Contradiction among the Apostles

[the narrator]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

During his Conference addresses that year (2015), Pres Monson showed  no sign whatsoever of dementia.  His sermons were long and complex, well told by him.  He did not die until Jan 2018, last year.

Persons with dementia both 1) have good days and bad days, with varying and swinging degrees of how their dementia might affect them; and 2) can usually still read. I visited with my grandfather last weekend who is in increasing stages of dementia/Alzheimer. He could have very easily read from a teleprompter and make casual jokes if he wanted to. He also had no idea who my wife was (who he sealed to me a decade ago).

[the narrator]

FWIW, I have two close friends who I trust that know Elder Holland and had separately been told by him months after the policy was put in place that the policy was wrong, should never have happened, and that it would be removed "in a way that preserves the prophetic mantle" (according to one friend). I didn't think it's reversal would have happened as soon as it did. 

[Maestrophil]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What does that tell us about St Peter being the boss and still not getting it right?  Same goes for Pres Brigham Young versus Elder Orson Pratt.  Who was right?  Turns out that Orson was correct.  We need to put more weight on the fallibility of the prophets.

I agree.  I never asserted the prophet was infallible, or that his account was perfect - just that it carried more weight for me than an account twice removed from the source.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

I agree.  I never asserted the prophet was infallible, or that his account was perfect - just that it carried more weight for me than an account twice removed from the source.

I guess as long as you are willing to be wrong along with St Peter and Brother Brigham, you are at least in good company . . .😎

[ALarson]

30 minutes ago, the narrator said:

FWIW, I have two close friends who I trust that know Elder Holland and had separately been told by him months after the policy was put in place that the policy was wrong, should never have happened, and that it would be removed "in a way that preserves the prophetic mantle" (according to one friend). I didn't think it's reversal would have happened as soon as it did. 

That's interesting, narrator.  I do believe that many of the leaders felt as you describe above and worked towards fixing the error.  I'm glad they stepped up and made the correction because it probably wasn't comfortable for them to do so (and to reverse it so quickly).  I think highly of our leaders for doing this.

Edited April 30, 2019 by ALarson

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, the narrator said:

Persons with dementia both 1) have good days and bad days, with varying and swinging degrees of how their dementia might affect them; and 2) can usually still read. I visited with my grandfather last weekend who is in increasing stages of dementia/Alzheimer. He could have very easily read from a teleprompter and make casual jokes if he wanted to. He also had no idea who my wife was (who he sealed to me a decade ago).

On that basis, anyone might conveniently be demented, and we don't even need any real evidence of it

7 hours ago, the narrator said:

FWIW, I have two close friends who I trust that know Elder Holland and had separately been told by him months after the policy was put in place that the policy was wrong, should never have happened, and that it would be removed "in a way that preserves the prophetic mantle" (according to one friend). I didn't think it's reversal would have happened as soon as it did. 

I am a bit surprised myself, and your account is at least believable.  However, I just wonder how much of this hearsay is actually reflective of reality?  What will the memoires of Elder Uchtdorf eventually tell us?

Edited April 30, 2019 by Robert F. Smith

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Odd response. You claim there is a leaker, but then you aren’t sure if there is a leaker.

Not sure what to make of your thought process.

Neither am I.

I weary of tattle-telling. It reminds me of Sister Gui’s kindergarten. 

 

Edited April 30, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[the narrator]

37 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

On that basis, anyone might conveniently be demented, and we don't even need any real evidence of it

Nobody is conveniently demented. I am currently witnessing the difficulties it is bringing my grandparents--especially my lovely grandmother--as my paternal grandfather goes through it. And I witnessed the difficulties it caused my mother's family as my maternal grandmother suffered from it a couple decades ago before her passing, difficulties that caused rifts in my mother's family that took years to mend and that are still a presence for some. I wish you would not make such claims.

41 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I am a bit surprised myself, and your account is at least believable.  However, I just wonder how much of this hearsay is actually reflective of reality?

I know that these two friend know Holland personally, and they would not have lied to me about their conversations with him. That the policy was reversed so quickly seems to confirm it as well. If you want hearsay, here is something I learned from a trusted source but do not know the provenance of the claims: when Michael Otterson first learned of the policy, he asked Nelson for a week for Public Affairs to prep a response, and Nelson told him nobody would even notice and that it was unnecessary. And when people did notice, Nelson first asked Eyring to make the public response, and Eyring told him: "This is on you. I'm not touching this thing."

45 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What will the memoires of Elder Uchtdorf eventually till us?

Probably not much. I don't think that Uchtdorf is the liberal savior that a lot of progressive Mormons desperately hope him to be. And IIRC, he wasn't in Salt Lake when the vote on the policy and its release happened.

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, the narrator said:

I know that these two friend know Holland personally, and they would not have lied to me about their conversations with him. That the policy was reversed so quickly seems to confirm it as well. If you want hearsay, here is something I learned from a trusted source but do not know the provenance of the claims: when Michael Otterson first learned of the policy, he asked Nelson for a week for Public Affairs to prep a response, and Nelson told him nobody would even notice and that it was unnecessary. And when people did notice, Nelson first asked Eyring to make the public response, and Eyring told him: "This is on you. I'm not touching this thing."

That fits, IMO.  It also may explain why even the Prophet (President Monson) remained silent regarding the policy.

5 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Probably not much. I don't think that Uchtdorf is the liberal savior that a lot of progressive Mormons desperately hope him to be. And IIRC, he wasn't in Salt Lake when the vote on the policy and its release happened.

I wasn't aware of that (at least that I remember).  Thanks for the additional input and info.

Edited April 30, 2019 by ALarson

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

On that basis, anyone might conveniently be demented, and we don't even need any real evidence of it

Stop talking about me!!!!

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, the narrator said:

Nobody is conveniently demented. I am currently witnessing the difficulties it is bringing my grandparents--especially my lovely grandmother--as my paternal grandfather goes through it. And I witnessed the difficulties it caused my mother's family as my maternal grandmother suffered from it a couple decades ago before her passing, difficulties that caused rifts in my mother's family that took years to mend and that are still a presence for some. I wish you would not make such claims.

You completely misunderstood me:  I was referring to people using dementia as a convenient excuse in the absence of real dementia to explain away anything they don't agree with.  People tend to retroject non-existent "facts" into the past so as to explain the inexplicable.  That is what Tacenda was doing, and I was replying to her assumption.  Pres Monson did eventually decline to the extent that he was unable to get up for more than 5 minutes in his final year, and he was obviously in serious trouble.  The same thing happened to Pres McKay, and I was able to see obvious signs of it at the Oakland Temple dedication.  What I object to is the back-dating of a decline in such manner as to render actual evidence meaningless.

4 hours ago, the narrator said:

I know that these two friend know Holland personally, and they would not have lied to me about their conversations with him. That the policy was reversed so quickly seems to confirm it as well. If you want hearsay, here is something I learned from a trusted source but do not know the provenance of the claims: when Michael Otterson first learned of the policy, he asked Nelson for a week for Public Affairs to prep a response, and Nelson told him nobody would even notice and that it was unnecessary. And when people did notice, Nelson first asked Eyring to make the public response, and Eyring told him: "This is on you. I'm not touching this thing."

I'm glad that they have a sense of humor.  At least that story gave me a chuckle.  ☺️

4 hours ago, the narrator said:

Probably not much. I don't think that Uchtdorf is the liberal savior that a lot of progressive Mormons desperately hope him to be. And IIRC, he wasn't in Salt Lake when the vote on the policy and its release happened.

I wasn't thinking childish thoughts of that German Shepherd as a "liberal savior," but rather as an accurate observer of Pres Monson in his declining years.   I think that he had an excellent opportunity to give us the straight scoop on what in fact took place.  We get a lot of hearsay.  I prefer first-hand accounts.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, the narrator said:

I first learned about the SL temple renovation plans in March of last year. The person who told me about this said that it had been needed for years but it was felt that Monson wasn't capable of making a decision on it.

And without any info on this person, as far as we know he could be the person at the register at the corner gas station giving you his opinion....

Knowing you, I suspect better source, but no way to judge and you probably need to respect their privacy.

Edited April 30, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

4 hours ago, the narrator said:

I know that these two friend know Holland personally, and they would not have lied to me about their conversations with him.

Again, the problem for me is if Elder Holland understood the conversation in the same way they did.  If he was cautious/circumspect at all in his speech, as I would expect him to be on such topics, they may be assuming he meant something when he did not.

Edited April 30, 2019 by Calm

[the narrator]

20 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What I object to is the back-dating of a decline in such manner as to render actual evidence meaningless.

People were discussing it as early as 2012.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

People were discussing it as early as 2012.

And people were discussing it in 2015 in my presence.   Some even accused him of wiggling his ears, which was true.  I saw him do it.  However, I paid it no mind since I could clearly see him delivering complex sermons in his inimitable style.    When he went down to dedicate or rededicate the Gila Arizona Temple, he had his limo pull over on a stretch of highway where some LDS families were holding up signs to greet him -- they couldn't make it to the rededication -- and, without his coat, just in suspenders, he glad-handed everyone, then went on to the temple.  People took photos.  I found it endearing, and knew that his ear wiggling was for the kids.  I ignored the Alzheimers talk as wild rumor-mongering.  Maybe Counselor Uchtdorf will eventually tell me that I was wrong, but at least he will  have had first-hand evidence.

[the narrator]

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

And people were discussing it in 2015 in my presence.   Some even accused him of wiggling his ears, which was true.  I saw him do it.  However, I paid it no mind since I could clearly see him delivering complex sermons in his inimitable style.    When he went down to dedicate or rededicate the Gila Arizona Temple, he had his limo pull over on a stretch of highway where some LDS families were holding up signs to greet him -- they couldn't make it to the rededication -- and, without his coat, just in suspenders, he glad-handed everyone, then went on to the temple.  People took photos.  I found it endearing, and knew that his ear wiggling was for the kids.  I ignored the Alzheimers talk as wild rumor-mongering.  Maybe Counselor Uchtdorf will eventually tell me that I was wrong, but at least he will  have had first-hand evidence.

How is any of that evidence of him not having dementia?

[Robert F. Smith]

3 minutes ago, the narrator said:

How is any of that evidence of him not having dementia?

Yup, and how does that prove that he hasn't stopped beating his wife?  QED?  😎

[the narrator]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yup, and how does that prove that he hasn't stopped beating his wife?  QED?  😎

I can never tell if your purposefully or accidentally being obtuse. You're the one who made the claim of "back-dating" Monson's dementia. It's not backdating if people were already making observations about it 3 years earlier.

[The Nehor]

43 minutes ago, the narrator said:

I can never tell if your purposefully or accidentally being obtuse. You're the one who made the claim of "back-dating" Monson's dementia. It's not backdating if people were already making observations about it 3 years earlier.

It would be more correct to say that people were baselessly gossiping about it 3 years earlier. I am already hearing gossip about President Nelson’s mind going. Some people do not need evidence and their words should definitely not be taken as evidence.

[alter idem]

On 4/29/2019 at 3:11 PM, SouthernMo said:

On January 10 2016, Elder Russell M. Nelson spoke to students at BYU Hawaii.  Among other teachings, he spoke about how the November 2015 handbook change (affecting same sex members and their children) came to be.  In summary, Elder Nelson indicates that the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles met and "wrestled at length to understand the Lord's will..."  They "met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer.  Elder Nelson indicates that each apostle felt a spiritual confirmation of the revelation that ensued.

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/worldwide-devotionals/2016/01/becoming-true-millennials?lang=eng

However, Greg Prince tells a different story.  He shares on an April 10, 2019 discussion with the Salt Lake Tribune Podcast Mormon Land that Tom Christofferson (Todd's brother) shared with him (on Thursday November 5, 2015) a different version of events around this 'November Policy.'  Namely, that November 3, 2015 was the first time that he (Todd Christofferson) had heard about this policy "and that it was presented to the 12 for an up or down vote without debate."  The policy was inserted into the Church Handbook of Instructions two days later on November 5.

https://www.listennotes.com/da/podcasts/mormon-land/the-lds-churchs-lgbtq-policy-8jVZITHa67c/

...

What am I to make of this contradiction between Elder Nelson's recounting of this decision and Elder Christofferson's?

To me, the implications are very disappointing and shaking my trust in men who lead the LDS Church.

Can we agree that someone in this group between Greg, Tom, Todd, or Russell is not telling the truth about how this decision was made?

I'm inclined to put trust in Pres. Nelson's version because it sounds more reasonable and the other version is not.  It doesn't sound logical that the decision was discussed without Elder Christofferson ever having even heard of the policy.  That sounds like someone misunderstood--either his brother, Tom or the person he told, Gregory Prince. 

There's a problem in describing it as an 'up or down vote' as this is misleading.  I've always heard that they will pray to receive inspiration of the mind and will of the Lord.  And their response is presented as;  do they 'sustain' the proposal. If there is not a unanimous agreement, they table it--but I think that they don't usually do this unless they feel they are in agreement and then they are praying for confirmation that this decision is the 'mind and will of the Lord'.  Others might have a better idea, but that's what I remember.

I do not believe the portion of Elder Christofferson not having heard of it before they voted--That's ridiculous. If Elder Christofferson was asked to pray and receive inspiration on this decision of what to do and it was the first time he'd ever heard of it---He would have said something like---'hey, wait a minute, I don't feel that I can receive inspiration of the will of the Lord when this is the first time I've even heard of this!!!'  He could not feel prepared or comfortable praying for an answer on something that affects the church like this, without having been able to discuss, study it out and ponder over it first and that's not how it's done among the First Pres. and 12 in these kinds of instances.

 

 

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, alter idem said:

He could not feel prepared or comfortable praying for an answer on something that affects the church like this, without having been able to discuss, study it out and ponder over it first and that's not how it's done among the First Pres. and 12 in these kinds of instances.

But we really know almost nothing about "how it's done" among the FP and Q12.

[Metis_LDS]

1 hour ago, alter idem said:

If there is not a unanimous agreement, they table it--but I think that they don't usually do this unless they feel they are in agreement and then they are praying for confirmation that this decision is the 'mind and will of the Lord'.

It is okay if no one believes a word I write.  I was a counselor to someone who said that they were a friend of Thomas S. Monson (this was before he became President of the church).  Yeah I know people say the wildest things and talk is cheap.  But then he proved it to me.  He then stated clearly about his knowledge of how the Twelve operate.  Sometimes the groundwork takes years on some issues because nothing moves forward unless all agree. So yes one member of the Twelve can stop things from going forward at the level of the Twelve. This was told to me by someone who really was a friend of Elder Monson.

Edited May 1, 2019 by Metis_LDS
better to make clear

[Tacenda]

On 4/30/2019 at 8:21 AM, the narrator said:

Persons with dementia both 1) have good days and bad days, with varying and swinging degrees of how their dementia might affect them; and 2) can usually still read. I visited with my grandfather last weekend who is in increasing stages of dementia/Alzheimer. He could have very easily read from a teleprompter and make casual jokes if he wanted to. He also had no idea who my wife was (who he sealed to me a decade ago).

I agree, and there were times with my mother when she'd shock me when she'd rise to the occasion and it felt like I had my mom back, like when I'd take her to appointments etc. In fact when my dad was taking chem/radiation for cancer she and my sister went with him to the hospital and she accused my sister of having a love affair with my dad. My poor sister, I don't think she'll ever be the same after that. She didn't know my sister IOW's. 

[SouthernMo]

28 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I agree, and there were times with my mother when she'd shock me when she'd rise to the occasion and it felt like I had my mom back, like when I'd take her to appointments etc. In fact when my dad was taking chem/radiation for cancer she and my sister went with him to the hospital and she accused my sister of having a love affair with my dad. My poor sister, I don't think she'll ever be the same after that. She didn't know my sister IOW's. 

Bingo.  Same with my grandpa. Just because an individual is coherent at some times does not preclude the possibility of mental debilitation.

I’m not sure any church leader would publicly admit a living president of the church is dealing with reduced cognitive abilities.

The fact that President Monson had dementia was an open secret. Pardon me for being harsh, but anyone who honestly thinks that he was fine until the day he died would do well living in North Korea.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, the narrator said:

I can never tell if your purposefully or accidentally being obtuse. You're the one who made the claim of "back-dating" Monson's dementia. It's not backdating if people were already making observations about it 3 years earlier.

I guess if you put a lot of stock in rumor-mongering, that might have some meaning.  I don't, which is why I want first-hand observations from those closest to him (Uchtdorf, Eyring, his doctor, etc.).  I don't need no third hand hearsay.  Good historians learn early on not to retroject, and to be very suspicious of convenient retrojection.  Offhand observations have little value, but people love to make them.