NOM

This is interesting:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... ge/528711/

I think this research is just an extension of the idea that the human brain is plastic and it adapts throughout our lives to support the kind of work that we do. What's interesting about having power, and the time of environment it creates, is that it negatively impacts the brain's ability to mirror people's behaviors and to sympathize or empathize with others.

The Atlantic wrote: Other experiments have shown that powerful people do worse at identifying what someone in a picture is feeling, or guessing how a colleague might interpret a remark.

The fact that people tend to mimic the expressions and body language of their superiors can aggravate this problem: Subordinates provide few reliable cues to the powerful. But more important, Keltner says, is the fact that the powerful stop mimicking others. Laughing when others laugh or tensing when others tense does more than ingratiate. It helps trigger the same feelings those others are experiencing and provides a window into where they are coming from. Powerful people “stop simulating the experience of others,” Keltner says, which leads to what he calls an “empathy deficit.”

When you have power, people treat you differently. This different treatment then begins to shape and mold your brain and worldview. If this effect can be observed within powerful CEO's, then what would be the effect of taking an already powerful person, giving them the title "apostle", and treating them as the voice of God on earth for the remainder of their lives? Some may be fore effected than others, but I would guess the result would look something like Dallin Oaks and Russell Nelson.

Fascinating. Richard Nixon and Joseph Smith came to my mind as I read the article. Read Joseph Smith's comments in the Nauvoo City Council Minutes that led to the decision to destroy the Nauvoo Expositor press. It seems to point to this. I'm also thinking that money can be intoxicating, but power can be debilitating.

The description of the Wells Fargo CEO at the hearing reminded me of Dallin Oaks being asked about LGBT suicides. He showed no concern, let alone remorse. That was painful to watch.

I also think of Todd Christofferson in his interview after the November policy was leaked. He may have a gay brother, but he was unable to empathize with the feelings of ordinary members who did not have regular access to upper leadership in the church.

I'll stop. Stories could be told about every member of the Q15. As much as they say they don't inhale the adoration, it's clear they can't help it and aren't aware of it when they do.

Don't you guys know that the Spirit keeps church leadership immune to the problems that afflict lesser power moguls?

You can just see their humility every 6 months in conference....they kind of "glow" if you stare at them long enough.

blazerb wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2017 7:19 am The description of the Wells Fargo CEO at the hearing reminded me of Dallin Oaks being asked about LGBT suicides. He showed no concern, let alone remorse. That was painful to watch.

A year ago I was doing contract work at Wells Fargo. I watched that hearing live with other Wells Fargo employees at my office. That hearing was later brought up in a staff meeting and my manager was increasingly flustered with questions from employees about why no one listened to the many whistle-blowers leading up to the scandal. There is a well-publicized "Ethics Line" in Wells Fargo that any employee could call if something even mildly unethical or dishonest is happening. There were lots of calls to the Ethics Line and virtually no action was taken. My manager could only quietly admit that this was a huge problem and did not know why it turned out this way. The messages did not get to senior management until a colossal number of fraudulent activities had occcurred.

I fear this is passively happening in the LDS church. So many doctrinal issues are festering and causing real pain for many members. No general authority has delivered a talk in General Conference decrying LGBT suicides or marriages that fail after a faith transition. It feels like the church just grits it's collective teeth and hopes to quietly pass through each embarrassing incident, hoping that mainstream news does not pick up another unflattering story about the church.

Then we have this virtual exchange in the church:

LDS leadership: It's OK to be Mormon and Gay

12 year old girl: I'm Mormon and Gay!

LDS leadership: Cut the microphone to that girl

Corsair wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:26 pm I fear this is passively happening in the LDS church. So many doctrinal issues are festering and causing real pain for many members. No general authority has delivered a talk in General Conference decrying LGBT suicides or marriages that fail after a faith transition. It feels like the church just grits it's collective teeth and hopes to quietly pass through each embarrassing incident, hoping that mainstream news does not pick up another unflattering story about the church.

The bubble problem within Mormonism is already a huge concern. No modern organization would set up a system like this, which virtually guarantees that no negative information reaches the top. If you add this to the possibility that this atmosphere may actually create changes in the brain where they become even more detached from the membership, then the problem is worse than we thought. In a corporation like Wells Fargo, a CEO can be replaced. In the LDS church, there's no such mechanism. The Q15 can drive the organization right into the ground, and there's no one that can stop them.

oliver_denom wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:42 pm The Q15 can drive the organization right into the ground, and there's no one that can stop them.

God will stop them dude....

Oh wait...what if God doesn't stop them?...then it must be God's will they keep going.......

Snarky away....I think this problem is worse than just the power trip. You know these guys have the "second anointing" done. They get ordained kings and priests and all that.

And according to section 132, they can do anything except shed "innocent blood" and they are saved.

then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

But wait,...in the New Testament, it says "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God"....oops. You mean everyone except little children are NOT INNOCENT?

But wait,..the Q15 can "shed [non]innocent blood" and its OK?

The doctrine has been contrived and twisted to justify murder. These guys, ordained Gods through the calling and election and given a blank check.

If there be a god in heaven, may he have mercy on this world with such people in it!

Great post, a sibiling was mentioning this article just the other day and now I don't have to find it!

And a very workable thesis, and it can be found in all walks of life. I have seen it most abundantly in my nearly two decades in academe - once a grad student becomes a tenured professor, the pinnacle of the profession, they almost immediately forget where they came from, and oppress/exploit their grad students, as they had been exploited. It's horrible. And this is absolutely true in the church as well, as many leaders have zero empathy for those who struggle; well, I had faith to pay tithing, I had faith to work two jobs and be a bishop/RS president, I had faith to blah, blah, blah.

However, I also put a lot of blame, particularly in the belly of the corporate LDS beast, on the subordinates who enable this to continue, by shielding the higher-ups from the rest of us mere mortals by virtue of their hero-worshipping. This creates a vaccuum of empathy and understanding from ever reaching the proles who do all of the labour to keep the "kingdom" functioning, while those at the top enjoy the fruit of that labour. I think this article is bang on.

Its crazy the level of disparity between leadership and the lay member.

These guys have their calling and election sure....ask Tom Phillips. They really believe they are saved. So, they get to relax with the "persuasion and long suffering, the love unfeigned"....

How would it be? Not only above the law, but above reproach because they are already saved.

This is an interesting article. I don't know if another factor skews their data, or just compounds the problem. But other studies show that your common sociopath gains power easier and quicker than those people who are bothered by the people they backstab on the way to the top. So, there is a disproportionate number of sociopaths on the top rungs of corporations churches, and anywhere else that power can be gained.

So, people who have sociopathic tendencies get to the top, then the power of being at the top, kills any ability to empathize they might have had. Or, since an abnormal number of sociopaths get to power, is that a factor that they failed to control for, because there are more sociopaths in positions of power than their distribution in the general population would suggest.

Rob4Hope wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2017 2:29 pm

oliver_denom wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:42 pm The Q15 can drive the organization right into the ground, and there's no one that can stop them.

God will stop them dude....

I think he will stop them by letting them fall into the pit they have been digging for themselves. It is obvious to me that he is not helping them. If he were, they wouldn't be so wishy-washy and so afraid, even while they tell themselves and others how special and chosen they are. People with the power of God behind them don't seem to be afraid of hard questions - or being disagreed with - or being disliked/mocked/hated/scorned. Neither are they concerned with public opinion and polls to see how much the public likes them.

It occurred to me that this is what D&C 121:35-40 is talking about. I my experience with bishops they have generally been kind, but from listening to the experiences of others, it seems clear that there are some domineering bishops out there; hence the term: leadership roulette.

This thread has caught my eye and I've contemplated reading the whole thing. I haven't because I figured it would be a trigger. However, I think the topic is important. Perhaps one post at a time.

I agree with you, DB. I do believe this is what that passage it's talking about. I stand a little bit amazed that Joseph Smith was able to look at himself in the mirror on this. I'll throw the man a bone. It is because of this tendency, I believe the priesthood should simply be abolished. Just, really, no one should have long-standing, unchecked authority. No one.

A few thoughts before the hardware store.

I can tell you it's difficult to receive counsel from the bishop and to have him direct the ward in a situation in such a manner that his choices are immoral, illegal, discompassionate and counter to the church's stated doctrines and policies. It not only difficult to stay engaged when everyone believes you're a sinner and needs to be brought down a few pegs. It's difficult, week after week, to hear speaker after speaker, praise that bishop and state that they know his decisions are guided by the spirit.

On an alternative note, I've listened to the statements in support of the bishop and considered they are true. What if the bishop is guided by the spirit and I can take his choices as an indication that I am right in assessing this isn't the Lord's church?

Don't shoot the person putting the pieces of the puzzle together and seeing a picture that makes sense.

I wonder if pre-dispositions have an impact. Someone arrogant and condescending when attaining a position of power could be more susceptible to the impact? I have had C-level execs who were amazing people and my interactions with them left me a better person. But currently I report to a C-level person who is downright awful. Not disagreeing with the article but wondering if some are more susceptible than others?

Anon70 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 12, 2017 4:49 amNot disagreeing with the article but wondering if some are more susceptible than others?

I think you are right. I have had some local leaders who were awesome, many who were pretty good, and a very few who were not. I've actually been quite blessed when it comes to leadership roulette.

There was also an assistant manager at Bryce Canyon when I worked there decades ago, who was drunk with power. Little hitler comes to mind. He was much worse than any LDS leader I've had.