Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Multiple News Agencies Are Reporting On the Policy Change


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Consiglieri, (aka Radio Free Mormon) did an excellent podcast on this topic. Judging from the mega thread the issues on this are pretty obvious to everyone. However, Consig does a great job of articulating how the policy was put in place 3 years ago by revelation for the children, and was then reversed this month, again by revelation and again for the children.

https://radiofreemormon.org/2019/04/radio-free-mormon-063-president-nelson-jumps-the-shark/

In it he basically says Pres. Nelson told an untruth, and that just goes to prove that prophets don't really have that conduit or special conduit from God to speak for others. But does show how really wrong it was to put forth that the policy as revelation. And even mentions that Pres. Monson wasn't able to fully okay the Nov '15 policy because of his dementia, and then proves that not all apostle's were in on it, when D. Todd Christofferson's own brother Tom, said that Todd told him he wasn't aware of it until a few days before it came out. So Pres. Nelson saying they met as a group prayerfully about it several times, in a talk to a group in BYU-Hawaii, was false.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, juliann said:

It was good until he started into his own exegesis, which is the very tired infallibility complaint. Especially when he goes to Bill Reel as the real prophet.  The podcast is an hour longer than it needs to be. He repeats himself endlessly. 

Here is his black and white thinking problem....the reason it was changed, I think, is because it was not a good policy.  He even says that people were leaving, so...newsflash, a LOT of us would agree with his original analysis, but more stayed than left. Then it only comes down to all the layers of infallibility. It was handled very badly. Yup. Very.  I chalk it up to a steep learning curve that no prophet has ever had to face. But they changed it. He may not have realized the consequences originally, but it would be stupid to argue they don't get it now, in addition to the consequences of changing it.  But they changed it. 

Didn't finish it, too much question begging.

I do believe a major sticking point is not that they changed it but that it was claimed that they "watch[ed] the Lord move upon the president of the church to proclaim the Lord's will.".  They apparently covered "countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise" and in the end, the solution was a revelation that told them to do something that didn't work and they handled very badly.  

I suppose we can say well, it was all due "to a steep learning curve that no prophet has ever had to face". But that's dismissing what's been said about it.  the trouble is they said it was the Lord's will, that revelation came to the prophet and the other men at the top.  That in the process they covered every possible scenario that could have played out.  

In the end, though, I agree that we don't know that Nelson is lying.  It seems he really thinks any impression he has is revelation.  I don't know that any prophet has seen it that way, although it seems the 1978 "revelation" that ended the ban played out in a similar fashion.  they felt good and so they knew it was of God.  

The damage of the policy change had largely occurred.  They changed, great.  But those who've been lost because of it are still going to be lost, because they simply fail to own up to it and instead put it on the members, as if the members caused these problems.  

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, juliann said:

It was good until he started into his own exegesis, which is the very tired infallibility complaint. Especially when he goes to Bill Reel as the real prophet.  The podcast is an hour longer than it needs to be. He repeats himself endlessly. 

Here is his black and white thinking problem....the reason it was changed, I think, is because it was not a good policy.  He even says that people were leaving, so...newsflash, a LOT of us would agree with his original analysis, but more stayed than left. Then it only comes down to all the layers of infallibility. It was handled very badly. Yup. Very.  I chalk it up to a steep learning curve that no prophet has ever had to face. But they changed it. He may not have realized the consequences originally, but it would be stupid to argue they don't get it now, in addition to the consequences of changing it.  But they changed it. 

Didn't finish it, too much question begging.

Thanks for listening to it. Although I do like the way he expresses himself, I agree that he repeats himself a lot (e.g. "In the following clip, we are going to hear Russell M. Nelson say, and I quote, [the church is guided by revelation]. Play the tape! [the tape] In that tape, we just heard Russell M. Nelson say....").

In this particular case, Consiglieri isn't holding the leaders to an unreasonable level of infallibility. Rather, he is holding them to the standards they set for themselves. He would have had no problem if President Oaks would have said, "that policy we implemented in 2015 was a mistake. We had to make some decisions fast and didn't get it quite right. This is a course correction based on new insights and new revelation." If they would have said something like that (and wouldn't have claimed at the time that the original policy was the revealed word of God), Consig wouldn't have had any problem with it. The problem is that <I>they</I> claimed the original policy was the result of careful consideration and direct revelation. If we now agree that it wasn't, it raises the question if we can ever believe them when they claim their decisions are the result of revelation?

While we are talking about it, I'll state for the record that I liked the original policy and would have preferred things to continue in that direction. Don't let kids in same-sex households join the church. Then expand it so kids in part-member families can't join the church. Then expand it so kids in families that aren't sealed in the temple can't join the church, etc. That is the direction I would have preferred.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Analytics said:

  If we now agree that it wasn't, it raises the question if we can ever believe them when they claim their decisions are the result of revelation?

 

Which is the question of infallibility....something as old as the first prophet. In 20 years of online conversations (or brawls) it has always, always come down to the demand a prophet can never be believed again after a mistake. Always. You can pretty much just push everything else away.  I don't underestimate the hurt and damage from this episode, but the priesthood ban was worse, that was a series of prophets. But today we seem to be handling it and I do think more and more people are coming to the conclusion, in their own time, that God didn't do it and the church won't fall apart if we take him out of it. 

Quote

While we are talking about it, I'll state for the record that I liked the original policy and would have preferred things to continue in that direction. Don't let kids in same-sex households join the church. Then expand it so kids in part-member families can't join the church. Then expand it so kids in families that aren't sealed in the temple can't join the church, etc. That is the direction I would have preferred.

Had me going there for a minute....:snort:

Link to comment
46 minutes ago, juliann said:

Which is the question of infallibility....something as old as the first prophet. In 20 years of online conversations (or brawls) it has always, always come down to the demand a prophet can never be believed again after a mistake. Always. You can pretty much just push everything else away.  I don't underestimate the hurt and damage from this episode, but the priesthood ban was worse, that was a series of prophets. But today we seem to be handling it and I do think more and more people are coming to the conclusion, in their own time, that God didn't do it and the church won't fall apart if we take him out of it. 

Interesting observation. I'd love to brawl with you and prove you are wrong with a counterexample, but nothing is coming to mind. +1 for Juliann for an insightful observation.

What I would point out is that an area where the prophets are particularly fallible is how infallible they represent themselves to be. If they could tell the difference between their own fallible opinions and infallible revelations and would clearly tell the membership what is what, they'd become a lot more relevant.

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Interesting observation. I'd love to brawl with you and prove you are wrong with a counterexample, but nothing is coming to mind. +1 for Juliann for an insightful observation.

What I would point out is that an area where the prophets are particularly fallible is how infallible they represent themselves to be. If they could tell the difference between their own fallible opinions and infallible revelations and would clearly tell the membership what is what, they'd become a lot more relevant.

Hmm. I'd like to see a recent example of claimed infallibility, I can't seem to find any

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

The lack of an apology for anything ever speaks volumes, perhaps.

What is there to apologize for?

That whole concept still reflects the notion that they SHOULD be infallible.  That concept is what is in error.

Every policy has served its purpose at the time it was made, and then changed appropriately when the policy was no longer needed.

Were they "mistakes"?  I don't think so but let's suppose for the sake of argument that they were.

What does that show?  That prophets are fallible.

Why is this news to anyone?

Have they led anyone "astray"?  No but certainly some have GONE astray misunderstanding this important principle.  They needed no leadership in going astray on their own.

Link to comment
11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Hmm. I'd like to see a recent example of claimed infallibility, I can't seem to find any

 

As I'm using the term, "infallibility" is along a scale. When the President of the Twelve told us 4 years ago that the new policy was a revelation and went into some detail about the process they allegedly went through and why that means we should trust them, he was talking pretty high on the infallibility scale. In fact, almost every time they talk about the role of prophets  and about how Jesus leads the church, they are high on the scale. 

Edited by Analytics
Link to comment
6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

What is there to apologize for?

That whole concept still reflects the notion that they SHOULD be infallible.  That concept is what is in error.

Every policy has served its purpose at the time it was made, and then changed appropriately when the policy was no longer needed.

Were they "mistakes"?  I don't think so but let's suppose for the sake of argument that they were.

What does that show?  That prophets are fallible.

Why is this news to anyone?

Have they led anyone "astray"?  No but certainly some have GONE astray misunderstanding this important principle.  They needed no leadership in going astray on their own.

By their own admission, the old policy was harmful for children. Listen to the Radio Free Mormon podcast if you can't see this.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Have they led anyone "astray"?  No but certainly some have GONE astray misunderstanding this important principle.  They needed no leadership in going astray on their own.

I don’t like this line of reason because it puts all the blame on the laity if they are led “astray” (whatever that means). Your reasoning here would defend “the brethren” from any fault if souls are lost. They can prophecy right or wrong, and never apologize or correct themselves.

They would be claiming all the authority of leadership without the responsibility and accountability for it.

Link to comment
38 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I don’t like this line of reason because it puts all the blame on the laity if they are led “astray” (whatever that means). Your reasoning here would defend “the brethren” from any fault if souls are lost. They can prophecy right or wrong, and never apologize or correct themselves.

They would be claiming all the authority of leadership without the responsibility and accountability for it.

The saying goes, “The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church… to lead the children of men astray from the oracles [messages, messengers] of God and from their duty.” The Lord will not permit the President of the Church to get the members to reject the revelations, withhold their sustaining votes, and abrogate their duty to keep their covenants. This is why President Woodruff spent so much time on the subject in connection with issuing the Manifesto, leading the saints not to go astray on that point. Given the fallibility of the prophets, at least they will not lead the members in rejecting the revelations, the prophets and their individual covenant duties, all of which lead us unto Christ.

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The saying goes, “The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church… to lead the children of men astray from the oracles [messages, messengers] of God and from their duty.” The Lord will not permit the President of the Church to get the members to reject the revelations, withhold their sustaining votes, and abrogate their duty to keep their covenants. This is why President Woodruff spent so much time on the subject in connection with issuing the Manifesto, leading the saints not to go astray on that point. Given the fallibility of the prophets, at least they will not lead the members in rejecting the revelations, the prophets and their individual covenant duties, all of which lead us unto Christ.

Thanks for the perspective. I’ve studied that statement from President Woodruff and it’s context quite a bit. I’ve pondered the implications and his meaning and made it a matter of prayer.

I don’t draw the same conclusion that you do.  I think God respects the agency of presidents of this church just as much as mine or yours.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

Thanks for the perspective. I’ve studied that statement from President Woodruff and it’s context quite a bit. I’ve pondered the implications and his meaning and made it a matter of prayer.

I don’t draw the same conclusion that you do.  I think God respects the agency of presidents of this church just as much as mine or yours.

God does intervene, even given His gift of our agency and our fallible natures. He also allows others to intervene in righteousness. President Woodruff acknowledged this by saying, "the Lord would remove me out of my place." This is what God does when He answers prayers of the righteous and averts crises according to His will, or as President Woodruff put it, when it is "in the programme" or "in the mind of God" to do so. It is also reflected in the kind of thing the sealing power can do, as demonstrated in 4 Nephi. The President of the Church can be removed out of his place by God personally (we typically conceptualize this mechanism as death), but the Lord has also given us a means to do it by those with the sealing power (107:81-84).

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
19 minutes ago, CV75 said:

God does intervene, even given His gift of our agency and our fallible natures. He also allows others to intervene in righteousness. President Woodruff acknowledged this by saying, "the Lord would remove me out of my place." This is what God does when He answers prayers of the righteous and averts crises according to His will, or as President Woodruff put it, when it is "in the programme" or "in the mind of God" to do so. It is also reflected in the kind of thing the sealing power can do, as demonstrated in 4 Nephi. The President of the Church can be removed out of his place by God personally (we typically conceptualize this mechanism as death), but the Lord has also given us a means to do it by those with the sealing power (107:81-84).

I’m glad this perspective makes sense to you. It does not make sense to me.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, CV75 said:

The saying goes, “The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church… to lead the children of men astray from the oracles [messages, messengers] of God and from their duty.” The Lord will not permit the President of the Church to get the members to reject the revelations, withhold their sustaining votes, and abrogate their duty to keep their covenants. This is why President Woodruff spent so much time on the subject in connection with issuing the Manifesto, leading the saints not to go astray on that point. Given the fallibility of the prophets, at least they will not lead the members in rejecting the revelations, the prophets and their individual covenant duties, all of which lead us unto Christ.

That line of reasoning goes on to say that it doesn't matter whether the President of the Church is right or wrong because, in the words of Marion G. Romney, "if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it."

Even if the president of the church is merely nearly infallible with mundane things (but would not and could not "lead the church astray"), we should treat the words of the prophet as if they were infallible. 

Edited by Analytics
formatting
Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Analytics said:

That line of reasoning goes on to say that it doesn't matter whether the President of the Church is right or wrong because, in the words of Marion G. Romney, "if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it."

Even if the president of the church is merely nearly infallible with mundane things (but would not and could not "lead the church astray"), we should treat the words of the prophet as if they were infallible. 

Think of what an abusive relationship this would be if a husband treated his family like this...

He admits that he may be wrong at times, but expects his wife and children to do what he says regardless.  When they question him about anything that may be inconsistent, or go against what the wife and children believe is right, he calls them to repent and have faith, reminding them that he is the only one authorized to speak for God.  When they ask whether what he says is revelation from God or a personal statement, the answer is fuzzy, and always reverts back to "Just follow me whether its my opinion or a revelation."

Now - this may be the way that God truly operates.  BUT, let's admit that it takes a helluvalotta faith to buy into this, and not think it "cult-ish."

Link to comment
2 hours ago, CV75 said:

The saying goes, “The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church… to lead the children of men astray from the oracles [messages, messengers] of God and from their duty.” The Lord will not permit the President of the Church to get the members to reject the revelations, withhold their sustaining votes, and abrogate their duty to keep their covenants. This is why President Woodruff spent so much time on the subject in connection with issuing the Manifesto, leading the saints not to go astray on that point. Given the fallibility of the prophets, at least they will not lead the members in rejecting the revelations, the prophets and their individual covenant duties, all of which lead us unto Christ.

So we now have a "revelation" that was published in November of 2015.  And a "revelation" that was announced in April of 2019 that reversed the 2015 "revelation".  Did the first "revelation" lead us astray and the second was God correcting it?

Link to comment
6 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

I don’t like this line of reason because it puts all the blame on the laity if they are led “astray” (whatever that means). Your reasoning here would defend “the brethren” from any fault if souls are lost. They can prophecy right or wrong, and never apologize or correct themselves.

They would be claiming all the authority of leadership without the responsibility and accountability for it.

And so we give up agency and make them responsible for our mistakes.  All we have to do is slavishly follow and we have no more responsibility for our choices.

I think it is said there was a "plan" - ha! -  like that asserted that someone who was infallible would bring all the souls back to heaven and they would not have to make any decisions- but follow the leader.

It is said that view was put forth by some imaginary creature called "Satan", lol.

But of course these parables are to be ignored because they cannot be proven as true principles.

Oddly though I think there is a ring of truth to the idea that we should not give up our agency.  Oh well, superstition I suspect.

 

Yes, this is sarcasm.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Analytics said:

By their own admission, the old policy was harmful for children. Listen to the Radio Free Mormon podcast if you can't see this.

As I said before

Quote

 

Were they "mistakes"?  I don't think so but let's suppose for the sake of argument that they were.

What does that show?  That prophets are fallible.

Why is this news to anyone?

 

 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

As I said before

Were they "mistakes"?  I don't think so but let's suppose for the sake of argument that they were.

What does that show?  That prophets are fallible.

Why is this news to anyone?

Nothing wrong with prophets making mistakes.

The question is:  Which of the two revelations was in error?  2015 or 2019?

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Nothing wrong with prophets making mistakes.

The question is:  Which of the two revelations was in error?  2015 or 2019?

Non-sequitur.

If there is nothing wrong with them making mistakes, it doesn't matter does it?  We will find out when we see how it goes.

Link to comment

I think in general, the church leadership does a good job at guiding the church for the majority of members and try earnestly to do what they think is right.  The men at the helm are thoughtful, carefully consider the issues that come before them and are able to come to a consenses on major issues facing the church.  Personally, I think those decisions are done very similar as is done with other major corporations.  There is no evidence of divine intervention.  When such claims have been made, then not always have such claim proven to be nothing more than what they thought was best at the time.  I am glad they put an end to a policy that was not in the best interest of the church, its members and those families hurt by that policy.  The podcast is certainly worth listening to and really reveals the nuances in arriving at both the decision to institute the policy and to appeal that same policy a little over 3 years later.

I recently read a summary about the Coca-Cola company and their decision to introduce the "New Coke".  Those making the decison made it based on sound reasoning from their perspective. The change would save the company 50 million dollars a year because of less ingredients.  It also tested very well with consumers.  Even after it came out initial sales were about the same as the classic Coke formula.  What the company didn't anticipate is the backlash against changing the formula.  Coca-Cola received over 400,000 complaints in the first 2 months.  It ended up costing the company 30 million dollars.  So even though their intentions had sound reason for the change, the backlash against the New Coke was so great that even if sales were the same or better before, it didn't matter.  They brought back the old formula.

In a lot of ways, these two decisions are very similar.  Both thought that the decision being made was best for the company.  And for the majority of people, there really wasn't a problem. They could live with the new decision.  But the backlash of many was just too great to justify the reasons for the initial change.  The only difference between the two leadeships?  One claimed the decision was made by God.  

When the church makes a claim that God has spoken, then those under their stewardship are willing to put their trust in those pronouncements, many times, making drastic changes to their lives, in an effort to follow God's will.  When later events make it pretty clear that God was not involved in the decision, then there can be a complete loss of trust and credibility of those leaders and untimate the church organization itself.  It can destroy families, weaken a trust in God, and strong feelings of betrayal.  But I do believe there is an upside to these kinds of experiences.  Perhaps it leads to putting more trust in God Himself and not relying on men who claim to speak for Him.  

The podcast is really worth investing in the time to carefully understand what happened and how the church tried to spin it.

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

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