I read a book last week called Mathematical Intelligence, A story of Human Superiority over Machines[1]. The premise of the book was that AI will not be able to replace Human ingenuity in the realm of mathematics. While computers, and really fast super computers with AI can run through quadrillions [2] of calculations a second, they cannot “think” for themselves, or come up with new mathematical concepts like Newton/Leibniz did with calculus, or the invention of “imaginary numbers” that have proven very beneficial in modern electronics.
The author talked about some of the failings of human to human collaboration, and one of those was the “illusion of explanatory depth” The illusion of explanatory depth describes our belief that we understand more about the world than we actually do. It is often not until we are asked to actually explain a concept that we come face to face with our limited understanding of it. Below are some drawings people made after they said they understood how a bicycle worked. Look closely and you can see none of the bikes drawn would function. Do you know anybody like this? Have you ever faced this yourselves?
OK, so where is Bishop Bill going with this, and how is it a Mormon problem? The books talks about how to overcome the problems of “illusion of explanatory depth”, and talks about how a group of collaborators (think Q15) can overcome this.
How do we make sure that the double-edge sword of human-human collaboration tilts in our favor? Diversity of opinion is critical – it occurs when each person has some private information, even if it’s just as eccentric interpretation of the known facts. When this happens, each person’s independent judgment combines to great effect.
Mathematical Intelligence p 246
The book talks about a contest at a fair run a hundred years ago where fair goes were asked to guess the weight of a bull. The guesses were all over the place, but a statistician looked at the results and found that the average of all guesses was 1197 pounds, and the actual weight was 1198 pounds!
Those fairgoers each contributed a small bit of information based on their own unique life experiences. Just like a board of directors can do for a large corporation, or a High Council in support of a Stake President, or a Q12 in support of FP. But does it happen if all the members of the group have almost the same life experiences?
If we are relying on other people to shatter our illusion of explanatory depth, then we must make sure that their knowledge is not simply a mimicry of our own. It must extend our worldview rather than amplify it. Where homogeneous groups of like-minded thinkers tend to exploit the narrow set of ideas they already share, heterogeneous groups are able to combined their different perspectives to expand their mental horizons……This cognitive diversity is a proved asset of collaborative groups, and never more so than with interdisciplinary problems that demand multiple perspectives.
Mathematical Intelligence p 247
Can you think of a more homogeneous group than the Q15? What stands out is Elder Uchtdorf. He did not grow up in the bubble of Mormondom, and it shows in his thinking as evidenced in his talks. I wonder how much of his heterodox thinking is able to come out in the private Q15 meetings, or is he being stamped down so much he doesn’t even raise his hand anymore?
And what about the interdisciplinary problems facing the church? The LGBTQ issue requires biologists, psychologists, social scientists and the like to really understand it, yet we have a bunch of lawyers, business men with the odd pilot or surgeon sitting in an echo chamber looking for a solution. The church touts the diversity of the Q15, but having been promoted to their current position by showing they are in line with the current church, how really diverse can they be? More to the point, even if they are from different backgrounds, how “conatively diverse” are they? How diverse can they be without female input?
What problems do you see facing the Church that are not getting solved due to the echo chamber of the Q15? Is it really an echo chamber, or are there 15 different opinions, but only Pres Nelson’s vote matters?
Your thoughts?
[1] I read about one book every two weeks. A little fiction, but mostly nerd books on math, technology, history or psychology.
[2] quadrillion = 1,000,000,000,000,000 (that’s a 1000 trillion)
Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay
Wheat & Tares 
I suspect that most of the major problems uniquely facing the LDS church (as compared to problems facing all Protestant churches) have their root to a large extend in the lack of “co(g)native diversity”.
It runs deeper than just the lack of diverse experience among the Q15. Since information is required to come up filtered from SP to AA to Q15, and pretty much all Area Authorities are also of the same type, there just is little chance for new ideas to break through.
I think the strongest case for making DEI efforts in any organization is not the argument for fairness, although that is an excellent reason, but that diversity and inclusiveness makes the organization smarter and more robust to changing conditions.
Which is why the LDS church isn’t doing so well lately.
There was so much emphasis of being aligned with “the brethern”.
Now they look behind and wonder why they are not being followed. They are not only not diverse within the world, they are not diverse within the LDS community. Did they serve a mission?. Do they wonder how to pay the rent or a doctor’s copay? They give council on topics they are completly inexperienced at. They trump obedience over truth. BB is spot on his point.
If you are are following Christ, the Q15 state you are on the wrong path, not them. Now they send their best/diverse pilot (Utchdorf) to the back of the class. Nelson is good at fabricating airplane stories, but not piloting and they will continue to blame/frame others for the current state of LDS affairs, instead of looking in the mirror. There are solutions to the situation ,but it requires humility, stating we are sorry, and group imput, not dictatorships.
I have been thinking about this concept alot. Including women may help, but the bigger problem I see is that the very experiences that have informed my unique perspective would preclude me from being included in leadership.
We call upon people to lead who have been conventionally successful. Often such people imagine their success is due to their own actions and other people’s failures are due to their mistakes. We fail to see that much of our success is due to circumstances others were not born with.
We pick people to lead that are like us, and tend to agree with us. Someone who speaks up from a different point of view would remain uncalled.
God’s world has provided a wide variety of experiences that will never be heard in a Q15 meeting; poverty, homelessness, disabilities, extensive caregiving burdens, addiction, divorce, and many many other experiences preclude people from adding their voice to the leadership of the church. Don’t imagine there aren’t important things people learn from these experiences. But they aren’t going to be shared at a Q15 meeting, because going through them makes you unavailable for LDS leadership.
We can’t read the minds of the Q15. For all we know, there is some actual diversity of thought among them with respect to Mormon Doctrine and even policies of the Church. It’s very possible that deep down inside, they are as diverse as we are.
HOWEVER, it is my belief that Q15 members have all been placed into their positions because they are willing to suppress their personal beliefs in order to support the institution. I’ve seen this in play at the more local level: stake presidents are not necessarily the most knowledgeable or spiritual among us. What they are is the most loyal. They might have different personalities and leadership styles but they are almost 100% reliable to the chain of command.
My point is that we MAY actually have diversity of thought among the Q15 but since we reward conformity to the tone of the president, we never really know. Look how they neutered Uchtdorf!
I 100% agree with lsw329.
And, Josh, seriously, you think it takes reading their minds to see that they lack cognitive diversity? All it takes is be quick look. No one in the Q15 grew up black, or disabled, or abused, or female. I am pretty sure there is no one who is LGBT in any way shape or form. No one ever spent years of their life as primary caregiver for children, let alone primary care give for the disabled or even primary caregiver for aging parents. No one ever failed in their career, got fired, or struggled in their career. And I bet money, there are no dyslexic, autistic spectrum, ADHD, or otherwise cognitively impaired or neurodivergent people in the Q15. There are not even any unmarried or childless sitting up on stands in GC in those big red chairs. Show me one single one of them that ever had a faith shattering experience, or major life failure to struggle with. How can there be cognitive diversity when there is no life diversity?
They are successful in life in almost every way, and their thinking shows it. Think for a minute what it would do to the “prosperity gospel” beliefs of Mormons if leaders were picked from the ranks of average members instead of selecting only from the very successful. Or, what if we picked leaders from the poor and homeless, and went for humility instead of success?
The first thing they need to do it get 50% women in their ranks. They they need to go for racial diversity, and well as ethnic diversity and social class diversity. Then they can start expanding to get some disabled, and other life experience diversity
This is a really interesting post. I agree with lws329 and Anna about all the experiences that the Q15 have NOT had. The self-selection of the next level of leaders also stamps out diversity. Sometimes I hear people hoping that the next generation of leaders will be more open to change, but I don’t hold that hope. The next generation of leaders will be hand-picked by this generation.
Remember Elder Ballard’s focus on counseling with our councils? I’ve never held a leadership calling and have never attended ward council, but I’ve always wondered if his teachings made any difference. I suspect that’s a matter of bishop roulette. It takes a certain kind of humility to accept input from people who aren’t like you. Leaders are selected for their humility in following other leaders, not in listening to the people who will never be leaders.
Anna, I agree with your larger point, but I think you go a bit too far. Certainly some GAs had abusive fathers (though it may not have been considered abuse to beat and belittle your children 80 years ago.) Some grew up in single parent and/or impoverished households. Uchtdorf grew up in war torn Germany, didn’t he? (Asking honestly, I’ve been away from the church for years and going by memory.) Many have lost children, spouses, or other close family members. Surely they’ve had ups and downs and uncertainty on their respective roads to business success, and some were fired or lost a job at one point or another. I would honestly be shocked if none of them had experienced attraction to another man. Frankly, I’ve long thought that DHO is probably not totally straight, I just don’t think you can get to that level of disdain and hatred for other people unless, at some level, it involves some self-hatred as well.
Nevertheless, point taken, they are all old, white, ostensibly successful and straight, men, and the collective area of their lived experiences is blocked in by the Rockies on one side, the Sierra Nevadas on the other, and barely stretches north to Boise and south to Phoenix.
Unless or until AI advances to the point that we have a human level intelligence, we won’t know whether or not AIs can do creative mathematics.
I think there is probably more diversity than readily appears (though there readily appear to be almost none, so that’s not saying much). I personally, think, for instance that DHO is a closeted homosexual who never genuinely considered that he is. Instead, like Josh H, I think what little diversity still survives is stamped out by demands of conformity and, like Janey and lws329 point out, their isn’t much there by the time they arrive in the first place.
Yes men surround by yes men, who go out into the wild and are surrounded by more yes men so that they can select another yes man amongst the most yes men in the bushel of yes men they are presented with. Of course, with the rare exception that someone can point to (my brother in law, for example). Just enough to keep the illusion alive that perhaps it isn’t so. It is.
@Brian agreed on DHO. I said this in another comment that is stuck in moderation, but I’ve long suspected that DHO isn’t totally straight. I just don’t think you can get to that level of hatred and disdain for someone else unless it is partially motivated by self-loathing.
I want the brethren to be aligned with the quirky humans that we are.
I never want to find myself aligned with their overall misguided, narrow view of life.
I too, agree completely with Iws329. Brokenness is almost a pre-requisite for coming to really know the Savior. Or at least acknowledging your personal brokenness. The model set for us is that broken, and sinful, and suffering individuals will never be in positions of leadership. (“Never” is a strong word, I know, and am probably wrong). At least at the Q15 level it is true though. Even subconsciously, I can tell you from experience as a Bishop and many Stake callings, those who experience failure and sin and tragedy are most often viewed as somehow being “less than”. Although those who lead may try very hard to not let it interfere with their thinking, they are subconsciously inclined to think that those who are “less than”, played a major role in their station – and are somewhat deserving, or complicit in their station. That is what a lack of diversity among leadership does. Since they likely have not faced those challenges themselves. The Savior moved TOWARD broken people. Blessing without asking of their worthiness. Lifting them up. Not seeking to change anything about them, other than their level of hope.
@Bishop Bill, I’ve ordered the book for my mathematically minded son. Thank you for the reference, and the analog is an effective way to question Q15 dynamics.
My view is simple: I will argue the Q15 is (and always has been at least from the 1950s to present) a homophily and a religious hegemon, and I don’t see that changing any time soon.
Elder Uchtdorf is an interesting case. There is little question in my mind Dieter Uchtdorf was released from his position in the first presidency because Nelson does not want his own views to be questioned or upstaged, and certainly doesn’t want someone who was as popular as Uchtdorf overshadowing him.
Technically, this is hearsay but illustrates the dynamic. Please take it with a grain of salt, but I believe it is true. A good friend of mine was told by someone with a front row seat that during the Obama administration, Uchtdorf was sent to Washington DC to attend a meeting at the White House. At some point, Obama and Uchtdorf had a few moments to talk, and Obama was so taken by Uchtdorf that Obama later sent a letter inviting him to serve on the board of the President’s Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Despite being in the First Presidency, Uchtdorf was still a junior apostle and the story is that more senior quorum members (or a more senior member) vociferously opposed the appointment. Why? Uchtdorf was too progressive, much to charismatic and was overshadowing the others in the quorum–if anyone were to serve on the board it should be a more senior member. If the President and Q15 valued differences and individual strengths, they would have kept Uchtdorf at the forefront. Instead, they demoted and silenced him.
Another anecdote that isn’t hearsay. A good friend of mine, not a member of the church, attended a YPO event where roughly two dozen non-LDS YPO members were invited to have lunch with President Uchtdorf, Elder Ballard and the more newly called apostle, Elder Cook. My friend was able to talk to all three for several minutes. These were his observations (1) After Elder Ballard was finished insulting his protestant faith, he was interesting to talk to. (2) Elder Cook seemed only able to talk about corporate law. (3) “Uchtdorf,” my friend said, “that man is the future of your church.” He was blown away by President Uchtdorf charisma, intellect and strength of leadership.
In fairness, I have also heard from a COB employee who works in proximity to the first presidency that there is often disagreement and vigorous exchanges in quorum meetings. A minority voice may delay action, depending on the quorum members status (junior or senior), but that there seems to be boundaries everyone is expected to stay within in the final analysis, and naturally, deference is given to the president.
I’m sure the extent to which there is creative ferment or entrenchment is a reflection of the current president. Presently, we can expect to see ongoing entrenchment with Nelson, and then with Oaks, if he succeeds him. I often find myself wondering how things might change if Uchtdorf can live long enough to take the center chair.
Talk about an echo chamber! The surety of thoughts and opinions expressed by the permabloggers and permacommentators on Wheat and Tares are similar to what they claim of the Q15! Both groups telling me that the best way to run the church is their way.
I think I’ll stick with the current administration even though I sometimes disagree with them.
Recent SLT article re BYU faculty urged to align teaching & research more closely w/ Church….
On the one hand it’s the (frequently hostile) Trib; on the other this kind of stuff is pure BYU. I had a botany prof in the Brimhall Bldg who looked up & down hallway and closed door before discussing evolution.
My little KS ward today F&T: not one person showed up to hear anything new, believe me. Give me that olde tyme religion. That has it’s place, tho w/ an institution as backwards as ours it should be a relatively small place.
Yet Another John: I hope what you read on W&T, coupled with what you hear at church, read in the Ensign, and hear in conference will give you that cognitive diversity, “even if it’s just an eccentric interpretation”.
Well- said Big Sky. It all rings true.
It’s my understanding that the apostles are open to suggestion from leaders all over the church. And so, when you’ve got thousands of stakes and hundreds of missions and temples–that’s a lot of feelers out there. Plus, let’s not forget that many folks (like me) believe that the church is led by living prophets who collaborate with the heavens. The church really is a huge collaborative effort patterned after the Divine Council.
I’ve witnessed first-hand and second-hand (through my wife) several times when stake leaders were presented with a problem or concern among units and, after being specifically asked if they would pass the concern ‘up-the-chain,’ were told that they would not pass it up. Though I believe it may happen occasionally, I don’t think the ‘open to suggestions’ practice happens much at all. Instead, everyone presents their pretty face and pretty facts. I’ve been part of the many-feelers out there, including part of an in-person focus group. The Church isn’t particularly interested in feedback on anything other than what they solicit. And what they solicit is hardly meaningful in terms of DEI. And even it was, it doesn’t come close to lived experience.
Jack, open to suggestion from leaders they cherry pick with opinions that match their own. Collaboration requires listening- real listening from all people involved not filtered responses from middle management clergy.
And as for the similarities between the church and divine council, yikes. I guarantee I didn’t say yes to coming down to earth if a male only Divine Council presented a plan. But then again, me and my preexistance vulva wouldn’t have been in the decision making council room to being with.
Bishop Bill,
I’m trying to do one book a week this year. I at least want to break the coveted 50 mark. My personal best is 41 back in 2020. Lockdown helped! Currently on track but let’s see how long that lasts………………….
‘Someone who speaks up from a different point of view would remain uncalled.”
I guess that is one way to remain in the Church with less stress. You just have to get used to being ignored. Local leaders will also nod knowingly if your children ever struggle or bad times come your way. In their minds, these events are all of your own doing. Of course, if they face struggles, they’ll go above and beyond to justify them. Apparently only their children exercise agency in a negative way and troubles arise because of their personal righteousness. They are so wonderful that Satan works overtime to grind them down. Everyone else? Not so much.
I did have a relative of an apostle give me excellent advice nearly four decades ago. He complimented me on my education and said: “If you want to stay happy in the Church, you’ll have to learn to keep your mouth shut. The local leaders will never value what you have to offer..” I never really did learn to do that. I am really not much of a heretic, but I have made a few local leaders uncomfortable. Or would it be more accurate to say that they recognized their personal discomfort when I was speaking? Over the years there have been aspersions cast about me not really being worthy of a temple recommend, which initially hurt horribly, but I am getting used to this game now. And my recommend has remained in my wallet. But I will admit that it is difficult to “sustain” your local leaders when your local leaders practice a spiritual version of “survival of the fittest” (“Fittest” only includes wealthy, white and conservative) that would make Jesus weep and even Darwin blush.
Bishop Bill: I remember when I first encountered this concept (but I can’t remember which of the books I read it in), the example they used was how a toilet works. After everyone more or less asserted they knew, roughly, how a toilet works, it was pretty obvious that almost nobody did. It’s also a thought experiment I sometimes do ever since I read The Stand as a teenager; if there were only a handful of humans left alive, and I were one of them, would I be able to “run” simple things? No, I for sure would not. Within a year, we’re probably back using outhouses and walking everywhere.
Big Sky: Those stories are a fascinating glimpse, and I can honestly say that I do not believe we would be bleeding as many members as we are, even with the pandemic pause that caused a bunch of us to see that we didn’t miss it at all, if Uchtdorf were more front and center. He is truly, in my living memory, the only apostle who actually seems to understand the gospel. He’s far from perfect, but he’s head, shoulders, knees and toes above the rest.
Personally, I think there’s an unspoken rule that has evolved over time that if you are one of the apostles, you are welcome to share your opinions, vociferously even, behind closed doors, but only the top dog makes the calls, and once he tells the rest what the party line is, you have to keep your mouth shut and parrot the public stance in public, even if you disagree. It seems that Nelson in particular enforces this dynamic, even making the so-called “empathetic” apostles like Christofferson and Holland do very public speeches defending Nelson/Oaks’ positions. Whether that’s at Nelson’s behest or Oaks’ idea is something I can’t tell, but it really being the work of Oaks would not surprise me. It is designed to reinforce the requirement that they not undermine the unpopular positions their “superiors” are staking out. Frank Burns is running the OR, and Col. Potter is at a conference in Seoul.
But of course, if the apostles didn’t do this, what would happen? Would they be forced to step down? (I don’t think so). Are they banking on having that same unchecked power when/if they get the big chair? (Perhaps).
While I agree with Anna & others that with such limited identity-based diversity, the empathy in decision making will be very limited, there is something to the fact that diversity is not always a byproduct of personal experience. Sometimes siblings raised in the same house have very different perspectives on the same experiences. Sometimes the system is just corrupt top to bottom. Look at the results of adding diversity to the police force in Memphis. Instead of creating more empathetic police officers, we trained diverse officers to be killers, thinking that was the job they would be rewarded for.
Angela, I think you are right about the unspoken rule. Well, maybe it is spoken to the Junior Apostles, who knows, maybe it is just us peons at the bottom that don’t hear it spoken.
And sadly, I think it is a rule that has developed during my lifetime. I remember people actually discussing different apostles differing opinions in Sunday School. People knew who believed evolution was false, and people knew who believed the science, and our ward had very few who believed the science besides my family. And I remember a heated discussion between two of the more outspoken brothers about which apostle was going to hell for his beliefs and which one should be removed from his BYU position for being an idiot who doubts science. Yeah, the argument for evolution was led by my grandfather. And David OMacKay was not used as “prophet” to trump either of the two different opinions. His opinion was not considered any better than any of the other’s opinions. So different than it would be today.
“The LGBTQ issue requires biologists, psychologists, social scientists and the like to really understand it, yet we have a bunch of lawyers, business men with the odd pilot or surgeon sitting in an echo chamber looking for a solution.” If that echo chamber is constantly reverberating with the voice of God, who cares if all the Q15 are just a bunch of elderly, wealthy, white men from Pocatello, Idaho? Sure, if we had just one or two men, then maybe they’d miss a word here or there, and we couldn’t just blindly accept whatever they said, but when 15 elderly, wealthy, white men from Pocatello are listening at the same time it is simply inconceivable that they could all mishear the word of God. “Cognitive diversity” is of the World–God’s Church only values “cognitive conformity”. And don’t get me started with your idea that the Church could benefit by listening to any “so-called” scientists.
I am, of course, being sarcastic. However, for people that truly believe in the infallibility of Church leaders, as I believe many members do (and many members who claim not to believe in infallibility seem to act as if they really do believe in infallibility), there is zero value in cognitive diversity besides perhaps a good PR photo shoot opportunity to show to outsiders and to help move missionary efforts along. Only when the Church understands that the Q15 are just men who only rarely clearly and unmistakably perceive the will of God and who frequently make mistakes will it be able to see any value in cognitive diversity.
This is a really interesting idea! To think that a group of people would have a better chance of guessing someone’s weight when the average is considered really opened my eyes to the importance of meshing all of our ideas and perspectives on problems. In the case of guessing someone’s weight a few factors could be considered that might reveal some issues that come with homogenous thinkers. What if one of the people in the group happens to be the subjects husband? Another a blind man or woman and another that would feel bad about the subject knowing what they think their weight might be. I don’t know if this group would be the best group to even average a guess at the subjects weight. Everyone has different experiences and there are different context and connections with ideas that affect people. I struggle with the idea of the 15 making decisions regardless of their background or gender because we all know the standard that qualifies one for the position. Regardless of your intellectual knowledge of the church or questions you may or may not have had, you will always say the church is right and that you know the truth. In other words each person in that group has a perspective and loyalty to the organization that trumps all and the emperor’s clothes will always warrant praise.
CHURCH BROKE
I retired after 25 years of church employment. During that time I worked closely with Q15 members and 70s on many projects. There is a term I heard many times, “Church broke”. I sat in a meeting of GAs when an apostle explain this term. When a horse is broken it gives up its will, it stops resisting the bridle and stops thinking for itself. The rider can then control the horse, direct its movements and even lead the horse into situations it would normal resist. When church members becomes “church broke” they give up their own will and stop thinking for themselves. This was presented as a very desirable trait in church leaders such as bishops, stake presidents, GAs, etc.
When the leaders are church broke cognitive diversity is the first casualty. In a church broke system ideas, concerns, and recommendations from its members disappear on their way up the lines of authority. Sometimes horses sense rattlesnake dens the riders don’t see.
It seems to me that a “church broke” system is a broken system.