I do not wish to ‘burn bridges’ in the least, so I will avoid names of people and companies, as well as details I feel are irrelevant.  I mostly want to present the basic circumstances from my perspective as a background to the religious experiences – which for these posts, will be the real point.  I would welcome comments, and hope that my experiences might help someone else.

For about 15 years, I worked for a company that I mostly liked.  It provided for the basic needs of my family, provided interesting things to do, and had good people to work with.  I generally and genuinely liked what I did.  The company was a medium-small family-owned company, and was very successful, making the family quite wealthy and the company quite stable.  The pay was a little low, and the hours were a little long, but when you mostly enjoy the environment and the work, it was not bad.  My engineering leaders seemed to think quite highly of me, and I felt valued in spite of the somewhat low pay.

Then the founder died.  A son of the founder was the president of the company at the time, and somehow got ‘voted out’.  I do not know the details of this, only the results.  The results were that three of the grandsons took over the leadership of the company.   I suppose the politics of a family business can be complicated.

With this change of leadership came a change in values which became quite glaring over time.  I would like to simply sum this up as the company making what I felt was a fatal shift from leaders to managers.  This shift of values and emphasis had a negative impact on my career, and the career of many others.  A few prominent people were banished to lower roles, a few very talented, educated, experienced folks were fired.  And all of this happened during the economic problems that the world is still trying to climb out of.

I was removed from the R&D group, and placed in more of a process role under the supervision of a middle-manager.  This felt like a demotion of a couple of levels, and although it did not result in a decrease in salary, it did come with a decrease in status, reputation, and the scale of projects and work.  When this was told to me, I went home for the rest of the day and sent out resumes.  This served as a last straw, even though other straws came after.  I knew that if things did not change and improve for me, it was only a matter of time before I would quit.  When I went back to work, I let several supervisors and company leaders know of my disappointment, and that if things did not get better for me I would be looking for another job.

The company hired an engineer from outside, and put him in the R&D group, knowing that I was upset about being moved out of it.  They did this without advertising the position internally.  I was furious.  This engineer quit two weeks later.  This time, they promoted an engineer from within to that position, but it was not me.  I was disappointed.  A sales engineer position became available, and I applied for it.  They chose to promote a man from the shop floor for this instead of me.  I was embarrassed.  They created the position of Director of Engineering, and promoted a man with no education or experience in engineering at all.  I was insulted.  The straws kept adding up, and the job search was on in earnest.

During this time I turned to fasting and prayer.  There was more at stake than my disappointments at work.  I had a wife and children to worry about.  There is more to life than one’s career.  Was searching for a job the right thing to do?  Was I letting my ego get the best of me, or was I following the spirit?  I tried to seek God’s guidance in what I should do.  I tried to remove my personal feelings from the situation.  The result was a subtle feeling that it was time to look.  I interpreted this as coming from the spirit.

This was interesting to me because I was thinking about how much I liked the depiction of Jesus in this sketch.  Sure, there were parts that were not reverent, but I thought is was not so bad.  I would like to list what I liked and did not like about how Christ was depicted in the sketch:

Liked

1 – A flesh and bone Jesus of the same image as man.  We worship a resurrected being after all.  This was not some mysterious mist or substance (or non-substance).  This was an embodied flesh and bone being.

2 – Jesus was interested in the personal lives of mankind.  He was an active participant in peoples lives.  He was answering prayers, and helping out.

3 – He was progressing in time with the rest of us.  The future was not absolutely known.

4 – He loved people – even Tebow.

5 – He recognized Mormonism as being true.

6 – He referenced ‘dad’, or Heavenly Father as a separate being.

Did Not Like:

1 – Not a glorified being.  He should have been gleaming or something.

2 – A bit irreverent and informal for my taste.  But hey, it’s a comedy sketch.

3 – He prays to Matt Prader (the kicker)?  I could have done without that line.

4 – He didn’t love Belichick as evidenced by the devil sign..  Even Belichick is loved by Jesus.

5 – Socks with sandals.

So, what did you think about how Jesus was depicted?

What I mostly disagree with is the idea of changing the theology in order to have a group of people ‘exalted’, rather than changing people through repentance and atonement to be exalted.

In order to express my discomfort in this, I thought I might try to generalize what I see as the strategy employed, and perhaps suggest some extreme examples to make the point.  One will notice the title of this post with a blank after the ‘Post’.  In a generalized strategy – following Petrey’s template – one can simply fill in the blank with the opposite of any group you wish to be an advocate for.   While I say ‘simply’ I do not mean to reduce the amount of effort it will take to pull something like this off.  You will not be able to just throw this together if you want it to be persuasive.  This effort is what makes Petrey’s work so impressive.

The strategy seems to follow three steps:

Step 1 – You need to show that God himself has something in common with the group you are advocating for.  In Petrey’s article he makes premortal life, eternal life, and God himself largely genderless and asexual.  He uses examples like the creation and the resurrection as creative, yet asexual, acts presumably executed by groups of men.  Thus he clears the way for sealed and exalted homosexuals.  And since heaven is now basically genderless and asexual it shouldn’t really make much difference.  This is brilliant.

To suggest an absurd example to express the force of my worry, what if someone wanted to advocate for sealing and exalting serial killers.  One could point out that God is responsible for all those deaths during Noah’s day as an example.  Thus clearing the way for exalted mass murderers as mass murderers.  I do not choose this example to equate homosexuals with mass murderers, only to show my discomfort for the strategy.  I wanted to choose as extreme and absurd an example as I could think of.

Step 2 – Find some symbolism or way of thinking about certain ordinances that aligns with your preferred group.  This may be best done historically, since that may grant some advantages of being far removed from the present.  Ordinances are important and powerful things, and if you can wiggle your way into them it can be very effective.

One example of this may be one who wants to reclaim contemporary polygamists, and seal and exalt them as contemporary polygamists.  One could easily point to prior teachings and understandings to make this case.  They could also point to widowers who could be sealed to another spouse.  This could be used to move toward a post-monogamist Mormon theology if you wish.

Step 3 – Make the case that current church leaders are out of touch and guilty of pre-critical thinking.  Make an appeal to modern scholarship that is sympathetic to your cause.  This may take some time and effort, but chances are good that if you look hard enough, you will be able to find what you seek.   This has the further advantage of making anyone who disagrees with you seem out-of-touch, ignorant, and stupid.

I think the example that Petrey provides is a good one – that of modern gender studies.  This way you can put modern scholarship up against modern ‘revelation’ (or guides).   This is probably good form for most progressive theological ideas.

To me, the real question is not whether or not we can change a theology in such a way as to seal and exalt whomever we prefer, but whether or not we should.

- Conference champions from every conference get an automatic entry (11 teams).

- The top five teams, after removing conference champions also get a place (5 teams), making 16 teams in all.

- Teams will be seated 1-16, with 1 playing 16 and so forth.  The higher seated team will host the first round game.

- All subsequent rounds will be neutral site bowl games, with pairings selected by a bowl committee.

For this year, the automatic spots for conference champions would go to:

Clemson – ACC
West Virginia – Big East
Wisconsin – Big 10
Oklahoma State – Big 12
Southern Missisippi – CUSA
Northern Illinois – MAC
TCU – MWC
Oregon – PAC 12
LSU – SEC
Arkansas State – Sun Belt
Louisiana Tech – WAC

and the at-large spots would go to:

Alabama
Stanford
Arkansas
Boise State
Kansas State

Making a few assumptions, the pairings would be:

LSU/La Tech
Kansas State/Wisconsin
Oregon/Southern Miss.
Stanford/West Virginia
Oklahoma State/Norther Illimois
Arkansas/Clemson
Boise State/TCU
Alabama/Arkansas State

Some interesting things to note – Neither Michigan nor Virginia Tech would even make this field, in spite of getting BCS bowl games this year!!  The Big 10 would not get a single home game, and unless they pulled off a road upset, would not have any teams in the final 8.  BYU would have to be one of the top 5 teams after conference champions are removed, to make the field.

Possible second round bowl games would be:

Rose bowl – Stanford/Oregon (Since no Big 10 team would advance)
Orange bowl – Arkansa/Alabama
Sugar bowl – Kansas State/Oklahoma State
Fiesta bowl – LSU/Boise State

Discuss if you like. (Note.  Updates added for accuracy after original post).

Pros

Public Speaking.  Dale Carnegie felt that public speaking was a fundamental skill for leadership and human relations.  The leadership courses he organized center around public speaking.  The LDS church provides many opportunities for its members to practice public speaking – whether it is giving talks in our worship services, teaching lessons, serving on committees, etc., we Mormons have some good opportunities here.  Definite plus.

Callings.  There are a lot of presidents in this church.  There are all kinds of classes, programs, quorums, etc., that all have their presidents, councilors,  and secretaries.  Many members have the opportunity to lead small groups of people.  These efforts will include planning meetings, having agendas, making assignments, communicating, and working and serving other people.  Definite plus.

Motivating others.  Working in a volunteer church or organization involves some pure leadership.  Since there is no pay, and no promotions (wink, wink), one must rely on other sources of motivation.  Can you get people motivated to do home teaching, missionary work, temple work, service projects, when there is no financial incentive to do so?  Sure, testimony and the spirit are at work at this as well, but a leader that can motivate without financial incentives behind her is something special.  Potential plus.

General People Skills.  We are a social group in a lot of ways.  Participating in the Mormon church gives one the opportunity to listen to others, help solve personal/family problems, show concern and understanding for others.  Definite plus.

Cons

Chain of Command.  At local levels, I would suggest that the church is more managed than it is lead.  Do what you are told and follow the manual is a clear message.  We should not be questioning our leaders, ignoring policies, or making waves.  We have grown up to rely on structure, instructions and presiding authority.  Again, this seems more like management by the numbers rather than leadership.  Possible negative.

Black and white thinking.  From my experience there are many Mormons who see things in black or white/right or wrong.  Many of us tend to make everything a moral issue.  I would think that this might hamper our ability to negotiate and compromise with others.  I know there are exceptions to this, but I think this would describe many of us.  Definite con.

Lack of Ambition.  I am not talking about work ethic here, I am talking about the desire to be in charge of others.  I think the church may do more to promote good followers rather than good leaders.  Many of us have seen up close what it is like to be the bishop or the president of some organization.  We have seen that these positions are often not what they are cracked up to be, and result in a lot of headaches.  And since many of us feel we should not seek out leadership callings in church, perhaps we should not seek out leadership opportunities at work either.  We might expect to wait for the leadership calling to come our way, other that go out and get it.

So what think ye about the pros and cons of leadership skills one gets from LDS culture?

My take on this statement is that he is saying that to be a member of the church one must sacrifice something (reason, good judgment, common-sense, clear reading of scripture?) in order to be a Mormon.  It suggests that Mormonism does in fact have good things to offer, as long as one can swallow the unsavory doctrines.  I object to this characterization, because for me the doctrines/theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are the prize of membership.

At the core of Mormon testimony, is the claim of a restoration.  This restoration is the stuff of gospel, doctrine, priesthood, plan of salvation, etc.  This restoration is not, in my opinion, a restoration of social interaction and charitable service – for example.  One can get social interaction and charitable service from many worthy sources, but one cannot get a restored gospel, with its associated doctrines and priesthood, anywhere else.

I am a member of this church because I believe it.  There is a price of membership, but for me it is not doctrinal.  The price is paid in the practice.  The sacrifices come in the form of tithing, Sabbath observance, home teaching, and callings, etc.  Yes, these sacrifices have associated blessings, but I make the sacrifice because I believe in the restoration and doctrinal claims of the church, not in spite of them.  I certainly do not feel that I am alone in this.

The post had such a positive feel to me, that I find myself not greatly offended by the statement, yet if the tone were any less pleasant, I would find the statement offensive and insulting.

I am a mechanical engineer, and I am often involved in designing machinery and tooling.  I will naturally think that what I do is quite creative.  Someone in power, who wants to discredit what I have done, could point out that I am not creating bearings, or steel, or gears, etc., and that I am just using existing components and materials and fitting them into an application.  If the same person wanted to champion what I have done, they could point out that the application was challenging, and the organization of the components was novel.  It is all spin.  How creative is anyone?  Is not everything based on things which came before?  This leads me to God, and certain aspects of Mormon theology.

In Mormonism, there is something about us, called an intelligence, that was never created nor made.  This does away with the absolute creator/creature relationship between God and man.  There is also the idea that there is something called ‘eternal law’ that even God must obey.  And even when it comes to the creation of the earth, there is the notion that it was made out of materials that already existed, and that what God was doing was the same thing that had been done on other worlds.

So, if God did not create us in the ultimate sense, and then ‘created’ us in His own image, and is simply obey eternal law, and is doing what has been done on other worlds, just how creative is God anyway?  How creative is anyone or anything?  How valuable is creativity?  What is it?  Does the idea of original creation push us back to a first cause/first creator which is God?  If there is an infinite regression of Gods, what do we make of ultimate, original creativity?

I found a post that analyzed the leadership styles of these Star Trek captains here.  I will sort of borrow from this site, but because this is a Mormon blog, I will share some of my thoughts on these captains in terms of what kind of bishop they would likely be.  Please feel free to discuss these captains as much as you like.

Kirk

Kirk was a commanding, competitive and charismatic presence.  He loved his ship and his crew, and would do anything to save them.  He was a bit of a maverick, and would bend or break the rules if it meant winning.  He could be very charming and warm when the situation called for it.  He had a good sense of humor, and did not take himself too seriously.  But he expected to be obeyed.  He kept his distance from the rank and file, but had very close relationships with Spock and Bones.  The responsibilities of his office weighed on him, yet he was often very decisive anyway.

It would be unlikely to me that Kirk would ever be called as a bishop.  Chances would be good that as he served in other callings, he would do or say something that would turn somebody off.  His ignoring policy and procedure might be his undoing if he were called, and might prevent him from ever being called in the first place.  I believe he would relate well to the youth, and would be something of a hero figure for some.  But his recklessness probably would not fly in the church.

Picard

Picard was a man with a strong sense of morality, that was more concerned with doing what he felt was right than anything else.  Etiquette,  protocol, chain of command, policy, procedure, etc., were of very high priority.  He could be arrogant, intolerant, and aloof.  He was not comfortable in social settings.  There was something noble about the man, as he always tried to take the moral high ground.

I think it would almost be inevitable that Picard would be called as a bishop.  In fact, I would project him as a Stake President, if not a general authority.  The church would love a guy like Picard.  Always by the book, always taking the moral high ground.  His reluctance to be socially outgoing, and occasional lack of bedside manner, might make him less effective than he could be.

Sisko

I admit that I have less of a feel for Sisko than the others.  He seemed to long for the simple life, and had a sense that life was not fair.  Protecting the home turf was important to him in his role.  An organized, strategic plan seemed important to him.  He was resourceful and innovative

I am afraid that Sisko probably had a better past as a leader than a future.  His bitterness and anger gave him some inner demons, that would likely give him his own problems.  His ability to organize and to delegate would be important to his success.  Ultimately, I think the timing would be wrong for him to be a bishop.

Janeway

Yes, I know Janeway is a woman, but let us consider her anyway.  Janeway could be very warm and personable in private settings.  She also was supposedly quite competent as a scientist/engineer prior to her being captain.  Like Picard she placed a high priority on chain of command.  She expected blind obedience.  She was very decisive, and made those decisions quickly, often with little data or information – which seems inconsistent with her background.  She also seemed inconsistent with the prime directive – sometimes refusing to violate it even when lives were at stake – other times violating it on a whim.

I think that Janeway could be a good bishop on a personal level.  Her ability to be compassionate would really resonate with many people.  Yet, her expectations for blind obedience to her sometimes whimsical decisions would turn others off.

Archer

Archer had some good qualities, and created an environment of trust and respect.  But he often seemed over his head.  His recklessness was not of the same quality as Kirks.  He seemed to surround himself with personal friends, and would likely fall prey to the yes-man.  As his experience grew, he may turn out to be a good captain.  Time will tell.

He would likely do well with the whole trust and respect thing, but his lack of personal discipline and experience would hold him back.

Quote

And one quote to wrap this up:

No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virture of the priesthood, only be persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; by kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile…(D&C 121)

The above qualities rarely get mentioned in leadership books or seminars.  And I am afraid that those who have those qualities will rarely get noticed and receive opportunities for leadership.

Anyway, which of the Star Trek captains do you feel would make the best bishop?  Which would best fit the model of D&C 121?