A great quote from Elder Richards

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Our school presidents are GAs and our GAs are school presidents.

I think that's your answer.

And the lower ranked university has the greater credentialed administrator. Clark came from Harvard, and Samuelson came from the Ute booster club. We should have the Utah administrator instead.

Our GAs now focus almost exclusively upon administration of a huge bureaucracy and administration of finances. They also give a lot of talks.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Adam

It is interesting that those who refuse to notice how things could be better, those who are content to whistle the tune "All is well in Zion, all is well", are considered by themselves to be the righteous. While those who love the Church and desperately want it to be better at perfecting the members, preaching the gospel and doing work for the dead, and constantly press for improvement in the mission are called "Disaffected" and looked down upon.

It is a if by calling an Apostle, the rest of the flock are now free to stop thinking, stop pushing for improvement. It is as if the charge to be anxiously engaged in a good cause somehow was exclusive of the greatest cause of furthering the Kingdom of God on earth. It is fine to push for healthier school lunch, but damn you to hell if you encourage Black converts to sing a choir piece from their own tradition contra the handbook of instructions.

It is the age of the manager, of yes men, of braying ninnys lined up in the sun waiting to be sold.

I have long been convinced that a man the temperament of Joseph Smith would never survive in the Quorum of the 12 today. The age of leadership is past. And those who long for innovation and improvement are "Disaffected".

Thank God for cougarboard where, mostly, thinking and yearning are not viewed as apostasy.

I'll never understand how noticing the church's actual growth rate (for example) was at odds with loving your neighbor.

Amen, brother. Amen.

But did you really mean to type "cougarboard"?

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Adam

It is interesting that those who refuse to notice how things could be better, those who are content to whistle the tune "All is well in Zion, all is well", are considered by themselves to be the righteous. While those who love the Church and desperately want it to be better at perfecting the members, preaching the gospel and doing work for the dead, and constantly press for improvement in the mission are called "Disaffected" and looked down upon.

It is a if by calling an Apostle, the rest of the flock are now free to stop thinking, stop pushing for improvement. It is as if the charge to be anxiously engaged in a good cause somehow was exclusive of the greatest cause of furthering the Kingdom of God on earth. It is fine to push for healthier school lunch, but damn you to hell if you encourage Black converts to sing a choir piece from their own tradition contra the handbook of instructions.

It is the age of the manager, of yes men, of braying ninnys lined up in the sun waiting to be sold.

I have long been convinced that a man the temperament of Joseph Smith would never survive in the Quorum of the 12 today. The age of leadership is past. And those who long for innovation and improvement are "Disaffected".

Thank God for cougarboard where, mostly, thinking and yearning are not viewed as apostasy.

I'll never understand how noticing the church's actual growth rate (for example) was at odds with loving your neighbor.

Dude a lot of church programs were developed bottom-up (e.g. missionary discussions, honor code, Sunday school curricula, for more reference Clay Christensen's BYU devotional ).

I would not wish for the Q12 of Joseph Smith's time. Recall the attrition rate.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Adam

I'll never understand how noticing the church's actual growth rate (for example) was at odds with loving your neighbor.

They see what they are trained to see. Managers see numbers and manage by the number.

Administrators administer by the number.

CES learn the bureaucratic way of survival.

This doesn't mean we can't receive good from them, but we lack ethnic diversity, educational diversity and theological diversity in the current administration. I imagine it will eventually work itself out, as all things are for but a season. And in the twentieth century when the Church struggled financially, I wager people wished better managers had existed. Now nobody questions the financial management.

Indy and Tex are important voices, because they remind of us how many feel. Many are comfortable relying upon the leadership, believing they are better informed and possess the authority. I agree they possess the authority, though I do not agree they are always better informed. Having the mantle doesn't always replace the expertise you lack. It can help compensate, but it doesn't replace preparation and training.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Adam

It is a if by calling an Apostle, the rest of the flock are now free to stop thinking, stop pushing for improvement.

This is the agenda you keep pushing, and it's tired. Will Smith would call it "old and busted."

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Amen, brother. Amen.

Speaking of braying ninnies...

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Indy and Tex are important voices, because they remind of us how many feel. Many are comfortable relying upon the leadership, believing they are better informed and possess the authority. I agree they possess the authority, though I do not agree they are always better informed. Having the mantle doesn't always replace the expertise you lack. It can help compensate, but it doesn't replace preparation and training.

For the umpteenth time, I don't assert that the leadership of the church is perfect nor that there is nothing for us to improve upon.

What I object to is the gross mischaracterizations I see about our church, its leaders and especially the outright disrespectful tone taken towards members of the 12 and the First Presidency.

Not only are these comments often unfair and baseless, but they also don't do the person making them any favors if they want to be taken seriously.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

For the umpteenth time, I don't assert that the leadership of the church is perfect nor that there is nothing for us to improve upon.

What I object to is the gross mischaracterizations I see about our church, its leaders and especially the outright disrespectful tone taken towards members of the 12 and the First Presidency.

Not only are these comments often unfair and baseless, but they also don't do the person making them any favors if they want to be taken seriously.

Here! Here!

EDIT: In addition, I'm grateful that there are guys like Arch, etc. around for a similar reason. Reminds me that no matter where you go, there are guys willing to take baseless shots at leadership.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

For the umpteenth time, I don't assert that the leadership of the church is perfect nor that there is nothing for us to improve upon.

What I object to is the gross mischaracterizations I see about our church, its leaders and especially the outright disrespectful tone taken towards members of the 12 and the First Presidency.

Not only are these comments often unfair and baseless, but they also don't do the person making them any favors if they want to be taken seriously.

Wherein did my statement assert that you believe the Church is perfect, only that you rely upon the judgment of the leaders in deference to your own. Is that a misstatement?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Here! Here!

EDIT: In addition, I'm grateful that there are guys like Arch, etc. around for a similar reason. Reminds me that no matter where you go, there are guys willing to take baseless shots at leadership.

Baseless?

My observations are empirical, and seem to be supported by others. Whether they are accurate will be borne out later.

No I don't worship the men, even if I acknowledge their authority. They are not my heroes. They are mostly good men doing a hard job, but that doesn't mean more diversity and more breadth in experience wouldn't benefit us all.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Baseless?

My observations are empirical, and seem to be supported by others. Whether they are accurate will be borne out later.

No I don't worship the men, even if I acknowledge their authority. They are not my heroes. They are mostly good men doing a hard job, but that doesn't mean more diversity and more breadth in experience wouldn't benefit us all.

I wouldn't presume to tell you who should be your heroes, but if these men don't qualify as role models to be emulated, I can't imagine who would.