks the church isn’t “wonderful” is wrong, period, and probably guilty of a bad attitude at the least. 

I think much of the invective spewed against the Church is frequently overwrought, unfair, and/or inaccurate.  No group or institution could withstand the amount of faultfinding that is directed at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 22, 2023 by smac97

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Fundamentally immoral" is a pretty big declaration.  And also quite a judgment call.

Exactly. That’s my point. 

[CV75]

32 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

In short, you trust the church/gospel enough to make its teachings and policies yours by default. I’m certainly not going to argue with that, but my point was precisely that: for different reasons, people choose to outsource their moral judgment to an organization or an ideology. It’s not necessarily a bad thing, at least not until you reach the point when your moral arbiters ask you to do something you think is fundamentally immoral. 

Granted, I don’t imagine you will find yourself at that point, but others have and more will (and I’m not talking about the LDS church in particular). But, speaking of Mormonism, Church leaders have been consistent for almost 200 years that, generally speaking, members should subordinate their judgment to that of the church. I have never heard of a member being praised at all for standing on principle and refusing a line authority’s instructions or counsel—quite the opposite, in fact.

Your analogy of cardinal directions is a good one: if I have a compass, should I follow my priesthood leader who says west is east and north is south?

As I said before, I don’t know why I’m bothering here, as you’ve made it clear that anyone who thinks the church isn’t “wonderful” is wrong, period, and probably guilty of a bad attitude at the least. 

RE: "Church leaders have been consistent for almost 200 years that, generally speaking, members should subordinate their judgment to that of the church." What do you mean by this? I can see the chain of delegated keys and authority (e.g., Bishop - Stake President - and so forth/so on - Seventies - Apostles - First Presidency) and associated evaluation and judgement in maintaining or rescinding Church membership. I can see the leadership delineating policy, practice, procedure and doctrine which, if a member doesn't agree with these, can find themselves separating from the Church. Is there something else you are trying to convey here in relation to the thread topic, such as ensuring the morality of leadership that isn't addressed in D&C 107?

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

RE: "Church leaders have been consistent for almost 200 years that, generally speaking, members should subordinate their judgment to that of the church." What do you mean by this? I can see the chain of delegated keys and authority (e.g., Bishop - Stake President - and so forth/so on - Seventies - Apostles - First Presidency) and associated evaluation and judgement in maintaining or rescinding Church membership. I can see the leadership delineating policy, practice, procedure and doctrine which, if a member doesn't agree with these, can find themselves separating from the Church. Is there something else you are trying to convey here in relation to the thread topic, such as ensuring the morality of leadership that isn't addressed in D&C 107?

I’m thinking of the line running from the Nancy Rigdon letter to “the prophet will never lead the church astray” to the repeated counsel that if the prophet tells you to do something you think is wrong, do it anyway, and you’ll be be blessed. 

As I said, no one in the history of the church has ever been praised for disobeying leaders’ instructions. 

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I’m thinking of the line running from the Nancy Rigdon letter to “the prophet will never lead the church astray” to the repeated counsel that if the prophet tells you to do something you think is wrong, do it anyway, and you’ll be be blessed. 

As I said, no one in the history of the church has ever been praised for disobeying leaders’ instructions. 

For example:

My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.

That is Ezra Taft Benson quoting Marion G. Romney quoting Heber J. Grant. See https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/ezra-taft-benson/fourteen-fundamentals-following-prophet/

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, Analytics said:

For example:

My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.

That is Ezra Taft Benson quoting Marion G. Romney quoting Heber J. Grant. See https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/ezra-taft-benson/fourteen-fundamentals-following-prophet/

Right. Someone said the difference between Catholics and Mormons is that Catholics believe the pope is infallible but act like he isn’t; Mormons don’t believe the prophet is infallible but act like he is. 

[Analytics]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

Prophets and apostles are good and decent men....

...The Church is not perfect.  But it is, in my view, overwhelmingly good. 

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. 

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Prophets and apostles are good and decent men....

...The Church is not perfect.  But it is, in my view, overwhelmingly good. 

 

I've been thinking about these two claims off and on all day.

I think it's odd that these are risible "claims."

6 minutes ago, Analytics said:

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?

Generally, yes.

6 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Is the Church itself overwhelmingly good?  Brinley's story is an interesting case study into those two questions. 

Care to sum up?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

49 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think it's odd that these are risible "claims."

Risible? I would say they were thought-provoking questions, not risible questions. Is risible the word you meant? 

49 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Care to sum up?

I haven't listened to the whole thing, but I'd sum up what I heard thusly: Brinley was a good Mormon kid from a good Mormon family. She did struggle with depression growing up. During the middle of COVID, they called her on a mission. She did a virtual MTC from home and then went straight to the mission field in Florida. Because of COVID, she didn't get her endowment until she'd been in the mission field for a few months (hearing about going on a mission during COVID was fascinating). She had a bunch of recently remembered anecdotes about life as a sister mission that I can relate to from things I've personally seen and heard. For example, an investigator asked her to give a blessing, and the Elders said no, only us men can give blessings because we have the priesthood! The investigator said she didn't want a blessing then and asked if Sister Jensen would at least pray for her. She did and was feeling all good about the experience, but when they left the Elders got mad at her because by her praying, somebody was denied a real blessing from an actual priesthood holder, which is a way superior thing. She absolutely hated the temple. She felt her soul rejected it. She felt violated when they made her go through the veil. She said they were studying the D&C that year in Sunday School, and it shocked her, reading in the D&C what she was supposed to believe.

She eventually got more depressed. She really wanted to go home, but didn't dare. She watched a YouTube video on a loop of Elder Holland telling missionaries that no matter what, they can't quit their missions and go home early. She blamed herself for not wanting to be on a mission--Elder Holland was right, and she was wrong. She prayed and prayed. She eventually quit anyway, and seriously, seriously regretted not trusting herself earlier when her own soul was telling her that being on a mission was the wrong thing for her. Well-meaning friends and family members told her she needed to go to the temple to heal her depression, which was exactly the wrong thing to say.  They told her she'd eventually get used to the temple and it wouldn't be so bad. She tried really, really, hard to brainwash herself (her words) so that she'd believe and fit in and meet everybody's expectations. She tried to be a nuanced believer for a while, but eventually left the faith all together.

In some ways it is a typical "why I left" story. But there is something just really touching about her being so young, and these experiences being so recent. You can tell she isn't following some script she learned about how to fit in with the exmo community. She's just saying what happened.

There aren't any major villains in the story. A few of the Elders or recently returned missionaries were kinda immature jerks, but it isn't like she was raped in the MTC President's office or anything at all like that. Rather, there are stories about how she hated wearing garments and eventually got the courage to stop wearing them. But then her dad (who was also her bishop) asked if she was wearing them. What an inappropriate question--despite hs good intentions, her underwear his none of his business!

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.

Edited May 23, 2023 by Analytics

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.

 

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.

Edited May 23, 2023 by Calm

[california boy]

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.   

 

[jkwilliams]

5 hours ago, 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.

FWIW, here is the quote in context:

Quote

 

Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.

President Wilford Woodruff stated: “I say to Israel, The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of the Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God.” (The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, selected by G. Homer Durham [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1946], pp. 212-213.)

President Marion G. Romney tells of this incident which happened to him:

I remember years ago when I was a Bishop I had President [Heber J.] Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting I drove him home. . . .Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: “My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.” Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, “But you don’t need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.” [In Conference Report, October 1960, p. 78]

 

 

I think Heber C. Kimball said it more succinctly:

Quote

"Learn to do as you are told, both old and young: learn to do as you are told for the future. And when you are taking a position, if you do not know that you are right, do not take it—I mean independently. But if you are told by your leader to do a thing, do it. None of your business whether it is right or wrong." (Journal of Discourses 6:32)

 

[CV75]

14 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I’m thinking of the line running from the Nancy Rigdon letter to “the prophet will never lead the church astray” to the repeated counsel that if the prophet tells you to do something you think is wrong, do it anyway, and you’ll be be blessed. 

As I said, no one in the history of the church has ever been praised for disobeying leaders’ instructions. 

How do leaders' investment decisions (as individuals or councils) direct Church-wide or members' individual apostasy, or result in such?

I have seen many people praise quite a large number of those who disobey leadership's teachings and administration concerning the covenants. Many a thread on this site cover these topics and document such praise.

I think in general, people who persist in doing things they think are wrong (no matter the source if their idea) are not bound to feel blessed, and will either stop doing them or find a way to do them as a blessing, like Nephi with Laban.

[CV75]

7 hours ago, 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.   

 

Yes, God will not abandon anyone and will lead us from wherever we have chosen to stand to a perhaps, so-far, unrecognized or unappreciated fulness of the Gospel, and He will prepare a way by grace to make it possible.

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

How do leaders' investment decisions (as individuals or councils) direct Church-wide or members' individual apostasy, or result in such?

I have seen many people praise quite a large number of those who disobey leadership's teachings and administration concerning the covenants. Many a thread on this site cover these topics and document such praise.

I think in general, people who persist in doing things they think are wrong (no matter the source if their idea) are not bound to feel blessed, and will either stop doing them or find a way to do them as a blessing, like Nephi with Laban.

I’m not talking about apostates but actual church leaders, who have never, to my knowledge, praised a member for saying “no.” And I have no idea how investment decisions relate to apostasy (not sure where that’s coming from). Seems to me we were talking about the dangers inherent in subordinating our moral judgment to that of an organization or ideology. 

[CV75]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I’m not talking about apostates but actual church leaders, who have never, to my knowledge, praised a member for saying “no.” And I have no idea how investment decisions relate to apostasy (not sure where that’s coming from). Seems to me we were talking about the dangers inherent in subordinating our moral judgment to that of an organization or ideology. 

Yes but then the application quickly turned to financial / investment transparency as a moral standard.

I have seen leaders "praise" -- more accurately validate and encourage -- people who turned down a calling, for example, once they learned the circumstances and reasons. "Praise" from leaders is generally reserved for behavior exemplifying Christ, in my experience.

[jkwilliams]

41 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes but then the application quickly turned to financial / investment transparency as a moral standard.

I have seen leaders "praise" -- more accurately validate and encourage -- people who turned down a calling, for example, once they learned the circumstances and reasons. "Praise" from leaders is generally reserved for behavior exemplifying Christ, in my experience.

Again, we’re talking about moral judgment. At least I am. Others may not be. 

[Teancum]

On 5/20/2023 at 3:48 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.

Hmm.  You conclude that an institution that hides its finances is scandal free exactly how?

[Teancum]

On 5/20/2023 at 3:54 PM, Hamilton Porter said:

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.

Could you please send me your money to invest?  And I won't tell you anything about it. Just trust me.

Edited May 23, 2023 by Teancum

[Teancum]

On 5/20/2023 at 3:54 PM, Hamilton Porter said:

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.

Dude, corrupt organizations succeed at all sorts of things.