Jump to content

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

It's good to know that while everyone acknowledges that the new leadership is not perfect there will still be those who defend them as if they were.

CFR. Who is defending them as though they were perfect?  

Or is rejecting bogus, unfounded and uncalled for supposition what you have in mind?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

CFR. Who is defending them as though they were perfect?  

Or is rejecting bogus, unfounded and uncalled for supposition what you have in mind?

Do we really need to go down this road again?

TBM's claiming that the Apostles aren't perfect but refusing to acknowledge any particular imperfection.
Critics complaining that TBM's believe the Apostles are perfect and providing spurious evidence of their imperfection.
 

They aren't perfect.  They present a united front, but we know that they don't always agree 100% on everything even if they come to a united decision in the end.
Not every decision made is always 100% God's will, but they are still God's servants.

Can't we all just agree that they aren't perfect and that they can make mistakes or disagree with each other, yet they can still be God's servants presenting his will in a united front to the member and non-member alike.
It's not an either/or proposition.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Traela said:

Personally, if I'm going to speculate, I would rather contemplate what Elder Uchtdorf's new assignment is.  Considering his background, perhaps he will be working more directly with refugees.  Or he's going to scout out potential non-American apostles. ;)

It will also be interesting to see if Pres. Nelson's history with China leads to more freedom for the Church there.

 

:good:

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Traela said:

Personally, if I'm going to speculate, I would rather contemplate what Elder Uchtdorf's new assignment is.  Considering his background, perhaps he will be working more directly with refugees.  Or he's going to scout out potential non-American apostles. ;)

So much for called by revelation. ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Gray said:

I don't think you have a cognitive condition. But perhaps there is a theological motivation to not letting yourself recognize his body/face language.

I have no reason to protect Elder Uchtdorf.  I don't hold the brethren as perfect infallible men.  It wouldn't make the church any less true for me if your interpretation was correct.  They are not above human susceptibility to emotions of disappointment or upset.  I simply try to call it as I see it.

There is a good lesson in this about perception though.  Isn't it fascinating how two different people can be subject to the exact same stimulus and honestly interpret it in two completely different ways! Our interpretations are influenced by the filters of our biases and perspectives.  If you view this as a "demotion", then you are primed to interpret his facial expressions as being upset.  But what if I preconditioned an ignorant subject to believe that he was being promoted before watching the video (without sound)?  There is no way that the subject would interpret his facial expressions, or the hand pat by Elder Holland, in the same way.  That would be an interesting experiment!  Our preconditioned perspectives of Elder Uchtdorf, and the circumstances of his release, are completely different.  That is why we interpret the video differently. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

So much for called by revelation. ;)

 

It probably speeds up the process of revelation if you already know they exist.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Calm said:

It probably speeds up the process of revelation if you already know they exist.

:lol: - That's why I like you Calm...

There is something to be said for receiving confirmation by the spirit for our thoughts.  But there is something else to be said for God dictating his will without any input from us mere mortals.
I have a feeling in Apostolic history we have some of both.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

We have clues that these conflicts are present.  Why not just assume that these fallible humans are going to have disagreements and quit pretending otherwise and putting on a facade.   

I've seen absolutely nothing to indicate any conflicts going on

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Tell you what: I'll tell you what I think, and I'll ask that you return the courtesy.  How 'bout it?

I don't know what this means.

Wishful thinking aside, God had commanded His children, in certain limited circumstances, to practice polygamy.  It's not a matter of what I "like."  It's a matter of what God has decreed.

For the records, I am thrilled that polygamy is not currently practiced.  

I can respect that you "don't like it."

Nevertheless, the truth is that God mandated polygamy in the Bible and in modern times.

In an exercise in wishful thinking, yes.  Otherwise, you'd need to actually account for the scriptural references to polygamy (if you want to persuade anyone of anything other than your personal tastes and preferences, that is).

I encourage you to read John 6.  It's a healthy reality check for all of us.

Thanks,

-Smac

Perhaps saying you like polygamy is going too far, I retract that.  However you do believe God commanded it.  I don’t believe God commanded it.  That’s the key difference.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

I am talking about targeting church leaders in inappropriate ways such as Kate Kelly did with her bishop when she gave his employer's name.  Encouraging others to harass people you disagree with or even hate.  Seen it happen too often with apologists and random members expressing their opinion.  I got a stupid death threat just because I was a moderator and made my reasons for my decisions public.  That doesn't count the endless hours (and I am talking over a hundred) dealing with a small number of posters who knew better than I did what I should be doing in my role including stuff that had nothing to do with them...and this was trivial stuff.  Something that actually matters would likely draw tons more unnecessary fire.

Then there is just the problem with contributing to gossip since ward issues are often about people's needs.  This would be huge, imo.

I don’t agree with what Kate Kelly did or any death threats those actions are horrible, but how are you going to police every possible misuse of information?  I would argue that these kinds of examples are the consequences of people not knowing how to have respectful public dialogue and disagreements.  

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

That is how gossip gets started. C'mon hft - you're better than this. Members of the Church shouldn't be speculating about such things. It is not a healthy example.

Seriously?  Saying that our leaders have disagreements is unhealthy gossip?   Seems to me you are ignoring two very important evidences.  First the specific historical examples of disagreements in the past Mormon leadership ranks.  Secondly the countless examples throughout human history that show just how uncommon true unanimity is.  Disagreements are to be expected and can’t be avoided, it’s just reality.  

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

I've seen absolutely nothing to indicate any conflicts going on

Then the PR they are selling is working on you, but not on me.  

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don’t agree with what Kate Kelly did or any death threats those actions are horrible, but how are you going to police every possible misuse of information?  I would argue that these kinds of examples are the consequences of people not knowing how to have respectful public dialogue and disagreements.  

In the internet age, of course you can't. That's why you do things with privacy and decorum, to ensure that NOEB information doesn't get out there to be misused in the first place.

Hence, thoughtful people understand that privacy and decorum isn't slinking about "working in darkness" (cue the sinister music.)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

So saddened by losing Elder Uchtdorf in the presidency.  This is not a good sign for the progressives in the church like me.   Here is my suspicion on what just happened.  

1.  I think Elder Oaks "earned" this promotion through his vocal and ardent articulation on the LGBT topic and on women and the priesthood, and I think Nelson rewarded and promoted him accordingly.  

2. I suspect that Elder Uchtdorf was vocal behind the scenes with concerns about the LGBT policy and possibly other issues, and I think Nelson and others interpreted his concerns as disloyalty.  

This news today has me greatly saddened.  I see this as retrenchment and a move in the wrong direction.  

Good observation....What else could you expect from an enlightened European?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Seriously?  Saying that our leaders have disagreements is unhealthy gossip?

Speculating about purely imaginary disagreements, and then airing one's own speculations as if they have some basis in fact, is unhealthy gossip.

There is not an "Oaks faction," "Packer Faction" or "Christofferson faction" in the quorum. I don't for a minute imagine that consensus is immediate and undiscussed; in fact, I believe the brethren when they say that there is considerable and robust debate leading up to decisions being made. But the politicking you wish to project into their counsels doesn't happen.

17 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

  Seems to me you are ignoring two very important evidences.  First the specific historical examples of disagreements in the past Mormon leadership ranks.  Secondly the countless examples throughout human history that show just how uncommon true unanimity is.  Disagreements are to be expected and can’t be avoided, it’s just reality.  

The gossips' creed rests upon two famous proverbs: "There's no smoke without fire" and "I wouldn't put it past them." No evidence is required for gossip.

I will continue to take the brethren at their word, and you can substitute your own baseless opinions for their testimony wherever and whenever you like.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

In the internet age, of course you can't. That's why you do things with privacy and decorum, to ensure that NOEB information doesn't get out there to be misused in the first place.

Hence, thoughtful people understand that privacy and decorum isn't slinking about "working in darkness" (cue the sinister music.)

I’m glad my religious language of working in darkness is having such an interesting response.  Perhaps people don’t apply the scriptures to their own lives and religions enough to see the flaws that need correcting.  

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Good observation....What else could you expect from an enlightened European?

One who (1) believes in and (2) understands normative LDS doctrine, such as our critics do not?

I expect him to do what he actually did (as opposed to the unsupported speculations about what he might have done) in supporting and promulgating the policy.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Good observation....What else could you expect from an enlightened European?

Yes, well I do think his growing up in Europe gives him a unique perspective and his was one of the most valuable perspectives in a group with very little diversity.  The lack of diversity in thought and culture and all kinds of different factors makes for a very poor committee of decision makers.  

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Seriously?  Saying that our leaders have disagreements is unhealthy gossip?   Seems to me you are ignoring two very important evidences.  First the specific historical examples of disagreements in the past Mormon leadership ranks.  Secondly the countless examples throughout human history that show just how uncommon true unanimity is.  Disagreements are to be expected and can’t be avoided, it’s just reality.  

But speculating about what those disagreements are, or whether one apostle is disappointed or feels hurt is just unseemly, and in poor taste. I can't stop you from doing it, but I call you to be better than that.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Speculating about purely imaginary disagreements, and then airing one's own speculations as if they have some basis in fact, is unhealthy gossip.

There is not an "Oaks faction," "Packer Faction" or "Christofferson faction" in the quorum. I don't for a minute imagine that consensus is immediate and undiscussed; in fact, I believe the brethren when they say that there is considerable and robust debate leading up to decisions being made. But the politicking you wish to project into their counsels doesn't happen.

The gossips' creed rests upon two famous proverbs: "There's no smoke without fire" and "I wouldn't put it past them." No evidence is required for gossip.

I will continue to take the brethren at their word, and you can substitute your own baseless opinions for their testimony wherever and whenever you like.

Oddly enough I don’t think you’re trusting the brethren at their word because they constantly remind us that they are fallible and limited humans.  What you’re trusting is a Potemkin village image of reality that doesn’t exist anywhere in the real world, only in your mind.  

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

But speculating about what those disagreements are, or whether one apostle is disappointed or feels hurt is just unseemly, and in poor taste. I can't stop you from doing it, but I call you to be better than that.

Fair enough, I understand there is a strong sense within the culture that any kind of speculation or criticism is a sign of disloyalty, so I get where you are coming from.  I absolutely try to make my comments in respectful ways but I’m sure I fall short at times.  I tried to be clear that I was engaging in speculation from the start.  At any rate, I respect what you’re saying.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Statement from Elder Uchtdorf:

Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles who served as President Thomas S. Monson's counselor in the First Presidency, offered words of support to the Church's new First Presidency: President Russell M. Nelson and his counselors, President Dallin H. Oaks and President Henry B. Eyring.

In a note on his Facebook profile, Elder Uchtdorf said:

“It was a joy to participate in this morning’s announcement of the new First Presidency. I love and sustain President Russell M. Nelson, President Dallin H. Oaks, and President Henry B. Eyring. I can assure you, the Lord Himself is at the head of His Church, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

“The Lord has provided a divine plan so that His Church is always led by prophets, seers, and revelators. I embrace the opportunity to associate with my Brethren in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. I love them and look forward to serving with them as we — along with you — strive to serve the Lord.”

Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf offers support to newly called Church leaders

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Then the PR they are selling is working on you, but not on me.  

:rolleyes: 

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×