Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Elder Uchtdorf: Progressive?


Recommended Posts

I haven't ever suggested that I believe there are not heated debates and disagreements. Regarding factions, I guess I'm content to be seen as naive. 

I am careful not to attribute negative character traits to those who believe differently than I do. I don't take "silly" or "naive" as a personal insult, but it isn't hard to see how others would. 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Thanks for answering. It helps me understand where you are coming from. 

You bet! 

My biggest disappointment with the gospel topics essays is that we aren't being taught these things by the Brethren. We are getting academic essays that thread the needle from John Gee, Paul Reeve, probably Brain Hales, et. al. They're good and useful as far as they go, but they don't address the actual issues. For example: the priesthood ban essay disavows past explanations, but then doesn't offer any explanation in their place, other than hints that they were just influenced by their times. Something more authoritative from the Brethren would be better, but it's pretty clear that they don't want to get involved and touch it with a ten-foot pole. 

I think the Brethren are more than capable of this, and they hold the actual keys to revelation. I think they're afraid to get involved in a way that burns the ships on the shore. But that's where bona fide revelation comes into play. You don't need to worry about the vicissitudes of scholarship and critics when God himself gives the revelation. It will stand the test of time and weather all storms. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, kllindley said:

Right. You have stated that you aren't questioning their honesty or integrity. But you also won't ever go beyond the one liners to actually engage with their own words.

Rock, you're usually willing to discuss. What do you think he means when he says: "But before a final decision is reached, there comes a unanimity of mind and voice."

I think he means what I had expressed earlier.  That they leave the council ready to act in one accord.

Do I think he meant they all think the same about a particular topic, even after they've make a decision?  No.  Have you read Prince's bio of David O. McKay?  It's the most in depth view into how our top levels of leadership work that I am aware of.  But you can also look at what we know about the quorum under Joseph Smith and then under Brigham Young to see that there were differences.  in some cases, those differences were known at the time.  But, I think, in many cases they aren't known at the time because the apostles come out of council and act in unanimity.  As they should and as most councils I've been involved with do.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, ttribe said:

Not trolling; just know your propensities.

As to commenting on methods on both sides, if you'd paid close attention over the years, you'd know I do exactly that.  You just get all bent out of shape when I say such things to you...kind of like your complaining about the mods targeting you, but conveniently forgetting all of the critics they've completely banned from this site for lesser infractions than you've committed.

I've noticed that you rarely bother commenting in my threads except to attempt to get personal.

I invite you to reconsider your approach, for the remainder of your participation in this thread.

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think he means what I had expressed earlier.  That they leave the council ready to act in one accord.

Do I think he meant they all think the same about a particular topic, even after they've make a decision?  No.  Have you read Prince's bio of David O. McKay?  It's the most in depth view into how our top levels of leadership work that I am aware of.  But you can also look at what we know about the quorum under Joseph Smith and then under Brigham Young to see that there were differences.  in some cases, those differences were known at the time.  But, I think, in many cases they aren't known at the time because the apostles come out of council and act in unanimity.  As they should and as most councils I've been involved with do.

I haven't said anything about thinking exactly the same about a topic. That's a straw man. 

We obviously disagree, and that's okay. I don't think highly of any of the Brethren who believe that a decision or teaching is contrary to God's will but go along with it for the sake of unity. I believe that is dishonest and demonstrates a lack of integrity. 

Now if you mean that they feel the Spirit confirming the decision and are willing to sustain it despite not fully understanding or agreeing with every particular, I think we may be talking about the same thing. 

Link to comment
9 hours ago, rongo said:

And, I fully sustain the decision, even though I still to this day think it should have been a different one (disfellowshipment instead of formal probation).

So you genuinely believe that your bishop was wrong in a matter that seriously impacts another person's life, but you're OK with that? Do you know that he was wrong? If so, wouldn't it bother you to let him go astray? And if you don't actually know, wouldn't you prefer having an assurance one way or the other?

Quote

I don’t believe Zion involves remote controlling, body snatching, or overriding.

Can you please point out to me from any of the experiences that I've shared in this thread where I've suggested that revelation involves remote-controlling, body snatching or overriding? Would you include being  guided and/or corrected?

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I haven't said anything about thinking exactly the same about a topic. That's a straw man. 

We obviously disagree, and that's okay. I don't think highly of any of the Brethren who believe that a decision or teaching is contrary to God's will but go along with it for the sake of unity. I believe that is dishonest and demonstrates a lack of integrity. 

Now if you mean that they feel the Spirit confirming the decision and are willing to sustain it despite not fully understanding or agreeing with every particular, I think we may be talking about the same thing. 

I didn't say that you felt they thought exactly the same about a topic.  I was just trying to give you the more fleshed out response to your question (as you requested) about what President Hinckley meant.  I wasn't trying to create a straw man argument against you.

I also wouldn't expect that one of the Brethren might "believe that a decision or teaching is contrary to God's will but go along with it for the sake of unity".  But, I do imagine that there could be situations in which they disagree but without a strong prompting to dissent, they might move forward and sustain a decision being arrived at by the remainder of the quorum or council.  I've witnessed this happen at the local level and don't really see any reason to believe that it is so different among the apostles or any council in between.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Again, it depends on what you mean by 'refuse'. I've certainly been inspired to decline a calling, more than once. It has always involved a respectful discussion. The first time I did it, I was newly returned from my mission. I got a phone call asking me to meet with the bishop of my new student ward that afternoon. As I hung the phone up, a quiet impression settled on my heart: it told me that the purpose of the meeting was going to be the issuing of a specific call, and then it told me to decline.

When I went to the interview, the Bishop did indeed extend the very call I'd been told it would be, so I explained to him my experience earlier in the day. He then thanked me for sharing that and said that he and his counsellors were desperate to fill the calling and, though they felt they had no guidance on the matter, thought they might try me. My experience, however, had provided them with the guidance they'd desired, and they would keep seeking.

Thank you for sharing that personal experience.

So, in this case, because of a spiritual prompting you felt that it was okay to turn down a calling from your bishopric.  I'm curious, is it then a possibility to receive a call from the First Presidency (mission pres, temple pres, apostle) and also feel a prompting that instructs you to turn down the call?

If "yes" than that makes sense to me.

If "no" than my follow up would be to ask how the First Presidency differs from the example of the Bishopric in your student ward.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I haven't ever suggested that I believe there are not heated debates and disagreements. Regarding factions, I guess I'm content to be seen as naive. 

I am careful not to attribute negative character traits to those who believe differently than I do. I don't take "silly" or "naive" as a personal insult, but it isn't hard to see how others would. 

I think "factions" is much too strong of a word. There were never any, for example, "pro-singles wards" and "anti-singles wards" factions. Simply disagreeing about things from time to time does not factions make. 

I also think the Brethren agree on things far more than they disagree. 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm curious, is it then a possibility to receive a call from the First Presidency (mission pres, temple pres, apostle) and also feel a prompting that instructs you to turn down the call?

Why not?

My mission president had been called to serve twice before he finally accepted. Each time he just explained that his wife was not healthy enough to handle the task, and the call was rescinded.

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

So you genuinely believe that your bishop was wrong in a matter that seriously impacts another person's life, but you're OK with that?

I don't believe he was wrong. I disagreed with him on disfellowshipments vs. formal probation, but it was not a hill to die on. Functionally, they are very similar, except back then, for one a record of the disciplinary council was sent to the Office of the First Presidency, while the other one entailed internal records in a file folder only (now, with electronic records, even formal probation and its lifting require electronic paperwork with Salt Lake). Disfellowshipment also is noted on a membership record, while formal probation is not. Disfellowshipment is more serious in the progression scale than formal probation. But, the restrictions are indistinguishable other than that.

Does that make sense that I disagreed with him as to the best option, but did not (and do not) think he was "wrong?" In a lot of cases, it's a matter of trying to make sure the bandage is big enough for the wound, but not too big. In this case, both options adequately covered the wound without it being "too much." I felt that, based on the severity of what had happened and testimony given, that disfellowshipment was more appropriate. 

Do you know that he was wrong? If so, wouldn't it bother you to let him go astray? And if you don't actually know, wouldn't you prefer having an assurance one way or the other?

After deliberation and prayer, while I still felt that disfellowshipment was a better choice, I was more than fine with formal probation. I sustained the decision, and continued sustaining it beyond that. It worked out as it should. 

 

Link to comment
48 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Yes, we foolishly fail to admit that gossip is evidence.

 

I am a witness to some of it myself.  My father more so.  He still has friends among the brethren.  They disagree with each other as non-worshipers of authority should easily understand.  They aren't robots. 

Also, these things go on in any organization.  So, it seems logical that the church would not be exempt.  But, certainly you do not need to believe anything coming from an apostate.

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I am a witness to some of it myself.

There are no anonymous witnesses. Personal testimony can only be given by witnesses whose identities are known.

20 minutes ago, Exiled said:

  My father more so.

Anonymous hearsay = gossip.

I am not in any regard accusing you of lying. But when you casually report "factions and politics" you are giving us, not the unfiltered evidence, but your own reaction to it.

Disagreeing about this or that initiative is a mile short of either factions or politics.

20 minutes ago, Exiled said:

They aren't robots. 

Oddly enough, no-one has suggested that they are. You are disembowelling a straw man.

20 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Also, these things go on in any organization.  So, it seems logical that the church would not be exempt.  But, certainly you do not need to believe anything coming from an apostate.

And there goes another.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

I am not in any regard accusing you of lying.

I was worried you were. Now I can sleep.

Incidentally why is a world where the church leaders at the top occasionally have heated disagreements over whose project gets the go ahead, etc. so abhorrent to you?  Maybe you should paraphrase to yourself the quote from Lorenzo Snow and be thankful imperfect men can come together for God's work, even if they may disagree at times how best to do it. I think that's how your friend Scott Lloyd responded to this prospect.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...