Gerontocracy versus Terms?

Public forum for topics that don't fit into the other categories.
User avatar
LookingHard
Posts: 2794
Joined: 20 Oct 2014, 12:11

Re: Gerontocracy versus Terms?

Post by LookingHard » 19 Apr 2018, 12:34

To (over) extend the cold war analogy, you are not generally going to get shot at if you stay on one side of the wall or the other. But when you are not fully in (TBM) and you try to stay a bit in the middle ground between the two walls, it can be an uncomfortable place to be. What causes the wall to come down in the end?

User avatar
SamBee
Posts: 4665
Joined: 14 Mar 2010, 04:55

Re: Gerontocracy versus Terms?

Post by SamBee » 19 Apr 2018, 15:41

An ideal leadership should be mixed in age.

The gerontocracy does lend itself to stability. I went to a talk on Quakers once and much as I admire them, it was obvious that at a lot of points they had been following the cause du jour.

Ironically one of the worst examples of cause du jour in the church was Ezra Taft Benson whose McCarthyite leaning fitted right in with the Cold War and could claim a sort of victory when the Iron Curtain fell.
DASH1730 "An Area Authority...[was] asked...who...would go to the Telestial kingdom. His answer: "murderers, adulterers and a lot of surprised Mormons!"'
1ST PRES 1978 "[LDS] believe...there is truth in many religions and philosophies...good and great religious leaders... have raised the spiritual, moral, and ethical awareness of their people. When we speak of The [LDS] as the only true church...it is...authorized to administer the ordinances...by Jesus Christ... we do not mean... it is the only teacher of truth."

User avatar
hawkgrrrl
Site Admin
Posts: 3367
Joined: 22 Oct 2008, 16:27

Re: Gerontocracy versus Terms?

Post by hawkgrrrl » 19 Apr 2018, 17:16

I agree with SamBee that mixed ages would yield the best results, provided that seniority doesn't rule.

User avatar
nibbler
Posts: 3492
Joined: 14 Nov 2013, 07:34
Location: Ten miles west of the exact centre of the universe

Re: Gerontocracy versus Terms?

Post by nibbler » 19 Apr 2018, 17:26

Funny, I just heard some old guy talking about the benefit of combining a group of old guys with a group of young guys and they said something like, "all ages and backgrounds [would] benefit from the perspective and experience of one another and of those in different stages of life."

The guy went on to say how the older group shouldn't just take over the younger group, how the young and old should work side by side.

Now if I could just remember where I heard it.
We must all live in the real world... and sometimes that world can be pretty grim. But it is the dream... the hope... that makes the reality worth living.
– Captain America

Curt Sunshine
Site Admin
Posts: 15775
Joined: 21 Oct 2008, 20:24

Re: Gerontocracy versus Terms?

Post by Curt Sunshine » 19 Apr 2018, 22:36

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I see through my glass, darkly - as I play my saxophone in harmony with the other instruments in God's orchestra. (h/t Elder Joseph Wirthlin)

Even if people view many things differently, the core Gospel principles (LOVE; belief in the unseen but hoped; self-reflective change; symbolic cleansing; striving to recognize the will of the divine; never giving up) are universal.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." H. L. Mencken

User avatar
LookingHard
Posts: 2794
Joined: 20 Oct 2014, 12:11

Re: Gerontocracy versus Terms?

Post by LookingHard » 20 Apr 2018, 06:36

nibbler wrote:
19 Apr 2018, 17:26
Funny, I just heard some old guy talking about the benefit of combining a group of old guys with a group of young guys and they said something like, "all ages and backgrounds [would] benefit from the perspective and experience of one another and of those in different stages of life."

The guy went on to say how the older group shouldn't just take over the younger group, how the young and old should work side by side.

Now if I could just remember where I heard it.
You must be old if you can't remember! :D
hawkgrrrl wrote:
19 Apr 2018, 17:16
I agree with SamBee that mixed ages would yield the best results, provided that seniority doesn't rule.
I found it interesting that Jonathan Haidt, author of The Righteous Mind, started out as very liberal, then for his "job" he studied conservatives. He found that some of their ideas were sound. He came to the conclusion that it is good to have a mix. Liberals are sometimes too quick to just drop tradition assuming it all needs to be fixed and conservatives often hold on to things past when they are needed.

You can see some of these thoughts over at Wheat and Tares

Haidt says:
Complete rejection of authority leads to chaos, leads to ineffectiveness, and ultimately leads to the group disappearing.

People who identify as conservative tend to like order and predictability. They are not attracted to change for the sake of change. Whereas people who identify as liberal they like variety and diversity. We have a study where we have dots moving around on a screen. Conservatives like dots moving around in lock-step. Liberals tend to like it is all chaotic and random. Liberals keep their rooms messier than conservatives.
I think the "variety" of old vs young applies in the same way.

User avatar
dande48
Posts: 755
Joined: 24 Jan 2016, 16:35
Location: Wherever there is danger

Re: Gerontocracy versus Terms?

Post by dande48 » 20 Apr 2018, 07:29

With combining the old and young together on the same council, I think there could be some major problems. I mean, absolutely EVERY generation since the beginning of time has ruthlessly complained about the generations before and after them. The old look down on the young for their lack of experience... and visa versa. To quote Socrates:
Socrates wrote:"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers."
No matter what generation they are in, young or old or in-between, people will always feel their outlook and perspective is best. They will have a hard time empathizing with those who've had a different experience, and therefor have a harder time getting along (generally speaking). While I don't think a theocratic oligarchy is necessarily a "good" form of leadership, I think it's important to realize that no leadership system is ideal. If we make the switch, we'll be trading one stack of problems for another. Not all change is good, and progress is never linear.
"The whole world is a comedy to those that think, a tragedy to those that feel." - Horace Walpole

"Even though there are no ways of knowing for sure, there are ways of knowing for pretty sure."
-Lemony Snicket

User avatar
Beefster
Posts: 485
Joined: 04 Aug 2017, 18:38

Re: Gerontocracy versus Terms?

Post by Beefster » 20 Apr 2018, 07:45

All systems have problems. Once an organization reaches a certain size, it becomes corporatized and bureaucratic. Human nature just isn't well equipped to handle groups larger than about 1500 people. It's why local LDS leadership generally works pretty well but is a trainwreck at the higher levels.

If the goal is to have a conservative church, gerontocracy is the way to go.
Boys are governed by rules. Men are governed by principles.

Often I hear doubt being presented as the opposite of faith but I think certainty does a better job of filling that role. Doubts can help faith grow, certainty almost always makes faith shrink. --nibbler

User avatar
SilentDawning
Posts: 6623
Joined: 09 May 2010, 19:55

Re: Gerontocracy versus Terms?

Post by SilentDawning » 20 Apr 2018, 15:49

Beefster wrote:
20 Apr 2018, 07:45

If the goal is to have a conservative church, gerontocracy is the way to go.
A conservative, slow moving church that displaces those who don't fit the rules, by all means. But the best companies figure out the right balance between centralization and decentralization, and bureaucracy versus empowerment. I have worked for (and still do) a highly centralized bureaucracy and its made is 1/3 of what we could be. There are so many ways we could improve the experience of our target group and our employees, but we can't due to rules that aren't capable of meeting the needs of everyone -- and those needs are real and necessary.

The church is that way -- like the one year waiting period for people who get married civilly -- even when their entire family -- the family that raised them -- are entirely non-members. Or even the HC or GA's that don't seem to get that the church in the middle of nowhere with hardly any members needs a different set of rules than a ward in Utah where everyone lives in a city block.
"It doesn't have to be about the Church (church) all the time!" -- SD

"Stage 5 is where you no longer believe the gospel as its literally or traditionally taught. Nonetheless, you find your own way to be active and at peace within it". -- SD

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. No price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."

My introduction: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1576

Post Reply