Image result for arrogant doctorToday’s guest post is from Bishop Bill.

I was listening to a Freakonomics podcast the other day called “Bad Medicine.”  It was about how medical science has got things wrong, sometimes terribly wrong.  They interviewed Dr. Vinay Prasad, who wrote a book about “Medical Reversal” or when the medical establishment finds out they have made a mistake and have to change the way they do things.  He said the following that really jumped out at me.

“So if you find out something you were doing for decades is wrong, you harmed a lot of people, you subjected many people to something ineffective, potentially harmful, certainly costly, and it didn’t work. The second harm we say is this lag-time harm. Doctors, we’re like a battleship. We don’t turn on a dime. We continue to do it for a few years after the reversal. And the third harm is loss of trust in the medical system. And the deepest harm, and I think we’ve seen it in the last decade, particularly with our shifting recommendations for mammography and for prostate cancer screening, where people come to the doctor and they say, you guys can’t get your story straight. What’s going on?It’s a tremendous problem. And I’m afraid that probably what we are doing is that we are making people feel like that there’s nothing that the doctor does that’s really trustworthy. And I’m afraid that that’s sort of the deepest problem that we face, this loss of trust.”

I took the above quote, and changed “doctor” for the word “Church”, and made a few others little substitutions.

So if you find out something you were doing for decades is wrong, you harmed a lot of people, you subjected many people to something ineffective, potentially harmful, certainly costly, and it didn’t work. The second harm we say is this lag-time harm. The Church is like a battleship. It Doesn’t turn on a dime. They continue to let the wrong information be taught years after the reversal. And the third harm is loss of trust in the Church. And the deepest harm, and I think we’ve seen it in the last decade, particularly with our shifting explanations for the priesthood ban and polygamy, where people come to the church and they say, you guys can’t get your story straight. What’s going on?It’s a tremendous problem. And I’m afraid that probably what we are doing is that we are making people feel like that there’s nothing that the church does that’s really trustworthy. And I’m afraid that that’s sort of the deepest problem that we face, this loss of trust.

Image result for elder nelson as doctorDoes the Quorum of Twelve Apostles and First Presidency  have the same problems that the medical establishment has?  Do they have to weigh the consequences of changing course or correcting a past wrong with the members losing faith in them?

Or what about this exchange from the Podcast:

“PRASAD: It was where the preponderance of medical practice was driven by really charismatic and thoughtful, probably, to some degree, leaders in medicine. And you know, medical practice was based on bits and scraps of evidence, anecdotes, bias, preconceived notions, and probably a lot of psychological traps.

Host: As outdated as that sounds now, keep in mind that a lot of our institutions — including medical institutions — are still “eminence-based.” Which is to say, in many institutions, many big decisions were made by the highest-ranking people, who tend to have the most experience — and people with a lot of experience tend to have fixed views on things. They’re attracted to the status quo, or some minor variation of it. Because that’s what they know; it’s what they trust and believe in.”

So is the LDS church an “eminence-based” institution?   Are all the decisions made by the highest ranking people, people (men) with a lot of experience but with a fixed view on things?  And if so, how does revelation play (or not) in an eminence-based institution?  Is it harder for God to send revelation to men who have fixed views?

Discuss.