What makes arguments about women and the priesthood flawed.

Many of the arguments people put out in favor of women and the priesthood resolve to sounding like "I just want the change to exercise unrighteous dominion too." (I am not saying that they are making that argument, I'm saying that they sound like that argument).


For example when people write about wanting to exercise power or influence, they will trigger the following thoughts:

No ^apower or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the ^bpriesthood, only by ^cpersuasion, by ^dlong-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

So when someone writes that they feel powerless without the Priesthood, and want to be able to exert power and influence, they will have that scripture sounding in the echo chamber of the minds of those who hear them. If you state that you want the priesthood to exercise power and influence, you've just stated that you (in accord with D&C 121) are not entitled to it, e.g.:

to gratify our ^cpride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or ^ddominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men,

The problem is that not only do you need to make an argument that is not saying that, you need to make an argument that does not sound like that either.  If your argument sounds like that is what you want (regardless of what you mean), you immediately create that semantic contamination of your argument or reasons.

The same is true of "I serve enough, I just want to serve in a better scope."  That sounds like "I just want to be important."  Elder deJager of the 70 had as his first calling putting up the books after Sacrament.  At the time he was a relatively important executive with a large company.  His response was not "I want a more important job."  Instead, he served with diligence. 



Christ washed the apostles feet to drive hope the point that it is about service, being the servant of all, rather than about being important.  If you are going to make any argument about the place where you serve rather than serving more, you will face serious semantic contamination and echos of pride in the semantic contamination you create.

The same comes when blessing babies comes up.  Already leaders are being counseled not to push fathers aside when it comes to ordaining sons or blessing babies, about taking steps to make sure men are involved and can be allowed to participate (the reference to battlefield promotions in the recent conference was part of a call not to shunt fathers aside).

That sounds very much like "I want to push men aside and take over."  Now, even when the need or desire is "I just want to participate" or "I hate being excluded" it is very easy to get the message contaminated with the one "I am pushing others aside and alienating them."

The same is true of the "I deserve it" and "I should be part of the hierarchy" argument.  Something that Hopwood and other litigation has pointed out is that much of affirmative action consists of taking people from privileged backgrounds and giving them precedence over people from trailer parks.  That the lead plaintiff from Hopwood was a white woman from a trailer park who was being excluded ... or that every time class issues are introduced to go with other affirmative action steps (the idea being that those from poor and lower class backgrounds are obviously suffering more of the effects of discrimination than those who are wealthy ...).

Consider the first "woman of color" to teach at Harvard Law School.  Blond, blue eyed ....  Now running for the senate in a state near you.  There is a huge issue where it appears to be more of a class struggle and one that ignores and insults the female members of general boards who are in some sort of quasi general authority status.

Combining an insult with something that rings of class warfare will, again, create unpleasant echos.  Especially since the Church continually has to war with class issues.  I still remember in the LDS Serviceman's stake in Germany when a general authority said he had interviewed every worthy high priest in the stake.  Turned out that the list he had been given was only of officers who were high priests.  No matter how otherwise worthy a man was, if he was enlisted, he wasn't truly "worthy."

All of that said, am I coming to a conclusion on the arguments, the conclusions or the future?

No.  Just because someone makes a bad argument, or a good argument that sounds like a bad one and is easily confused for one, does not mean that the position they are taking is a bad position.

So, what am I saying?

I am saying that if you want to make arguments, provide analysis, or be persuasive, you need to do the following:

1. Avoid arguments that are contaminated by sounding like other arguments.  There are some very specific claims, arguments and approaches that sound very, very much like arguments that are (to the listeners) self-refuting (see the above).  i.e. structure your arguments to clearly not be the contaminated ones, but instead to be saying the alternative (e.g. "I don't want to push men aside, but I want to be able to participate).
2. Avoid arguments that are basically insults or expressions of pride (e.g. "I serve more than I feel like, but I would rather be in control and have the chance to really exercise my abilities than do something like pick up the song books.").
3. Avoid arguments that show an ignorance of culture and structure.  (e.g. denying the existence of female board members vs. discussing that the status and existence of female board members does not have meaning for people outside of Utah).
4. Start discussions in places where everyone is in accord.  E.g. President Hinkley used to stress that the Church needed more leadership and participation from the women in the Church and a common problem that has been with us is men who misunderstand the priesthood and insist that women should not ever exercise any leadership or participation on an equal basis, to the extent of banning women from giving prayers in Sacrament meetings.  A way to move forward on the goal and overcome the problem is ....

Anyway, until things are discussed in those terms, and in those ways, most of the discussions contain within them the seeds of their own failures.

One thing I want to see happen is people express their ideas and positions in ways that are not contaminated by sounding like reasons and arguments that resonate as reasons not to give someone a fair audience -- to avoid hearing them.  Too often the debate is carried out in terms that create automatic rejection (kind of like the political candidate who ran on the basis that it was his turn to share in the stream of graft he was certain he had been excluded from).

That at least would get us to a civil and rational place where what people meant to be saying was heard.

Class in America

Class in America is a topic that varies between the banned and the denied. I hadn't thought much on the subject until I started reading some of the stories and commentary at In the Shadow of Mt. Hollywood a blog that follows the stories that wrap in and out of the life of an English major who goes to Dartmouth and becomes a technical writer and computer programmer.

He is constantly dealing with managers who supervise him not because of their skill, but because they have mastered the right status or class markers. It is a kind of an Innocents Abroad set in modern America and the computer industry.

That led me to start paying more attention to class issues as they intersect reality. For example, A Framework for Understanding Poverty by Ruby K. Payne explains why micro loans work, micro grants are a terrible failure. In the target class, money you've borrowed is yours. Money that is a windfall belongs to your community and you can't keep it for investment or yourself. Payne's goal is to teach educators what they need to know to understand and interact with various parts of the class system, and the difficulties that are especially faced by those at the bottom. Interestingly enough, in her conclusion she comments that an untouched topic is "the need to grieve and go through the grieving process as one teaches or works with the poor."

Important if you work with communities or conduct facilitation that involves the poor.

Less friendly, (well, a downright snark) is Class: A Guide Through the American Status System. it is a University of Pennsylvania Professor's re-write (in some ways) of Molloy's Dress for Success (which, amazingly, shares the same customers as Breaking Dawn (The Twilight Saga, Book 4)) and Live for Success -- a book that has actually helped a number of people make breakthroughs in their careers.

I think that it is really too bad that schools function by teaching class issues by osmosis, at best. Too often, a lack of understanding, of knowledge and of perspective creates people as lost as John Bruce's innocents (and not so innocents) that he describes at his blog, In the Shadow of Mt. Hollywood.

And too often those who desire to be mediators, facilitators or just to help, are blocked in their efforts by not having the knowledge and perspective that would come from understanding class.

If you are politically involved, if you volunteer at a charity, if you have a career, reading Molloy, and Payne really should have been a part of your preparation, of the essential skills that you should have been provided. In fact, if I were redoing the syllabus for my Essential Skills class I would note only have made the change to The Gentle Art of Verbal Self Defense at Work (since the book I prefer is out of print -- though Elgin has a new book due out next year that may be better, only she and her editor know for sure right now), but I would have added A Framework for Understanding Poverty to the mix. Perhaps if I start teaching again.

---

Well, just visited http://www.pointmediation.com/

Includes social cues and recommendations, something that has been fading for a while, and something I think is important -- because consumers find it important.

Wish him well.

---

Also, http://www.kobreguide.com/topic/Law is well worth visiting. Quality documentaries, for free download.

So, you are thinking of a Facilitation Initiative?

Generally, a Business's Initiative should:

• Clearly communicate values (those who attend should be able to state three values);
  
• Leave three takeaway tangible things that can be done (those who participate should be able to name three measurable things they should do);
• Should not espouse goals or values inconsistent with actual management practices;
• Should not raise expectations that will not be reached/Should not create a basis for dissatisfaction;
• Should establish a clear metaphor.

E.g. many S. Covey based initiatives want employees to gain the values promoted while management is not transparent and does not espouse the values in action. I like

Leadership and Self Deception: Getting Out of the Box so much because it focuses on the fact that so many approaches are really just self deception.

E.g. I've a friend who is a recruiter and one of his favorite recruiting grounds is companies that make promises in their initiatives that they do not deliver on.

E.g. Never mock your own processes.

Some thoughts.

---

Related books:

Bonds That Make Us Free: Healing Our Relationships, Comin... by C. Terry Warner (53) More like this

Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes are... by Kerry Patterson (133) More like this

The 21 Indispensable Qualities of a Leader: Becoming the... by John C. Maxwell (77) More like this

The Five Dysfunctions of a Team: A Leadership Fable by Patrick M. Lencioni (216) More like this

The SPEED of Trust: The One Thing That Changes

"Dark Side" Management Case Studies

I will get back to content that is closer to what I usually write in a little bit. However, a while back one of the members of the AOM (Academy of Management) put out a call for "dark side" case studies -- studies of failures, misapplications or mistakes that could be learned from. Management classes generally study cases, the idea being that the students can gain experience and skills second hand by studying how something was done right. His thought was that there is also something to be learned from things that go wrong.

I thought of several cases that made for excellent cautionary tales.

The first is historic. General Motors was in financial trouble. They approached their unions for concessions and wage cuts and got them. Then, at the end of the year, a story ran that management bonuses related to the cuts were almost twice as much as the cuts themselves. That story has been a long standing disaster for General Motors. It illustrates metrics problems (how do you measure success in cost cutting -- and should the bonuses related to cost cutting ever exceed the cost saving?!; how do you account for long term toxicity of an action?).

More recently, in response to financial problems, several air lines ended up transferring stock to their unions. The pilots unions tend to be better organized and more management oriented. In at least one air line, the pilots union was able to obtain disproportionate gains from the input into management that the stock gave it. When financial problems arose, they then attempted to push a disproportionate share of the pain onto the other unions and avoid giving back the gains. You can track the result of that process in the lack of health of the air line involved. The only thing that the pilots union managed to avoid was a derivative suit by the other shareholders for disgorgement (you could treat the disproportionate gains as an unfair discriminatory dividend, which is what it was). Concepts of capture, fiduciary duty to all shareholders and other issues all rise, especially as worker interests in corporations only seem to be more likely in the future.

Texas Instruments makes for another great study, especially as they are actively trying to recover from an interesting mistake. They adopted merit only raises for engineers. They then gave bonuses to individuals for cost savings. The cost cutters went through and started firing the highest paid engineers and replacing them with "fungible" lower paid engineers. TI is attempting to recover from the morale effects and the obvious inability to recruit and retain top talent. There were other side effects as well. The best example I can think of was an engineer attached to a research team who kept specialty equipment running that allowed the team 140+ hours a week of uptime on their research. He was fired, after a confrontation between his manager and a cost cutter. Uptime dropped to 36 hours a week, and the engineer had to be replaced with contract service at a cost of over $30k a month. The cost cutter did not have to account for either the R&D losses or the contractor expenses, he only got the bonus.

Finally, and this is what got my attentiont ot the topic, Microsoft did something with a very successful division, Ensemble Studios, which has a major product release scheduled. As you might expect, the success of the division has drawn some "successful" management changes. The new manager is going to get bonuses based on net revenues. So, as soon as the next product is released, he is basically firing everyone except for a small stump. That way he will get credit for all of the revenue without any reduction for R&D for new or continuing products. So, Ensemble is closing its doors, the product release is jeapordized (not from lack of quality, no one is being fired until it is released, but from public perceptions) and two years from now instead of having new products, all of the signigicant employees will be working for competitors. Imagine what will happen if he gets assigned to operating systems for his next assignment? Given the amount of the bonus he can expect, look for Microsoft to gut out R&D in every area of the company if it doesn't adjust and to be out of business in 3-5 years if other managers get away with following his example.