Trump and his circle of fools has blundered into an unwinnable war with Iran. We should reflect a bit on what got us here. The US Constitution set up a system of government that was admirably suited to *avoid* many bad government decisions. Placing the power to declare war in the hands of Congress was supposed to prevent a foolish or aggressive president from starting a war on dubious grounds. Requiring the consent of Congress for the appointment of cabinet officers was supposed to filter out abjectly unqualified nominees. Establishing the federal courts as an independent branch of government with life appointments for judges was supposed to beef up barriers against unlawful actions by the executive branch.
This arrangement, and other systemic safeguards, worked reasonably well for the first couple of centuries, but has been less effective of late. In theory, the United States President should have access to the best intelligence information, get advice from the most qualified government officials and advisors, and be able to make generally good decisions. What could possibly go wrong? Let’s think this over, then do a Mo app, applying the same perspective to LDS leadership decisions.
Here’s what can go wrong:
- Intelligence agencies provide bad information because they are staffed and directed by less competent loyalists rather than nonpartisan experts.
- Good intelligence is provided, but ignored by decision makers.
- Good intelligence is provided and absorbed by decision makers, but they choose to pursue personal or partisan objectives rather than legitimate national or institutional objectives.
- Decision makers get the info and try to make decisions in the national or institutional interest, they’re just too stupid or lacking in good judgment to think their way to a good decision.
- Everything works right and good decisions are made, but due to incompetence in the executive branch the plans are poorly executed and fail.
- Good decisions are initially well executed, but circumstances change and leadership is unwilling or unable to change course, to change the plan in the face of adverse or unexpected developments.
So let’s run down those bullet points for Trump’s Iran War, a showcase for bad decision-making, then circle back to LDS considerations. (1) Trump chose an incompetent Director of National Intelligence, and the Senate confirmed her. (2) Trump routinely ignores what intelligence does make it to his desk. Reports consistently note how difficult it is to get Trump’s sustained attention for any detailed matter. (3) Corruption is off the charts in Trump’s administration. The most recent report being that Jared Kushner solicited billion dollar investments for his financial business while recently acting as a US envoy and negotiator. (4) Media reports that Trump was repeatedly advised by his Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of the danger of Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz and the difficulty in preventing it, but Trump ignored or at least discounted that warning. (5) US military performance has been excellent, but good tactical execution cannot overcome a deficient strategic plan. Ask Napoleon about Russia. Ask Putin about Ukraine. (6) Trump seems unable to pivot to an alternative plan, now that Plan A (we bomb them, they surrender) has failed.
Okay, let’s look at senior LDS leadership and how they make decisions. Again, let’s look at the six bullet points.
- LDS leaders can get access to very good information, either in technical fields like law or finance or building plans, or in religious matters by calling on LDS historians and PhD religious profs. They can buy or get access too all the expertise they want.
- Sometimes LDS leaders listen, sometimes they don’t. It would appear, for example, that the LDS race-based priesthood and temple ban persisted as long as it did because LDS leaders received bad information in the 19th century, then ignored updated and more accurate info about it through much of the 20th century.
- I’m willing to grant that most in senior leadership do attempt to pursue legitimate institutional objectives. But sometimes an LDS President pursues what are essentially longstanding personal objectives, like Pres. Nelson stamping out the term “Mormon” from LDS discourse. Centralization of LDS power in the hands of the President (away from the Twelve or the FP Counselors) in recent decades makes this easier.
- Once initiatives or programs are approved, the LDS system does a fair job of executing, although it is still hit or miss. The Ministering program, for example, seems to be a big nothingburger. It was almost dead on arrival.
- LDS leadership can change course quickly, the best example being the 2015 Exclusion Policy decision, which was largely reversed just a couple of years later. But in general they will stick with a program or policy until forced by circumstances to reconsider it or make a change.
So the LDS governance system and decision-making by senior leadership does reasonably well, especially when compared to Trump and his crew.
So that’s the general topic and how it plays in LDS decision-making.
- Do LDS leaders live in an echo chamber? (See image at top of post.) Or do they get info and feedback from outside the circle of leaders and LDS bureaucracy? Echo chambers lead to bad decisions.
- Can you think of LDS examples of particularly good decisions in the past hundred years? Dropping Scouting, maybe? Two-hour church?
- Can you think of LDS examples of especially bad decisions in the past hundred years? Not adopting a mandatory retirement age for apostles when they put it in place for Seventies, maybe? The LDS curriculum, which gets worse every year, maybe?
Wheat & Tares 
I’m sorry, but since I don’t know anything about you personally, the “OP,” I will have to proceed generically.
I want to express a few big thoughts in a few words, which is going to be hard to do.
In my opinion, the most important bit of information, “intelligence,” operating in both the cases you propose, is a person’s or the decision-makers worldview.
Here is Bing’s answer to the question “How much enriched uranium does Iran hold?”
—————————-
As of mid-2025, Iran possesses approximately 972 pounds (around 440 kilograms) of uranium enriched up to 60%, which is just below weapons-grade levels.
Current Stockpile
Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium has grown rapidly in recent years. By mid-June 2025, Iran had enriched about 972 pounds (approximately 440 kilograms) of uranium to 60% purity, up from 605.8 pounds in February 2025 and 267.9 pounds a year earlier, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and CBS News reports. Uranium enriched to 60% is considered a short step away from weapons-grade uranium, which is typically around 90% enrichment.
CBS News
+1
———————————–
If the information we have is that Iran has enough uranium to create 16 atom bombs, but it may take just a small bit more enrichment to get there, and they have long-range ballistic missiles, and they have said millions of times for the last 50 years that their main goal in life is to bomb the United States into oblivion, do you take them at their word and try to stop them from getting a complete multi warhead Intercontinental nuclear missile capability, or do you decide they’re bluffing and do nothing?
If oil prices go up one dollar a gallon for one month, is the risk still worth taking?
————————
Switching to the church situation, we have ideological questions and mission questions on similar (or even larger) world scale.
As I read the Scriptures, the LDS church leaders are supposed to be prophets for the entire world and it is their job, their scriptural assignment, to build Zion on the American continent, see Article 10 of the Articles of Faith, with the assumption that getting the United States completely straightened out, operating a proper Gospel society, will also straighten out the rest of the world and then we can have what is called a Millennium.
In contrast, our church leaders (with at least two dissenters), under the direction of Wilford Woodruff, in 1896, decided that they had no such worldwide duties and responsibilities. The only duties and responsibilities they had were to retire comfortably in Utah, now that they had created a Mormon society, and do absolutely nothing for the remainder of eternity. If the United States and the rest of the world returned to barbarism and warfare as happened in the Fourth Nephi account of another restoration of the gospel, that that was not their problem. Their biggest problems today were working out church schedules and figuring out where to hide the excess tithing money (which they took through unscriptural methods).
Bad decision:
1. Dropping Scouting without a good replacement program. I would guess there is more pedophilia going on in church than in Scouts if the lawsuits are anything to go by.
2. Two hour church- Loss of community because everyone is so rushed on Sunday AND Relief Society has lost half of its meetings. RS is the only time women have to meet without a ‘presiding’ man in the room.
3. Dropping ‘Mormon’-Another Nelson ego, ‘I am now in charge’, trip. Doubt that it will last very much longer
4. Additions to Handbook about trans members. If the purpose is to get them to stop coming to church, it has probably worked. When you compare the number of trans members to the number of heterosexual male SA charges against the church, it would appear trans members are not the problem.
Highly relevant topic – from both political and religious perspectives.
Context matters. Truth matters. Mormon history is a litany of bad decisions. Selected examples in the past century include the 2023 SEC fines for a lack of transparency (lying), the Native American Placement Program (blatant racism), the September Six Excommunications, restrictions on academic freedom, unregulated and often abusive interviews with youth, and the continuation of harmful and exclusionary LGBTQ policies in various forms. There is not enough room here to itemize all their poor decisions.
Without exception, the Church errs on the side of adhering to outdated doctrines at the expense of exercising compassion. Leadership attempts to cling to their dwindling claims of exclusivity to the truth. They must understand the historical narrative of Mormon origins does not have authenticity. Hence, decisions are defensive in nature and based on the caveat that members must trust leadership despite empirical evidence to the contrary. Questioning core teachings risks relationships and identity.
Comparing the decision-making styles of Mormon and MAGA leaders is an exercise in frustration. Both movements are highly hierarchical, authority flows downward and loyalty tends to be personal rather than institutional. No surprise that the majority of Mormons support the war with Iran.