Today’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.
Does 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.
Wheat & Tares 
My wife literally had a conversation with a Church employee in which the employee said of the Church “It’s a big ship that takes time to turn…”.
So this analogy is already in use at the Church Office building.
Decisions in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are made at all levels, depending on the scope and stewardship of the decision. For the .most part, overwhelmingly, individual members make their own decisions. Where decisions are needed for groups, those decisions are made by the parties responsible for those groups, sometimes at a local level and sometimes at a general level, called, sustained, and set apart to make those decisions, not by eminence but according to the pattern established by our God — in all cases, D&C 107:99 applies (Wherefore, now let every man learn his duty, and to act in the office in which he is appointed, in all diligence). At the top, so to speak, D&C 107:22 applies (Of the Melchizedek Priesthood, three Presiding High Priests, chosen by the body, appointed and ordained to that office, and upheld by the confidence, faith, and prayer of the church, form a quorum of the Presidency of the Church). Isn’t it a beautiful pattern?
Very interesting comparison. What I see are essentially two strategies to maintaining trust in an institution that makes mistakes and changes course. The first would be to be as transparent as possible: let people know how you make decisions, what the limitations of your decision-making process are, how you identify mistakes, and the steps you take to correct them. People will know you are not perfect but that you are trying hard to be. The other strategy would be to try to minimize the visibility of corrections as much as possible to project a vision of a nearly-perfect institution. Don’t admit mistakes, make changes slowly and with little fanfare, keep the decision-making process opaque, and even refuse to make needed changes that would cause too much of a loss of credibility. I don’t know which strategy would be most successful in the long run for an institution. The first strategy is certainly much more uncomfortable and unpleasant for the leadership.
What I think is most important is that you have a rigorous process to examine and re-examine the assumptions driving your organization, a way to overcome and challenge your own biases, and a willingness to correct the problems that you find. If you don’t deliberately put this in place and make it a priority, human nature will just keep you locked in the status quo.
It takes a great deal of humility to even admit your organization got something wrong. Other than Pres. Uchtdorf, I don’t know that I’ve even seen any of the brethren do so. That right there is a major turn off to me. If you want me to trust you, then I need transparency, and I am more likely to feel allegiance to a humble leader.
Of course that very transparency runs the risk of breaking the faith of all the people who still think Jesus is literally the decision maker in all church matters. I can see that it is a dilemma for the brethren. At the same time, the current system to me matches very well this article. This has resulted in me not trusting anyone in the church until they prove themselves worthy of that trust first.
I think our church is definitely eminence-based, and Elder Bednar went to great lengths in the October 2015 general conference to explain why that’s a good thing: “I have observed in my Brethren at least a part of the Lord’s purpose for having older men of maturity and judgment serve in senior leadership positions of the Church. These men have had a sustained season of tutoring by the Lord, whom they represent, serve, and love. They have learned to understand the divine language of the Holy Spirit and the Lord’s patterns for receiving revelation. These ordinary men have undergone a most extraordinary developmental process that has sharpened their vision, informed their insight, engendered love for people from all nations and circumstances, and affirmed the reality of the Restoration.”
It’s difficult to compare the field of medicine with the church, though. Medicine, like other scientific fields, is evidence-based. Best practices are determined by research and experimental outcomes. What you learned years ago can be outdated quickly. Health professionals are required to continue their medical education with classes and conferences, and many specialties require recertification exams every few years. With the church, no-one really expects there to be *new* gospel principles, at least not very often. The doctrines and principles will usually remain the same, so the only big variable is more in the administration of the institution. So the church will use research and marketing to get out the message in new ways, but the core message itself will most likely remain the same, which is very different from medicine. Since church leaders have a “close” relationship to the spirit through years of experience in leadership positions, it is thought that they’d be in a better position to know God’s will and feel more confident in accepting any revealed changes in doctrine than a random 14-yr-old kid. 😉 So the argument would go that their views aren’t really “fixed” since they’re good at receiving revelation. Also, any “fixed” views possibly getting in the way would be offset via the use of councils and input from different perspectives. That’s the orthodox argument, anyway.
Realistically, I think God leaves a lot of the day-to-day administrative decisions up to the brethren, which can be frustrating for some people since preconceived notions and “fixed” views can exert greater influence. (Just like how a lot of bishops issue callings out of necessity rather than inspiration.) God will allow mistakes to occur in the day-to-day operations of the church, and that can often be difficult to accept.
I really enjoyed this episode, and thought about posting on it. Looks like you beat me to the punch!
The thing that was amazing to me was that older doctors often don’t update their skills; fresh doctors out of medical school often have better diagnoses and treatment. That’s not something you often think of. You think experience=better, but when you’re not keeping up on the latest trends, experience=worse.
I think there’s something to be said for the Brethren not keeping up with their skills.
Well the Mormon solution to this problem is designed to be continuing revelation (not watered down group inspiration, the two are NOT the same) but without that you’re right it behaves very much like a bunch of out of touch physicians. Seldom right but never in doubt!
I agree with Mary Ann that the LDS Church is definitely an eminence based institution.
To the question of whether fixed views inhibit revelation in any way, I think they often do. The process of revelation, as we are taught in the scriptures, involves a lot of asking. Ask and ye shall receive. Seek and ye shall find. Study it out in your mind and in your heart. Rarely, if ever, in LDS history or the LDS canon do we have revelation gift wrapped from on high that was not preceded by a great deal of human asking, struggling, and wondering. So when we insist that the church be led by a demographically (and, to a certain extent, experientially) homogenous group, we are likely limiting the topic and nature of the questions they are asking. The older I get the less faith I have that my questions, struggles, and genuine doctrinal concerns are considered within their ranks.
On a semi-related note, I participated a few years back in a focus group led by a prominent general authority about a book he was planning to write. His thesis and central message was that cognitive dissonance will always exist and more faith is the answer to the discomfort this cognitive dissonance creates. I responded by sharing with him some examples of how I was used to cognitive dissonance and explained that the existence of cognitive dissonance isn’t troubling to me; the lack of evidence that the questions which cause me this dissonance are discussed among the highest levels of church leadership is what troubles me. He seemed genuinely surprised by that. I told him that I could live with the church taking positions I disagree with if there was some indication that those positions came after a revelatory struggle. It’s the radio silence that eats at my faith. In the end, he agreed that my perspective isn’t represented in church leadership. He didn’t write that book. (He did write a different one).
Just like Mormon Heretic, I also listened to the podcast and drew the same parallel – especially the last line, ” And I’m afraid that that’s sort of the deepest problem that we face, this loss of trust.” That has certainly been the case with me. I also think of Elder Ballard’s comments to the CES crowd telling them in effect, “you have to get with the times and be ready to answer the hard honest questions from students.” Similar to chastising/challenging the doctors that see patients to “keep fresh on your knowledge.”
“It takes a great deal of humility to even admit your organization got something wrong. Other than Pres. Uchtdorf, I don’t know that I’ve even seen any of the brethren do so. That right there is a major turn off to me. If you want me to trust you, then I need transparency, and I am more likely to feel allegiance to a humble leader.”
This is also what gets at me. When Dallin H. Oaks says the Church doesn’t “seek apologies” and “we don’t give them” and Brigham Young said in 1873 “I have never given counsel that is wrong” the lack of humility in their words is frustrating and certainly erodes trust.
Elizabeth – I’m so glad you were in that focus group and able to articulate your thoughts. I’m right there with you. I’m a big girl, I can handle cognitive dissonance and in fact I’ve come to embrace uncertainty and paradoxes in our faith. But the lack of transparency with our leadership has me doubting they’ve ever really approached the Lord on many important issues. Have they sought more info about Heavenly Mother? Women’s ordination? Have they asked for direction on whether the Church should issue an official apology for the Priesthood Ban so we can heal and make amends? My fear is that they haven’t which causes more damage to my faith than the fact that the Incas, Mayas, and Aztecs are lacking Middle Eastern DNA.
Even just saying “we’ve prayed about the issue and haven’t received an answer,” to know that they’ve attempted, would be faith promoting.
Mary Ann said, “With the church, no-one really expects there to be *new* gospel principles, at least not very often.” I think this right here is a large part of the problem. Why have we, the general membership, settled for anecdotes about airplanes and tales blander than Chicken Soup for the Mormon Soul instead of revelation? Where’s an increased understanding of heaven or how the priesthood works or how LGBT brothers and sisters fit in the eternal plan?
Great post! Dishonesty/cover-up at the highest levels is definitely one of the larger items on my breaking (broken) shelf.
Maybee –
Yes! Just yes! That small kernel would be enough. But how can we believe in continuing revelation if we’re not cognizant enough to ask for it. Thank you for that clear articulation.
“These men have had a sustained season of tutoring by the Lord, whom they represent, serve, and love. They have learned to understand the divine language of the Holy Spirit and the Lord’s patterns for receiving revelation.”
Yet,
In the LDS version of church history when God wanted to correct and “re-establish” His church he picked a young, inexperienced, malleable young man to reveal His plan.
The catch is that in our church, the leadership is not so much making their own decisions as they are seeking to know what the Lord would have them do. Decisions are made on their knees rather than around a board table. That makes for a somewhat different dynamic than other settings.
Especially in medicine, physicians are trained to exude confidence in all they do…while church leaders are trained to exude humility.
Also, having been baptized in Germany, lived in Brasil, attended grad school in Texas. undergrad at BYU , and travelling a fair bit in Southeast Asia in the last few years, I have to say that the worldwide nature of the church has a huge impact on policies. What hurts one group may help another. Most of us do not see the big picture that they have to consider at church headquarters.
” the leadership is not so much making their own decisions as they are seeking to know what the Lord would have them do.”
What evidence is there of this? It seems that the gay policy was a result of sitting “around a board table.”
Nobody has claimed that they knelt down about the policy, there was no revelation–it was simply inserted in the Bishop’s Handbook, which, last I checked, not a part of the canonized revelations in the D&C.
With doctors…don’t we want them to hold to what is the safest proven method to help the most people with better health?
Do we really want young and inexperienced doctors trying new things and making mistakes when it is my child on the operating table?
I am not saying the systems are flawed. But…what is the alternative? Let the masses determine what revelation is for the church? How…exactly…is that going to work?
To me, the question is if we want patient satisfaction scores to go up by having doctors give patients what they want…vs…doctors advising patients for what is best quality care.
The smart patient doesn’t blindly trust the doctor, may even get 2 or 3 opinions on the matter. But…there is no substitute for experience. No doctor is perfect. But…wouldn’t we trust the ones with a history of good outcomes more than the one that has a new ground breaking idea (that may turn out to not be so good afterall)?
In the church, do we just want to be a more popular church with more butts in the prews? Or do we want to teach truth, even if not popular?
Who defines “best results”, in the medical world or the religion?
I don’t think it is so simple to just blame the older ones as “out of touch” with the masses.
*** I meant to say…”I’m not saying the systems are NOT flawed….”
Heber, According to the podcast, your question is fundamentally flawed.
“Do we really want young and inexperienced doctors trying new things and making mistakes when it is my child on the operating table?”
The reality is that the new, inexperienced doctor is going by best practice. He’s not prescribing old, outdated, and medically harmful procedures (like leeches, bloodletting, and some obviously stupid practices that “old medicine” used.) The new inexperienced doctor has updated skills and knows these past treatments from so-called “experienced” doctors are harmful. The problem is the old doctors, are still doing blood letting, leeches, etc because they haven’t updated skills.
So once again, your question suffers from assumptions that are fundamentally wrong from the Freakonomics perspective. The new doctors are using antibiotics sparingly, instead of frequently like the experienced doctors. The new doctors are simply better with better knowledge, despite their lack of experience. In this case, experience kills, and newer doctors don’t kill patients that older doctors kill because the older doctors won’t update their knowledge and skills.
That’s the issue here.
I mean really, would you want Dr. Nelson with perhaps poor coordination due to his age of 90 operating on you using 30 year old medicine, or do you want the new doctor with statistically based new treatments operating on you for heart surgery? I’ll take the new doctor over Dr. Nelson, thank you.
Yeah, my first thought after reading Heber’s comment was that I’d prefer someone fresh out of medical school to a 90 year old operating on me.
On a more serious note… I used to believe the ‘older and wiser’ idea as presented by President Hinkley. What really changed my mind is watching my parents, my inlaws, and all their friends begin to truly age. I love them all dearly, but I can see their ability to understand complexities and make decisions is decreasing. They (again across the board) don’t see it at all. My siblings and siblings-in-laws all definitely do and discuss regularly how to best support our aging family members. I can’t imagine this is any different for leaders of the church. How many of the apostles are over 70?
I need to check out the podcast, for sure. I haven’t listened to it yet.
But…I’d want the best doctor. Don’t care the age. Experience still counts for something, not everything, but…is not to be dismissed. Maybe it is better for me to say it as…I prefer the doctor with 10,000 hours of experience…don’t care what age they are when they get it, to advise me on the proven treatments that have worked. Perhaps younger hands do the work, but the experience and proven track record is definitely one factor in giving trust, which was what the OP brought up…trust. Another source is validation with 2 or 3 other trustworthy sources.
I do think that is a problem with the church…if the Q15 are united and meet privately, then present ideas in unison…what other sources are there to validate? I guess they could be…the spirit, the scriptures, and life experience. But…that is another topic.
MH: “The new doctors are using antibiotics sparingly, instead of frequently like the experienced doctors. The new doctors are simply better with better knowledge, despite their lack of experience. In this case, experience kills, and newer doctors don’t kill patients that older doctors kill because the older doctors won’t update their knowledge and skills.”
Sounds to me like a very broad brush here…not sure exactly what you are talking about.
Using an extreme examples of comparing 90 yr old Dr Nelson is making your point I understand, experience isn’t everything and they can be “old dogs” needing to learn some new things, yet they are the ones in charge. Agreed. I get that point.
But…it seems a bit of a stretch in how you put it. You might as well compare a young first year resident as well, in your case of which is “better” (I’m still trying to figure how that should be defined). All first year residents are better than all older doctors? Hm. Those extremes are not meaningful to me. No one is using leeches anymore. That’s kind of dumb.
lehcarjt: ” I’d prefer someone fresh out of medical school to a 90 year old operating on me”
Have you seen the statistics on what they call “The July Effect”? July is the month the most new doctors enter the hospitals to start “practicing” their trade. It is also the month with the highest injuries of preventable harm in hospitals.
Again, not sure what the podcast says. But your extreme arguments seem overstated.
Even still, I get the point that newer ways of medical science and religion can truly be important and needed…and not always dismissed by living in the past. I can agree with that to a point.
Just don’t over-react to the idea and dismiss experience that is truly valuable in many situations.
Heber, listen to the podcast. The broad brush is what Stephen Dubner said. I’m just repeating it.
The fact is there is a lot of bad medicine out there being done by experienced doctors who aren’t updating their skills. Doctors getting ready to retire don’t care about the new knowledge and are dispensing bad medicine. It’s not me saying it. Listen to the podcast.
Ideally we want someone recently out of medical school, open to new techniques and keeping his skills up to date. Experience plus knowledge is best, but that brand new doctor may be much better than one approaching retirement and using out of date knowledge.
If we look at the race ban, Dr. Reeve said that even though Brigham Young broke the precedent of Joseph Smith, none of the other older GA’s were willing to do that. They are like the old doctors who use bad reasons to keep the ban. If we want revelation, we need younger people like Joseph Smith (and even Brigham Young) to get it. The old guys have a much worse track record than the young prophets. Just sayin. As Americans age, they get conservative and complain about all the changes the younger generation makes. Don’t get a phone, talk to a person. TV is terrible. Don’t get a cell phone. Don’t text. These are aged people who aren’t updating their knowledge who are saying these things. New people invent better ways.
To be sure, there is wisdom in age, but there is also a resistance to new better things, and the older generation complains about all the new fangled communication devices we have because they simply are tired of learning them. These opinions are frankly out of date and wrong, whether in medicine or the church.
I realize I’m an anecdote of one, but I have an applicable example. My wife and I a few years back picked an eye doctor because he was in network and 5 minutes from our house. He did an ok job getting our glasses prescription correct, but my wife, due to impossibly dry eyes, had not been able to wear contacts for years. He assessed the situation and prescribed an eye drop that made her situation a bit better, but not good enough to wear contacts.
He sold the practice to a much younger woman who came in and revolutionized the office with new tests and computers and 21st century learnings. She took one look at my wife’s eyes and prescribed some new drug that cost way more than the old meds he had prescribed (cuz… patents). And low and behold after a few months my wife can sometimes wear her contacts again.
This topic is why I have great confidence in the rising generation, even if I have very little confidence in the Church’s future.
Ideally we want someone recently out of medical school, open to new techniques and keeping his skills up to date.
Okay, let’s compare the practice of medicine with the practice of the church…
The “recently out of medical school” physician can practice one-on-one with individual patients in a pattern of enthusiasm, learning, and trial-and-error, but he or she will not be allowed to be the chief physician in a hospital system.
Yes, let’s use the young for ward elders quorum and Relief Society presidents, and let them practice in small settings in a pattern of enthusiasm, learning, and trial-and-error. But exactly like all large and successful hospital systems, let’s use experienced practitioners to be system-wide administrators. It makes sense, doesn’t it?
But there is a notable difference: people with means and access choose to be physicians, and apply to compete based on merit (or personality) for advancement within the hospital system — but leaders in the church don’t always come from situations of means and access and didn’t choose their stewardships — rather, they accept and fulfill a duty assigned to them (a calling) in which they serve with the “confidence, faith, and prayer of the church” (sustaining). It really is a beautiful pattern that our God has shared with us.
JI, you should have quoted my next sentence instead of the one you mangled. ” Experience plus knowledge is best, but that brand new doctor may be much better than one approaching retirement and using out of date knowledge.”
I’ll give this to you. You’re loyal to a fault, and don’t mind misquoting someone to make a point.
” leaders in the church don’t always come from situations of means and access”
Which of the current Q15 didn’t come form a situation of means and access? Genuine question. I don’t get your argument here.
Did I misquote? My apologies…
Ji makes an important point…we aren’t talking about aged family doctors, or even surgeons with out dated physician skills. We are talking about system wide administrators, with 10 year visions of where Healthcare is going (like population health and political climate changes impacting insurance payments) if we are comparing church leaders to Healthcare orgs. Both the church and the Healthcare organization start acting like corporations, and often are criticized for losing their mission values to shareholders and investments. But…then again…corporations and board of trustees of most major long standing corporations are run by older experienced leaders more than young fresh out of school early adopters. There is a reason for that.
lehcarjt,
A person seeking to become a physician must have means and access in order to accomplish his or her self-selected objective. But no one self-selects to become a local or general officer of the church — rather, they are called by church leaders and sustained by their fellow Saints. One cannot buy, earn, or compete for a church office — there is no admissions process — there are no exams. Instead, it is prophecy and the laying on of hands.
J Golden Kimball once said,
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Golden_Kimball#Service_as_a_Seventy
OK this convo is getting a bit too literal with the doc vs. church leader ship comparison.
I practice medicine and in general we’re all seeking info from the young resident physicians. They are definitely the most up to date and the more experienced docs often ask them about current guidelines and best practices. Experience matters in medicine when it comes to procedures and the “art” of medicine which includes the skills required to communicate with patients and their families as well as to approaching problems that don’t fit an expected pattern. Also experience begets confidence, which can be great with things that don’t change (like diagnosing an illness, def important) but not so great if you’re confident about practicing something outdated (like prescribing an older med when a newer one is now recommended). It was obvious to me early on as a provider when other clinicians were practicing outdated medicine; the longer I practice the more I fear I’m guilty of this myself. Medicine is a difficult field and staying up to date in all areas, well, it’s not easy.
I appreciate the Freakonomics podcast comparison by the OP. I think there are many good points made. Naismith’s comment above shows what I think most would like to believe about the leadership. That “decisions are made on their knees” and “church leaders are trained to exude humility.” I hope that is the case. I don’t see a lot of humility, Naismith. Perhaps with some individual leaders (sorry Oaks), but not the Church that they represent.
I yearn for such a Church. I yearn for transparency and a culture of honesty. We had an entire rosy lesson about Joseph and Emma in SS once and it was killing me that no one was mentioning the giant polygamy elephant in the room. I wanted to so, so badly. My heart aches for Emma and I also admire her so much. Not talking about it does her and all of his other wives a grave disservice. Pretending that these women and their stories never existed is a terrible thing. The Law of Sarah people!!! But mentioning it would have really angered people unfortunately. Why does it have to be like this? I can see it. Do our leaders see it? I don’t know because they never talk about it. It’s like an uncomfortable silence in a dysfunctional family.
A good physician, regardless of age or experience, acknowledges when he or she doesn’t know the answer, but they care enough to keep trying. They advocate for their patients. And they communicate. A breakdown in communication leads to harm with sometimes grave consequences.
MH – also in my experience it helps to be a dentist. I swear all of the bishops and stake presidents in my area are dentists.
Good comment, Maybee.
Also…empathy is a good quality of physicians, and hopefully our church leaders exude that as well, for Christ was the Master Healer.
Yes Heber, absolutely.
I’ll add to that listening and also believing. It’s not uncommon for some physicians to become cynical with patients and write something big off as simply “depression” or “somatization” just because the symptoms don’t fit a common presentation of a condition. And if we don’t believe our patients we won’t act (researching, running tests, etc).
I wonder how many times LGBTQ folks haven’t been believed by a leader who identifies strongly as cis-gendered heterosexual. Or by a woman struggling with what she sees as inequality in the Church because the leader’s wife, sisters, and mother all seem perfectly content. It’s like when Neylan McBaine said “The pain is real!” And if people aren’t believed, then their true concerns aren’t being advocated for. They may be prayed for “Let them see the way,” etc., but not advocated for in the sense that their experiences are real and true and we as a Church need guidance on how to act and to change if needed. What if gay members had been believed 50 years ago? Perhaps the dangerous reassignment programs wouldn’t have been a thing. And when your current leaders are the same ones who lived in a time when they may have actually recommended those programs, I imagine it’s much harder for them to approach God in a way that leaves room for all types of answers, even ones they may be uncomfortable with.
I didn’t mean to suggest above I don’t think this is a good analogy. I think it’s a really good one. I just didn’t like that it was getting nitty gritty about things like having the means to go to med school, etc. since I felt like it was trying to undercut a helpful discussion by seeking to find any fault in a good comparison. I think it’s no coincidence that those who listened to the actual podcast came up with the analogy independently.
MH – I heard it something like “callings in the church are made by inspiration, desperation, revelation, and relation”
I can’t believe this is a decade old, but here’s Jeff Spector’s post on nepotism in the church: http://www.mormonmatters.org/2008/04/14/nepotism-in-the-church/
If you want to be a GA, the inspiration/relation apparently runs through family lines. Nobody’s inspired to pick a farmer from Panguitch, Utah or a plumber from Levan, Utah anymore.
Still, one does not buy, earn, or compete for a church office.
No, they marry or are born into it.
MH,
Is it your position that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is spiritually dead?
My position is that most Sacrament meetings are (but I guess that’s another post this week.)
Zing!
MH, you are on fire today!