The way I see it is: TSCC is an authoritarian organization. Orders come from the top and nobody has the right to challenge those orders. Similar organizations were Nazi Germany, Russian communism and the family that I grew up in.

It seems that whenever one person has absolute authority over someone else, abuses of power tend to occur. I wonder whether all that is wrong with TSCC is because of the authoritarian power that it holds over its members. I wonder whether authoritarian organizations of all kinds need to be brought down for the benefit of mankind. Thoughts?

I see Mormonism as being authoritarian in the sense that it is run like a business. An ordinary worker or salesperson is not going to question the boss. If you do, you will get fired (excommunicated.) The members are treated like office workers and are given numerous tasks to accomplish (callings, cleaning, VT, HT.) The missionaries are the sales force. Both the workers and the sales force are berated if they are not producing as expected. The lower and middle management keep the local business running as smoothly as possible. Upper management invests and spends the money and acquires new properties. When you have businessmen in charge of a church, this is what you get -- a business.

Interesting analogy summer. I would agree that many businesses are run on an authoritarian basis, but I would not agree that that is the best way to run a business. Corporations that don't listen to their employees often pay big money to an external consulting company that comes in, asks the employees questions, then feeds the results to upper management who should have just listened to their employees in the first place. People can also be more productive if they are empowered to make their own decisions. Most businesses are nowhere near as hierarchical or authoritarian as they would have been 50 years ago, whilst TSCC remains the same.

The big difference between businesses and TSCC is that upper management in a business ultimately report to the shareholders. If the CEO messes up, the shareholders can fire the CEO. In TSCC the 15 apostles report to no-one. They are untouchable. They truly possess absolute authority, whereas a CEO does not.

If TSCC was truly run like a business, they would be trying to maximize the value that they deliver to customers whilst minimizing their costs. They are doing a fantastic job of minimizing their costs, but they are not maintaining the value that they deliver to their customers. I would go so far as to say that they treat their customers with the utmost contempt. Their stalled growth and puny market share are evidence of the appalling job that they are doing. With no ability to change leadership the analogy with a business ends.

Perhaps it's run more like a FAMILY business. You have the original family member who got the whole thing going successfully, but then one or more of his descendants screws it all up.

We have such a business here in my town that ran pretty well since around Eisenhower era, and recently went out of business because the descendants lacked the business know-how needed to keep it going.

And that’s exactly what it is. A faulty business with poor planning

There's no "real enemy."

There are enforcers and dictator types who feel compelled or entitled to force their will on weaker members who are afraid to say no.

Everyone involved is part of the problem.

Don't forget the psychological component: there are people who have a need to be elevated in the hierarchy (gaining status, prestige, privilege, etc) - and there are people who have a need to be led - gaining comfort from the very existence of the hierarchy; being reassured because the decision makers "must know what they are talking about".

Organized religion is a perfect hierarchy, stretching from the lowly individual member to the Big Cheese on top. And while the ordinary member can have limited conversation with Cheeseman, full intercourse requires the intervention of functionaries from the hierarchy.

In a more generic analysis given to me long ago by West Virginia mountain folk: "You don't talk to the boss direct, you talk to the boss through me."

At least in some churches the members have real votes and not just "sustainings". Other churches DO fire their leaders for misfeasance and if the preacher is merely inept he/she may not have his/her contract renewed.

I don't think so, but it is part of a problem humans create and seem to thrive using.

Most humans are social animals and they herd well. Having someone in charge gives their group order and the final word. Having someone in charge gives them security and answers to everything.

This leads to providing the opportunity for the shepard (much like the Jesus analogy) to herd them around.

The problem is that people just accept it and often don't hold the authority accountable. Religion is the ultimate haven for this, although many other situations are similar. N. Korea is a great example. People cry with emotion for their dear leader.

On the other hand, I think there situations where a strong authority figure is needed to put the smack down. It seems like there are countries where they need some kind of tyrant dictator or they can't seem to control the other thugs.

If you are the type who is a sheep, you will likely submit to an authority figure for your morals, view of life, and actions.

If you are a wolf type, you look for a way to take advantage of the sheep.

If you are a goat type, you sort of do your own thing.


I vaguely remember this concept coming from Joseph Campbell.

See the story of the Grand Inquisitor in The Brothers Karamazov.

Saying that the "sheep" are perfectly happy to be led strikes a raw nerve with me. What if a sheep does not want to be led? Does that sheep have a choice? In TSCC, Nazi Germany, Russian communism and my family, leaving is not a valid choice and leads to direct conflict with those in authority. Those in authority can make your life hell.

I would say in that situation you are not really a sheep. You are a goat stuck in the sheep's fenced pasture.

So, yes, if you have no choices to escape, I would say authoritarianism would be the enemy.

I think authoritarianism is a real enemy. I grew up in an extremely abusive environment, where my father physically, mentally, emotionally and sexually abused his children. Before, during and after the time he was in the bishopric.

This was back in the 60s and 70s, when people didn't get divorces and everyone averted their eyes. The Morg keeps claiming that the world is getting more and more wicked, but it conveniently forgets the abuse committed by fathers, enabled by the patriarchal society to rule the house and abuse their position.

The old adage that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely is true. Without some sort of check in place, people will use use power for personal gain and privilege.

The trite answer Mobots say is that the church is perfect but the people are not. That is stunningly stupid because it would take perfect people, which don't exist, to run things well in a system where there is no accountability.

There is an essay on Spencer Kimball and the change of policy concerning blacks which was written by his son. (It can be found on the BYU website.)

In the essay, the author acknowledges, apparently without any irony, that the profits knew for more than 30 years that there was no scriptural basis for the priesthood and temple ban, but that the leaders wouldn't change it. Kimball is portrayed as placing loyalty to the fellow Top 15 over what they would consider the absolutely most important reason for being on the Earth.

And they don't consider that crazy. That is crazy.

It's not considered crazy because there is no accountability. I'm an atheist so obviously I don't believe in any god, let alone the Mormon one, but even if such a creature existed, he isn't holding the Big 15 accountable.

My Japanese ex-wife joined a cult (which is one of the top reasons she's an ex) and her thinking mirrored Mobots. I could poke holes in that religion 24/7 and she would just blink, smile and go on.

There is a quote: "Morality is doing what's right, regardless of what you're told. Obedience is doing what you're told, regardless of what's right."

The Mormon belief in obedience is scary. Look at Laban. Is was incapacitated and Nephi was told to kill him.

What's worse is TSCC view of this.

From one of Holland's speeches:
"1 was constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban; but . . . I shrunk and would that I might not slay him” (1 Nephi 4:10). A bitter test? A desire to shrink? Sound familiar? We don’t know why those plates could not have been obtained some other way—perhaps accidentally left at the plate polishers one night or maybe falling out the back of Laban’s chariot on a Sabbath afternoon.

For that matter, why didn’t Nephi just leave this story out of the book altogether? Why didn’t he say something like, “And after much effort and anguish of spirit, I did obtain the plates of Laban and did depart into the wilderness unto the tent of my father?” At the very least he might have buried the account somewhere in the Isaiah chapters, thus guaranteeing that it would have gone undiscovered up to this very day.

"But there it is, squarely in the beginning of the book—page 8—where even the most casual reader will see it and must deal with it. It is not intended that either Nephi or we be spared the struggle of this account.

"I believe that story was placed in the very opening verses of a 531-page book and then told in painfully specific detail in order to focus every reader of that record on the absolutely fundamental gospel issue of obedience and submission to the communicated will of the Lord. If Nephi cannot yield to this terribly painful command, if he cannot bring himself to obey, then it is entirely probable that he can never succeed or survive in the tasks that lie just ahead.

“1 will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded” (1 Nephi 3:7). I confess that I wince a little when I hear that promise quoted so casually among us. Jesus knew what that kind of commitment would entail, and so now does Nephi. And so will a host of others before it is over. That vow took Christ to the cross on Calvary, and it remains at the heart of every Christian covenant. “I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded.” Well, we shall see. "

This is f@cking crazy. Holland is saying that people need to be mentally prepared to even kill people.

That, along with another zillion good reasons, is why I could never go back.

Whoa...sounds like that new T.V. show "The Following"...except Nephi's killing for an even stupider reason.

I have never felt the need to submit to any authority except our laws and work rules that allow me to make a living. I chafe against all other. Anyone else seeking to tell me what to do will be met with a very rigorous skepticism. No one is going to seek authority like that for my benefit. It will invariably be for theirs. So it is with religious authority, the biggest con the world has ever seen. They want you to sacrifice for them now in return for nothing but unproven promises after you're dead.

No it is not. I would argue that it is not absolute authority where the problem lies, but in absolute obedience to that authority. Or perhaps just tacit approval and a refusal to act against absolute authority.

I'm fine with absolute authority resting in the commander's hands on the battlefield, directing troops, as long as his troops do not torch some orphans, following his directions 100% absolutely.

Authoritarians command, slaves obey. If the person being commanded cannot or will not think or act for themselves, then yeah. Big problem. Because people who become dictators and tyrants don't just suddenly pop up out of nowhere and willy nilly receive absolute authority: the people hand it to them or vote it in, except in very rare circumstances.

But in even in Hitler's time, it wasn't his absolute authority that got people behind his ideas, following his efforts, supporting his programs and even doing his bidding. It was his economic "plan" for bettering their position in the global economy, and personally, to save face on the diplomatic stage.

And the people's own hatred of others in their own society, and their willingness to scapegoat them and sacrifice them, too. They got ahead and they did better, when they removed from their ranks those who stood in their way. Hitler just helped them focus their fears and anger about their uncertain place in the world. He helped them feel better and more secure. He helped them choose the groups among them to erase in favor of their own, and helped them turn toward one group within them, one group at a time.

And they did it, one person and group at a time. They weren't sheep they were human and they were humans who saw some personal benefit coming to them, for doing so. A place at a school they couldn't get into before; takeover of a business they had always wanted to try, but werent equipped or didnt have the money for. That position at the hospital they hadnt trained for yet; that upper rank in the Navy they couldn't have achieved in any other way. I think there was a healthy dose of "we are a special people" and "we deserve it all" in there and he manipulated that. But it was present already.

Although there were many groups who were targeted and many who were sacrificed, the fact is that the people themselves went along with most or all of it until crunch time, when it was they themselves who had to get on their knees and offer up their own heads to the swordsman.

They got ahead, by saying off with their heads. Literally. So maybe it was not authoritarianism which helped them do that.

Anyway, when the policies and plans and roadmaps to hell were laidout by Hiter and his henchman and when they were first proposed and gained great support, it was 1920-24 and onward, and he didn't even have absolute authority yet.

He took that for himself in 1933-34, after he was voted in and long after his party's first rising back in 1919-1920. The people had 13 years to rise up, rebel or come up with alternate plans and power brokers and they did not.

At least 44% of the people agreed with him in the 33 elections. That's enough for him to take control and do what he did next in 34. In addition, many Germans who did not vote for him DID agree with him, just not the methods by which he planned to implement the policies. People forget that part. There was explicit, implicit and tacit approval for Hitler and his dirty works. They wanted people gone, and they got that. They just kinda-sorta didn't like how it made them look to others, after awhile. It was ok when it was just THIS group or THAT group, but oh my goodness, now it's me and mine and THAT, I cannot have.

I am not a historian. My grandfather's father was born in Germany, in Eisen. He fought for Germany in WWI. My grandfather, his son, fought for the US in WWII.

When I was in germany and visited one of the former concentration camps one of the fascinating and absolutely horrifying details brought up was how the "working conditions" of the executioners were constantly "improved" to make the whole affair more deadly efficient. Turns out just the act of looking someone in the eye that you are supposed to shoot was a major obstacle for many of the officers in the execution buisness.

A bunch of methods were developed to encourage the killings and supressing remorse and guilt. It was a slowly escalating homocidial madness. When finally the gas chambers got up and running who were the one's running it and cleaning out the bodies afterwards? Jews themselves. Abusing their survival instinct to do the dirty work so the military dudes that had set up the whole thing wouldn't feel so guilty and be so vividly aware of their own atrocities.

We've all heard about the Millgram experiment where it's demonstrated just how mindboggingly far the average joe is willing to go in blind obedience to authority. What is often not mentioned is the psychological distress the test subjects were in when pressured to go that far. They were not impassionately following orders, they complained, they cried, they begged for it to stop, their hands started to shake. All kinds of strong emotional reactions were displayed even especially amongst those that went along all the way.

Also left out are the various follow up experiments where it's made clear that the more vivid the suffering is for the "teacher" the less willing is the "teacher" to continue carrying out the experiments. The more the sufferer is recognized as human the harder it gets to torture them. More research since then have shown how subtle priming, a diluted sense of responsibility, dehumanization and mere physical distance have huge effects on how far we are willing to go along with evil.
along with evil.

If the purpose of the Church was to benefit the members, its fraudulent origins could be overlooked. The problem with the Church is that the members are mere tools to perpetuate the organization. Any benefit the members receive is incidental.

I get that we used to be tools. But TSCC has waned authoritarian to the point that the Russians complained that Mormons are too authoritarian. The freaking Russians.

What I don't understand is why the leaders can't learn from the past. Christ said don't judge, just live and love. Why are their minds so shackled? Did Mormonism do that? Their bogeyman is the antichrist, but they have become the antichrist.

I like dagny's ☆
Bradley has something ~

TheOtherHeber Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If the purpose of the Church was to benefit the
> members, its fraudulent origins could be
> overlooked. The problem with the Church is that
> the members are mere tools to perpetuate the
> organization. Any benefit the members receive is
> incidental.

*^that^ about sums it up*.

Lie once and you have to continue to lie, eternally to cover it up. Wicked pick-pocket and cry(wolf)baby, yes! Enemy? Possibly [even to itself] lying about [origins of the BoM] ^authority^ [J.S., Jr - current profit] and not sharing/ honoring facts, history, truth is really an enemy to good families and children everywhere and even TSCC itself.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/19/2014 03:41AM by moremany.

authoritarianism is the watchword of the theological/religious cult
What is a Theological Cult?
A cult is an egalitarian exclusionary organization which seeks to control its members in all aspects of their lives. The word is a deritive of the word culture which indicates a specific group. If you take the letters ure off the word culture what you have left is cult.
An additional definition is any group which has a pyramid type authoritarian leadership structure with all teaching and guidance coming from the person or persons at the top. The group will claim to be the only way to God; Nirvana; Paradise; Ultimate Reality; Full Potential, Way to Happiness etc, and will use thought reform or mind control techniques to gain control and keep their members.

This definition covers cults within all major world religions, along with those cults which have no OBVIOUS religious base such as commercial, educational and psychological cults. Others may define these a little differently, but this is the simplest to work from for me.

Hitler may have had 44% of the vote, but that did not hive him absolute power. Enacting emergency controls gave him absolute power, which meant that he could not be removed from office.

Most of the German population did not know that prisoners in concentration camps were being slaughtered. A small number of people were directly involved, and at trials many of them stated that they were just following orders, sparking further research into unethical obedience to authority.

The problem happens when someone in authority believes it is okay for them to force absolute obedience on their subjects. The beliefs of the "sheep" and/or "goats" no longer matter because compliance can be extracted without consent. In the case of Nazi Germany, even if an executioner refused to follow orders, someone else would be found to do the job, and the refuser risked execution themselves.

I don't think it is the fault of the sheep and goats. I think it often takes external forces to bring down an authoritarian regime. In TSCC, those fighting for change from within are facing the worst enforceable punishment, excommunication. With absolute authority, internal resistance is doomed to fail.

I have a serious problem with it. Yes.

All evil originates from the abuse of power. So, yes.

The CULT is a theocratic regime. Unlike some theocratic regimes who have ONE god, the CULT has whoever pays enough tithing will be a god so an unlimited number of gods.

The cult is evil as all authoritarian theocratic regimes are. YES they should all be removed from the earth asap.