Church responds to leaked videos

[NeuroTypical]

NightSG, I don't know what you do for work, but I wish you success and career advancement.  I'm guessing you're a mere two levels of management away from a complete 180 on your opinions here.  

[Just_A_Guy]

35 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Which has all been run through before...in fact, given that we're several years after that video now, it's showing to be just the same as the semiannual "we'll do better about getting the chapel unlocked and the equipment set up for next General Conference" claims in my ward.  All the talk in the world does nothing if the actions don't follow. . . .

What hasn't worked is still going on; they could at least come up with some new platitudes every ten years or so.

What you're basically acknowledging here, is that the problem isn't really the instruction from the top; it's the execution at the local level.  But interestingly, you choose to channel your rage back at the central LDS leadership; demanding that they come up with new and shiny "platitudes" that you seem to know, in your heart, will be no more effectual than the old ones so long as local leadership fails to implement them.   

Quote

Statistical evidence has the same disadvantages it always does; do you know of any families with 2.4 children?  Reducing the entire population to a single average archetype (which, like the four tenths of a child, likely doesn't even exist) ignores the fact that every one of them is an individual, which should be the first and foremost consideration when dealing with people in a delicate circumstance.

What is your evidence that the central leadership doesn't view YSAs as individuals?   Did you even listen to the video?  Numerous times it came up that experiences differ between YSAs in Utah versus those in the rest of the US or overseas.  A number of specific interviews with or letters from YSAs were cited.  And of course these are all parents, aunts, uncles, and so on; and a few (like Elder Oaks) who have been single relatively recently.  

You can belittle statistics all you want; but the simple fact is that if the Church wants to implement policies that will benefit the greatest number of singles, then it needs to efficiently identify what a "mainstream" single is wont to look like.  That's what statistics does.  There is a time and a place to hear the experiences of a few outliers to the statistical norm--but the meeting we saw, apparently, was not it.

Cripes, we just had a leak of videos showing the Church getting briefings on international situations from a former State Department official/Rhodes Scholar in International Relations, on political situations from a former US Senator, and on YSA issues from a former university president who drew on input from general and local leaders as well as interviews and correspondence with YSAs themselves.  If we had any ounce of sense in our heads, we would acknowledge that the release of these videos puts the final nail in the coffin of this "The-GAs-are-doddering-old-nitwits-living-in-a-Utah-bubble" narrative once and for all.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[estradling75]

6 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

  If we had any ounce of sense in our heads, we would acknowledge that the release of these videos puts the final nail in the coffin of this "The-GAs-are-doddering-old-nitwits-living-in-a-Utah-bubble" narrative once and for all.

 

It just shows that antis have no regard to being honest.... 

1st argument... Your leaders are old and out of touch and have no idea what is going on around them.

2nd argument... Your leaders are clearly influenced by the world and what is going on around them.

?!?!?

 

[yjacket]

9 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

NightSG, I don't know what you do for work, but I wish you success and career advancement.  I'm guessing you're a mere two levels of management away from a complete 180 on your opinions here.  

Bingo.  From what I've seen, I think the Apostles and their counsels do a fine job of what they seem to be intended for, which is informing the leadership on various relevant topics of interest. I've only seen a few short ones b/c of time-but there doesn't seem to be anything earth shattering here.

The Q12 has a specific area of interest and they either go task someone to look into it and report on it or someone has a specific calling to look into the relevant topics of the day. The report on the housing bubble left something to be desired, but then again I don't think this are meant to be a college level class, I think it is meant to just keep the Brethren abreast of relevant issues and go into it in some detail but not write a dissertation on it. For that purpose, from what I've seen it probably meets exactly what they want.

I do find the talk of "they don't know how I feel" rather silly, immature and self-centered. Of course they don't know how you feel, in fact no one does-the only person ever to have walked this Earth that knows how each of us feels is Jesus Christ. The whole point of the Gospel is for us to learn to find solace and guidance from the One who saves and then in some measure try to replicate that to our fellow human beings.

I've been through some rough crap in my life (more-so than many at my stage), but I'm no one special and I certainly don't begrudge or immaturely toss away someone's advice b/c "they don't know what I've been through".  I have learned in life that sometimes the best advice comes from people who haven't been through something similar but have the ability to see things in a different light and provide counsel from a different perspective.  In fact, I find that type of counsel and advice refreshing; does it always work,absolutely not, but I still appreciate the thought that went into someone else trying to provide counsel, solace or guidance even in a matter that they are not terribly familiar with.

It's like parenting. My child will say, "I'm unloved" or "you don't understand me", yes child I understand how from your perspective you would say that . . .but it simply isn't the case. One day when you are a parent you too will understand what I am doing now.

[NightSG]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

NightSG, I don't know what you do for work, but I wish you success and career advancement.  I'm guessing you're a mere two levels of management away from a complete 180 on your opinions here.  

Actually, over the years, I've spent some time working directly under the CEOs of a couple of corporations.  In both cases, they were well known for occasionally grabbing random employees of any level for an "off the record" lunch discussion, (which made for some amusing surprise visits to remote sites) specifically to make sure they were getting information that didn't go through the "old white guy filter" that the chain of command tends to become.  Speaking as a young white guy myself, I preferred to take the Acts 6 approach, (though seven plus myself would have been a crowd in his office, so usually only two at the extremes of the position - but note all those Greek names in verse 5 and tell me the original Apostles didn't feel the need for the affected to have a significant and direct voice) and take the people directly experiencing the issue to the meeting with me so I wouldn't become part of the filter.

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

What you're basically acknowledging here, is that the problem isn't really the instruction from the top; it's the execution at the local level.

To my knowledge, they haven't executed anyone yet.  That's probably a bit harsh, but it does seem to work for the Clintons.

Quote

What is your evidence that the central leadership doesn't view YSAs as individuals?

Individuals, maybe.  Individuals worthy of having an actual representative at the discussion, obviously not.  I seem to recall a Divinely inspired document that had some rather strong words about such a practice elsewhere.

54 minutes ago, yjacket said:

The report on the housing bubble left something to be desired, but then again I don't think this are meant to be a college level class, I think it is meant to just keep the Brethren abreast of relevant issues and go into it in some detail but not write a dissertation on it.

Giving a couple of members of the subject population 3-5 minutes to state their feelings on the matter is hardly a college level class.  They could have made that time by shortening the formal introductions.

Quote

It's like parenting. My child will say, "I'm unloved" or "you don't understand me", yes child I understand how from your perspective you would say that

Convenient answer, but have you ever asked them to state their full position?  You might be surprised how much you didn't understand, and how much better your counsel will be received when you show them a real effort to understand more fully.

Edited October 3, 2016 by NightSG

[NeuroTypical]

22 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Actually, over the years, I've spent some time working directly under the CEOs of a couple of corporations.  In both cases, they were well known for occasionally grabbing random employees of any level for an "off the record" lunch discussion, (which made for some amusing surprise visits to remote sites) specifically to make sure they were getting information that didn't go through the "old white guy filter" that the chain of command tends to become. 

I hear three or four anecdotes per year, from random directions, where a GA or apostle does exactly that.  The last one I heard was from a rather critical former member, who was rather surprised to see how open the GA was to hearing the guy's complaints. 

 

Dunno how long this particular exchange went on, but you don't exactly see Pres. Uchdorf's security forming a sheltering bubble around the guy as he dines in the upper floor of some secure building...

Edited October 3, 2016 by NeuroTypical

[Just_A_Guy]

14 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Actually, over the years, I've spent some time working directly under the CEOs of a couple of corporations.  In both cases, they were well known for occasionally grabbing random employees of any level for an "off the record" lunch discussion, (which made for some amusing surprise visits to remote sites) specifically to make sure they were getting information that didn't go through the "old white guy filter" that the chain of command tends to become. 

Yeah, and then they took that first-hand information back into board meetings where it became second-hand information.

Again:  Where is your evidence that the current GAs don't do this?  Can you even list the names and marital statuses of everyone who was in the room during the meeting in question?

Quote

Individuals, maybe.  Individuals worthy of having an actual representative at the discussion, obviously not.  I seem to recall a Divinely inspired document that had some rather strong words about such a practice elsewhere.

We're not going to make headway if you keep changing the target.  First you wanted your situation to be understood.  We showed you that it was understood, and then you claimed it needed to be understood first-hand.  Now that we show that it is understood via first-hand contact, you decide that what you really want is representation.

And yeah, the Church isn't a democracy.  That's something Mormons just have to reconcile themselves to.  When the Church starts curtailing natural rights to life, liberty, and property; then you can start drawing the comparison between the Q12 and monarchs or totalitarians or tyrants, or whatever it was you were trying to imply.  But until then, the bottom line seems to be that the Church has recognized a problem, they're trying to solve it, you disagree with the way they're going about it, and you conclude a priori that because they do not agree with you, it must be that they do not understand you. 

[yjacket]

1 hour ago, NightSG said:

Convenient answer, but have you ever asked them to state their full position?  You might be surprised how much you didn't understand, and how much better your counsel will be received when you show them a real effort to understand more fully.

Yes, of course. Sometimes (in fact many times), the child simply doesn't agree with the parental decision.  When that happens, no amount of talk is going to do any good. There comes a time when the decision must be made and it is the parents job to make it.

And the key here is that this is a leadership principle. Leaders lead, i.e. they are obligated to make decisions and take charge and by doing so they will always find individuals who disagree with their position. The proper leadership response is, to listen and then lead-just b/c you don't like the response doesn't mean they haven't listened or they don't understand.

I know this is a really hard concept to understand b/c in today's world, everyone thinks they everyone else must listen to them-when that idea is mostly bunk. Yes it is good to get a idea as to what the common people are saying feeling, but a football coach once said STTE of: if you start heeding what the fans in the bleachers are saying you'll soon find yourself joining them in the bleachers.  Leaders have an obligation to take the temperature of those they lead and listen to see if there are real concerns, but the moment they start paying attention to every little problem is the moment they stop actually leading and start following.

And I'll flip your statement on you.  Once you start actually listening and really paying attention to what your leaders are saying and communicating-you might be surprised to find out how much you don't understand and how much they do and how much better the counsel they give is if you show a real effort to fully understand them.

[NightSG]

4 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Dunno how long this particular exchange went on, but you don't exactly see Pres. Uchdorf's security forming a sheltering bubble around the guy as he dines in the upper floor of some secure building...

Y'know, it's not quite a wookiee suit, but I'm pretty sure I can guess why that guy is and will remain single.  Not exactly the best choice of spokesman for any cause...except maybe a good anti-chafing powder.

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Yeah, and then they took that first-hand information back into board meetings where it became second-hand information.

No.  If the employees' concern needed to be addressed at a board meeting, they would be invited to choose one spokesman, or provide a written statement which would be given to the board members.  In one of those companies, the chairman of the board was also known for wandering around the site dressed more or less like a low level manager, asking anyone he didn't already recognize to introduce themselves and tell him what they thought the company could do better.  Then he would tell them his real name and why he was asking.  Nice guy, and a very effective leader.

Again:  Where is your evidence that the current GAs don't do this?  Can you even list the names and marital statuses of everyone who was in the room during the meeting in question?

No one was introduced as a YSA or SA, nor did any of them include anything like "and in my personal experience as a single man."  I can certainly make a pretty well educated guess as to the marital status of all the GAs present.

Quote

We're not going to make headway if you keep changing the target.  First you wanted your situation to be understood.  We showed you that it was understood,

No, you claimed it was understood and provided no evidence to support that claim.  If it was understood 8 years ago, then why is the problem continuing to grow, and still being addressed exactly the same way a bishop from 12 years ago remembers when he was dealing with it?

Quote

and then you claimed it needed to be understood first-hand.  Now that we show that it is understood via first-hand contact,

No, you've shown that President Uchtdorf didn't run away from a guy in a Spiderman suit.  (Well, that and angle cut French cuffs do look better than straight cut ones.)  That says nothing about the content of any discussion they may or may not have had.  Frankly, if I see a guy obviously finishing up his McCafe, (We'll assume they just used that cup for a milkshake...if he's now channeling J Golden Kimball, things are likely to get weird.) and already in a conversation with someone else, I'm not going to go into any detail beyond just saying hello.

But until then, the bottom line seems to be that the Church has recognized a problem,

8 years ago.

Quote

they're trying to solve it,

Not only unsuccessfully, but counterproductively for most of a decade now.

you disagree with the way they're going about it,

I call 'em like I see 'em, and when the "solution" has shown negative results over an extended period, then yes, I disagree with it.

3 hours ago, yjacket said:

And the key here is that this is a leadership principle. Leaders lead, i.e. they are obligated to make decisions and take charge and by doing so they will always find individuals who disagree with their position. The proper leadership response is, to listen and then lead-just b/c you don't like the response doesn't mean they haven't listened or they don't understand.

I'm still not seeing any evidence of useful listening.  They took the carefully filtered claims of experts with zero personal experience in the subject matter, in spite of overwhelming availability of people currently living it every day of their lives, and what they're doing still isn't working.  

[pam]

If this is going to continue to be a bash against the leaders of the Church, I will be shutting this down.

[yjacket]

8 hours ago, NightSG said:

8 years ago.

Not only unsuccessfully, but counterproductively for most of a decade now.

I call 'em like I see 'em, and when the "solution" has shown negative results over an extended period, then yes, I disagree with it.

I'm still not seeing any evidence of useful listening.  They took the carefully filtered claims of experts with zero personal experience in the subject matter, in spite of overwhelming availability of people currently living it every day of their lives, and what they're doing still isn't working.  

Maybe, just maybe they are listening and that unfortunately we live in the last days where "men's hearts" shall fail them. Maybe, just maybe nothing the Church leaders can do or would do will solve whatever problem it is you think there is. Maybe, just maybe we are living in a very, very wicked period of human history where people don't want to listen to the Prophets. Maybe, just maybe people are like the Nephites when Samuel got on the wall and the Nephites tried to kill him.  We don't stone the prophets physically, but do we stone and kill them with our words? with our thoughts? Maybe, just maybe it's the people who are out of touch rather than the prophets and they would rather the prophets come to them then they come to the prophets. Maybe, just maybe we live in a society where people are so sick that they expect everyone else to solve their problems for them instead owning their own problems and fixing those problems themselves.

Maybe it's like the scriptures have told us 45 Ye are swift to do iniquity but slow to remember the Lord your God. Ye have seen an angel, and he spake unto you; yea, ye have heard his voice from time to time; and he hath spoken unto you in a still small voice, but ye were past feeling, that ye could not feel his words; wherefore, he has spoken unto you like unto the voice of thunder, which did cause the earth to shake as if it were to divide asunder.

 

[pam]

@yjacket   I very much agree with your last comments.  I think it is man failing not the prophets or the church leaders.

[NeuroTypical]

11 hours ago, NightSG said:

Y'know, it's not quite a wookiee suit, but I'm pretty sure I can guess why that guy is and will remain single.  

Heh - and here you are claiming the church is out of touch with folks?  Haven't you heard?  The geeks are inheriting the earth, even as we speak.  These are all real legit wedding photos.  I personally know the first guy (in green, not his mustached bride).

 

[pam]

11 hours ago, NightSG said:

Y'know, it's not quite a wookiee suit, but I'm pretty sure I can guess why that guy is and will remain single.  Not exactly the best choice of spokesman for any cause...except maybe a good anti-chafing powder.

 

I must not respond.  I.must.not.respond.

[anatess2]

11 hours ago, NightSG said:

No.  If the employees' concern needed to be addressed at a board meeting, they would be invited to choose one spokesman, or provide a written statement which would be given to the board members.  In one of those companies, the chairman of the board was also known for wandering around the site dressed more or less like a low level manager, asking anyone he didn't already recognize to introduce themselves and tell him what they thought the company could do better.  Then he would tell them his real name and why he was asking.  Nice guy, and a very effective leader.

 

I've been working in the same industry since I was 12 years old... decades ago now.  Ask me how many times I've seen chairmen of the board do anything besides talk to their CEOs, CFOs, C-anything-O's... never.  Ask me how many times I've seen a CEO pretend to be low-level management and talk to floor folks... never.  Okay, disclaimer - I didn't count the time I worked for a single proprietorship where the chairman of the board, the CEO, and the floor manager is the same person...

All the companies I have worked for - all of them - have super effective leaders.  That's why they can afford to hire me (I'm a wanna-be-stay-at-home-mom who will only work if it is well worth it).  I once went and took my dad golfing with the CIO of the company (I work for IT) at a charity event the company sponsored.  My dad asked the CIO - so, is anatess a good worker... the CIO replied, who's anatess?  Hah hah.  That CIO is one awesome woman and I busted my buns to get that IT department working like a well-oiled machine.

In my neck of the woods - a CEO or a board chairman pretending to be low-level management displays a complete mistrust of these low-level management people they hired and would engender a culture of floor folks disrespecting people they report to.  A good CEO knows there's a breakdown of communication because the ship will fail to arrive at his intended destination or be such a drag that the ship arrives overtime and/or overbudget with a high degree of employee turnover or any other corporate indicator.  You can FEEL the clunkiness of a badly managed company/department.  A good CEO establishes a solid foundation of hierarchical leadership and empowers/trusts the people in their respective areas to solve problems.  So that, board meetings become very high-level discussions of the broad direction of the ship rather than a micro-management of disgruntled employees.

But, hey... that's just my anecdotal experience in the corporate world.

And I don't have any intention at all to imply that your CEO or board chairman is not effective or that his "management style" would not have succeeded in the companies I've worked for.

Edited October 4, 2016 by anatess2

[Windseeker]

35 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I've been working in the same industry since I was 12 years old... decades ago now.  Ask me how many times I've seen chairmen of the board do anything besides talk to their CEOs, CFOs, C-anything-O's... never.  Ask me how many times I've seen a CEO pretend to be low-level management and talk to floor folks... never.  Okay, disclaimer - I didn't count the time I worked for a single proprietorship where the chairman of the board, the CEO, and the floor manager is the same person...

All the companies I have worked for - all of them - have super effective leaders.  That's why they can afford to hire me (I'm a wanna-be-stay-at-home-mom who will only work if it is well worth it).  I once went and took my dad golfing with the CIO of the company (I work for IT) at a charity event the company sponsored.  My dad asked the CIO - so, is anatess a good worker... the CIO replied, who's anatess?  Hah hah.  That CIO is one awesome woman and I busted my buns to get that IT department working like a well-oiled machine.

In my neck of the woods - a CEO or a board chairman pretending to be low-level management displays a complete mistrust of these low-level management people they hired and would engender a culture of floor folks disrespecting people they report to.  A good CEO knows there's a breakdown of communication because the ship will fail to arrive at his intended destination or be such a drag that the ship arrives overtime and/or overbudget with a high degree of employee turnover or any other corporate indicator.  You can FEEL the clunkiness of a badly managed company/department.  A good CEO establishes a solid foundation of hierarchical leadership and empowers/trusts the people in their respective areas to solve problems.  So that, board meetings become very high-level discussions of the broad direction of the ship rather than a micro-management of disgruntled employees.

But, hey... that's just my anecdotal experience in the corporate world.

And I don't have any intention at all to imply that your CEO or board chairman is not effective or that his "management style" would not have succeeded in the companies I've worked for.

I don't disagree with what you say, but on the other side have you ever watch undercover bosses? It might just be the show but it seems like they all walk away a bit more enlightened.

 

I'm not saying our Church leaders need to go undercover or anything. I just don't know if corporate structure is an appropriate comparison to a Church lead by revelation.

[mordorbund]

14 minutes ago, Windseeker said:

I don't disagree with what you say, but on the other side have you ever watch undercover bosses? It might just be the show but it seems like they all walk away a bit more enlightened.

 

I'm not saying our Church leaders need to go undercover or anything. I just don't know if corporate structure is an appropriate comparison to a Church lead by revelation.

I would watch that episode to see President Eyring dressed and styled like @MormonGator. In one ward he'd be a recent convert/new move-in. In another ward he's trained in the bishopric. Or maybe a high councilor. ...

Edited October 4, 2016 by mordorbund

[NightSG]

7 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

I would watch that episode to see President Eyring dressed and styled like @MormonGator. In one ward he'd be a recent convert/new move-in. In another ward he's trained in the bishopric. Or maybe a high councilor. ...

Or President Monson as an adult single visitor, being asked to move out of the comfy seats because "that's X family's row."

[Larry Cotrell]

9 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

I would watch that episode to see President Eyring dressed and styled like @MormonGator. In one ward he'd be a recent convert/new move-in. In another ward he's trained in the bishopric. Or maybe a high councilor. ...

We could have a whole new show called undercover Quorum. I would definitely watch that.

Edited October 4, 2016 by Larry Cotrell

[anatess2]

31 minutes ago, Windseeker said:

I don't disagree with what you say, but on the other side have you ever watch undercover bosses? It might just be the show but it seems like they all walk away a bit more enlightened.

 

I'm not saying our Church leaders need to go undercover or anything. I just don't know if corporate structure is an appropriate comparison to a Church lead by revelation.

Undercover bosses is great TV.  The boss who walks away surprised was not a good boss in the first place - but that's just my opinion.  My favorite undercover boss is Kylo Ren.  Hah hah.

 

[yjacket]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

A good CEO establishes a solid foundation of hierarchical leadership and empowers/trusts the people in their respective areas to solve problems.  So that, board meetings become very high-level discussions of the broad direction of the ship rather than a micro-management of disgruntled employees.

Bingo.The best leaders empower people to do their responsibility. Part of the responsibility of the supervisor is to advise his boss of general employee problems that he has a supervisor cannot fix. Yes sometimes it does suck, but it is the nature of humans. A single individual can really only effectively manage at most a dozen employees (maybe more if they are all superstars, and maybe a little less if they are all dunces). Beyond that it just becomes too much.

[Guest]

I'm still wondering what the deal is with these videos.  What I get is that the GAs had some closed door meetings, and the leaks came with the headline

Quote

Mormon Leaders have secret meetings with secret people talking about secret things.  

Is that pretty much it?

[NeuroTypical]

Pretty much.  I mean, there's lots of anti-LDS stuff on youtube.  You always find anti stuff in the comments, often exclusively anti stuff.  But with these videos, there's a sizable portion of "wait - why is this embarrassing to the church?" type comments. 

[Ironhold]

3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Pretty much.  I mean, there's lots of anti-LDS stuff on youtube.  You always find anti stuff in the comments, often exclusively anti stuff.  But with these videos, there's a sizable portion of "wait - why is this embarrassing to the church?" type comments. 

Yeah; just last night I was watching a YouTuber's "this week in the internet" news bit, and he mentioned the leaks in passing. He himself noted that the bulk of the footage he saw was pretty mundane, and that there were only a few instances in which he saw anything worth getting upset about from his perspective.