Mental Compartmentalizing

[Dr. Sunstoned]

I wonder what kind of mental compartmentalization our dear leaders had to deal with while they perpetrated the 19 years of financial fraud and deception that was finally brought to light by the SEC.

[I Have Questions]

Interesting Sock. I have decent list of friends and relatives who fit the bill. In one case, it's about an 85% hit down to AMP specifics. Not all are Mormon, but all are Trumpers. With the exception of one who I don't know and I really can't speculate as we've lost touch. The other case that doesn't fit is female, lol, and she's super liberal.

I have member business acquaintances who think that not telling the whole truth, or misleading, or even fraudulently manipulating the tax system by pretending ignorance, is valid behaviour that doesn’t run contrary to anything the Church teaches, because it’s just business. And they genuinely believe themselves when they say it.

[I Have Questions]

I wonder what kind of mental compartmentalization our dear leaders had to deal with while they perpetrated the 19 years of financial fraud and deception that was finally brought to light by the SEC.

It’s a great question. One expects the highest moral behaviour from those people who claim to be God’s chosen Apostles. One expects them to fast and pray about decisions affecting their stewardship of the tithes and donations. Did they really get the answer from God that he commanded them to construct a complex web of deceitful shell companies that were wilfully misrepresented as independant, in order to defraud the tax system and to mislead the membership into thinking the Church did not have hundreds of billions of dollars squirrelled away?

Given they were found to have been in serious breach and fined millions of dollars, why was no one sacked? Why did not one of the people involved have the personal integrity to resign from their position? Why didn’t Nelson stand down? Why hasn’t the Presiding Bishopric been excommunicated? (Which is exactly what would happen to a member who perpetrated something similar).

Why don’t they lead by example? What kind of person can stand up and preach to the membership about how to behave when they know they’re actively complicit in illicit behaviour?

The First Presidency couldn’t fire anybody, because they consistently signed off on the nefarious scheme, for two decades. They obviously subscribe to the view that it’s not wrong if the First Presidency do it, regardless of what it is.

[yellowstone123]

I think it has to do with fear.

Fear moves mountains of people to do things they don’t want to do. Example are everywhere.

Since Mormonism is different from other religions where they assign certain roles like a director assigns a role in a play, it’s normal to want to keep your part, especially if a person is rewarded socially in that community.

During your worthiness interview, if you say things that they are concerned about, such as certain behaviors, that part in the play may be jeopardized. That’s the crazy thing about Mormonism in that a members social standing is more important than telling the truth.

And in a way it’s crazy justice - the church has a long history of lying to its members via omissions but ends up creating a system where many members lie to the church about their history via omissions.

[MG 2.0]

OK. Thanks, MG!

You're welcome!

Regards,
MG

[Moksha]

I wonder what kind of mental compartmentalization our dear leaders had to deal with while they perpetrated the 19 years of financial fraud and deception that was finally brought to light by the SEC.

The Brethren voted to table indefinitely B.H. Robert's report to the Quorum in 1923, so they have extensive experience with mental compartmentalization.

[IWMP]

I have an acquaintance who is a master at compartmentalizing his Mormon beliefs from his below-Mormon-standards of sexual conduct. He does not attempt to rationalize the behavior or harmonize it with Mormonism. I've had lunch with him where in one breath he tells me about his Asian massages with "happy endings." In the next breath, he's admonishing me to not drink the iced tea I'm having with lunch, and that I should 'go back to church.'

He's a complex individual. Despite being middle aged, he insists on letting his wife, his siblings and his mother--all but one (a sibling) are active, every Sunday-going Mormons--all know about those happy endings, and when he had for a time a girlfriend on the side. About every three months, he feels the need to tell his bishop about it. After the pattern repeated 4 or 5 times, they disfellowshipped, but then restored him to full fellowship early. He knows the mantra well. You know, declarative statements about what is asked in a temple interview.

He does not quite get the reason for the perplexed look on my face when he pivots the 180 degrees from Asian massages and preaching to me about my iced tea and inactivity. I've never told him I've long since resigned out of the LDS Church. I'm sure if I did so tell him, he would sic the missionaries on me so that they could notch another baptism in their belts.

I've never quite understood this guy. For me, while at times it was a struggle, when I believed I tried to conform my behavior to the LDS preachings. So too me, he is an enigma. In my experience, he's a "one off." I've not met anyone else like him, not even close.

One rule for him, different rule for everyone else. Bet if his wife had a happy ending he wouldn't be best pleased.

[IWMP]

I wonder what kind of mental compartmentalization our dear leaders had to deal with while they perpetrated the 19 years of financial fraud and deception that was finally brought to light by the SEC.

It’s a great question. One expects the highest moral behaviour from those people who claim to be God’s chosen Apostles. One expects them to fast and pray about decisions affecting their stewardship of the tithes and donations. Did they really get the answer from God that he commanded them to construct a complex web of deceitful shell companies that were wilfully misrepresented as independant, in order to defraud the tax system and to mislead the membership into thinking the Church did not have hundreds of billions of dollars squirrelled away?

Given they were found to have been in serious breach and fined millions of dollars, why was no one sacked? Why did not one of the people involved have the personal integrity to resign from their position? Why didn’t Nelson stand down? Why hasn’t the Presiding Bishopric been excommunicated? (Which is exactly what would happen to a member who perpetrated something similar).

Why don’t they lead by example? What kind of person can stand up and preach to the membership about how to behave when they know they’re actively complicit in illicit behaviour?

The First Presidency couldn’t fire anybody, because they consistently signed off on the nefarious scheme, for two decades. They obviously subscribe to the view that it’s not wrong if the First Presidency do it, regardless of what it is.

If you resign from being a chosen prophet of God, wouldn't that imply there never was a prophet? That would cause all sorts of conflicting thoughts.

[I Have Questions]

It’s a great question. One expects the highest moral behaviour from those people who claim to be God’s chosen Apostles. One expects them to fast and pray about decisions affecting their stewardship of the tithes and donations. Did they really get the answer from God that he commanded them to construct a complex web of deceitful shell companies that were wilfully misrepresented as independant, in order to defraud the tax system and to mislead the membership into thinking the Church did not have hundreds of billions of dollars squirrelled away?

Given they were found to have been in serious breach and fined millions of dollars, why was no one sacked? Why did not one of the people involved have the personal integrity to resign from their position? Why didn’t Nelson stand down? Why hasn’t the Presiding Bishopric been excommunicated? (Which is exactly what would happen to a member who perpetrated something similar).

Why don’t they lead by example? What kind of person can stand up and preach to the membership about how to behave when they know they’re actively complicit in illicit behaviour?

The First Presidency couldn’t fire anybody, because they consistently signed off on the nefarious scheme, for two decades. They obviously subscribe to the view that it’s not wrong if the First Presidency do it, regardless of what it is.

If you resign from being a chosen prophet of God, wouldn't that imply there never was a prophet? That would cause all sorts of conflicting thoughts.

Not if you’re resigning because you brought the position into disrepute. In fact if Nelson were to resign over the fraud, it would actually be a point in favour of a Prophet being a real thing. No need to resign if Nelson knows there’s not really a God there

[IWMP]

If you resign from being a chosen prophet of God, wouldn't that imply there never was a prophet? That would cause all sorts of conflicting thoughts.

Not if you’re resigning because you brought the position into disrepute. In fact if Nelson were to resign over the fraud, it would actually be a point in favour of a Prophet being a real thing. No need to resign if Nelson knows there’s not really a God there

That makes sense. I guess it's one of those things that can be taken either way.