Policy Anger and Apostle Surprise

[HappyJackWagon]

This article was written by Mitt Romney's political biographer and raises some interesting points. It is unclear whether the policy originated with Pres. Monson or if he approved it in a "fleeting lucid moment" but either way it appears he was involved and it appears many of the apostles were surprised by the policy just two days before it was released. Interesting read. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Quote

A second similarly-connected source insisted that the policy came from Monson himself, with assistance from church attorneys and other staff members.

Quote

Both reports maintain that in a fleeting lucid moment the 88-year-old Monson approved the policy, an endorsement that was immediately supported by his counselors. Most of the remaining apostles were surprised when the new policy was introduced for the first time to them at their regular Tuesday meeting, where they too obligingly sustained it.

Quote

Two days later it was broadcast privately to regional and local leaders of the church. Both sources confirmed that the addendum, as written, circumvented customary vetting by church’s persnickety correlation committee.

Quote

Because the intense summer discussions failed to yield a clear consensus before the church’s semi-annual general conference in October, most apostles were startled in early November when they were asked to sustain a policy they were seeing for the first time.

http://www.themuss.net/mormon-lgbt-policy-prompts-anger-resignations-and-fresh-concerns-about-aged-leaders-2/

Edited December 23, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[ksfisher]

Must believe everything I read on the Internet...must believe everything I read on the Internet...must believe everything I read on the Internet...

Edited December 23, 2015 by ksfisher
Spelling

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Must believe everything I read on the Internet...must believe everything I read on the Internet...must believe everything I read on the Internet...

So...no comment because you must not believe anything on the internet...must not believe anything on the internet...must not believe anything on the internet?

 

[Calm]

How many sources for the current policy issue are named?  Or are there just the two unnamed ones that we have no way of knowing whether they have first hand knowledge or are repeating gossip? And given half their info ( source of policy) contradicts each other, any reason why their credibility, and thus the author's should be accepted?

After that beginning, don't really want to invest my limited time into the rest for the article.

Edited December 23, 2015 by Calm

[ksfisher]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So...no comment because you must not believe anything on the internet...must not believe anything on the internet...must not believe anything on the internet?

 

The article barely rises to the level of gossip.

[Storm Rider]

That is not the story I heard.  I heard that President Monson, while eating his nightly bowl of Ben & Jerry's ice cream - chunky monkey if you must know - he fell on his head.  In this dazed moment he was visited by people from the sun, but it could have been the people from the moon, it just was not clear, but they built this time machine that allows them to transport themselves from moment to moment around the universe and God just needed someone like that to take the load off, but I digress.  Anyway, these two men and two women who held the priesthood because it clearly said above their heads in blinking letters - I AM AN ELDER IN THE MELCHEZIDEK PRIESTHOOD (her spelling, so beware they may have just been confused), they appeared before him, standing on the ground, with this hazy rainbow light show shining all about them.  They introduced themselves to him and told him to kneel before the Big Cheese, or it could have been Big Daddy - it could have been Flying Spaghetti Being of Light and Truth - this point also wasn't clear.  Anyway, they told him that he needed to get his lazy butt in gear and straighten a few things out pronto.  

He took his ice cream and used it as ink while he wrote their message on the just so he wouldn't forget it.  

He then called the first two counselors over to recount the story and let them read the message he was given, but by the time they arrived the ice cream message was gone and all that was left was the carton of ice cream.  What they did find was a chocolate chip cookie that had a message clearly visible that summarized Monson's story word for word.  Of course, Monson ate it like an absent-minded silly man, but only after his two counselors had read the vital message for the leaders.  It was released to the world's leaders and that is the story.  Just sayin what I read on the internet and it had to be true.  

 

[Tacenda]

11 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

That is not the story I heard.  I heard that President Monson, while eating his nightly bowl of Ben & Jerry's ice cream - chunky monkey if you must know - he fell on his head.  In this dazed moment he was visited by people from the sun, but it could have been the people from the moon, it just was not clear, but they built this time machine that allows them to transport themselves from moment to moment around the universe and God just needed someone like that to take the load off, but I digress.  Anyway, these two men and two women who held the priesthood because it clearly said above their heads in blinking letters - I AM AN ELDER IN THE MELCHEZIDEK PRIESTHOOD (her spelling, so beware they may have just been confused), they appeared before him, standing on the ground, with this hazy rainbow light show shining all about them.  They introduced themselves to him and told him to kneel before the Big Cheese, or it could have been Big Daddy - it could have been Flying Spaghetti Being of Light and Truth - this point also wasn't clear.  Anyway, they told him that he needed to get his lazy butt in gear and straighten a few things out pronto.  

He took his ice cream and used it as ink while he wrote their message on the just so he wouldn't forget it.  

He then called the first two counselors over to recount the story and let them read the message he was given, but by the time they arrived the ice cream message was gone and all that was left was the carton of ice cream.  What they did find was a chocolate chip cookie that had a message clearly visible that summarized Monson's story word for word.  Of course, Monson ate it like an absent-minded silly man, but only after his two counselors had read the vital message for the leaders.  It was released to the world's leaders and that is the story.  Just sayin what I read on the internet and it had to be true.  

 

Got any references for this Storm Rider?  This just looks fishy.

[Duncan]

Apostles and other brethren being surprised by announcements isn't new by any stretch but this seems like codswallop to me

[consiglieri]

It is unfortunate that the Church opens the door to such behind-the-scenes speculation by not being open and up front about the real reasoning behind the new policy.

But at least this story provides a reason as to why this whole policy-gate was handled so ham-fistedly.

One would hope that if given sufficient advance warning, this kind of thing would not have happened the way it did.

One would hope so.

But I am not necessarily convinced the Church would have handled it any differently, even if given all the time in the world to plan it.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So...no comment because you must not believe anything on the internet...must not believe anything on the internet...must not believe anything on the internet?

Or maybe you Muss believe everything you read on the internet, even if it is undocumented hokum.

We have covered all this ground already here on this board, without adding the wild gossip which R. B. Scott seeks to add.  I read his entire article carefully, and (aside from reasonable comments on the nature of the ban on African-American priesthood) find very little of substance in it.  It fairly reeks of yellow journalism.

[mnn727]

Quote

or if he approved it in a "fleeting lucid moment" 

 

What a crock -- at last conference while physically he looked tired, he was very mentally lucid.

That alone is enough to discredit the entire article.

[Zakuska]

I remember President Hinkley's final public address given at the Utah State Capital rededication.  I was greatly taken aback by how quickly he deteriorated.  He kept struggling to find the words. 

[smac97]

4 hours ago, ksfisher said:

The article barely rises to the level of gossip.

There are some rather serious problems with the narrative, its gossipy nature aside:

1. According to the OP, the new policy was presented to, and accepted by, the Quorum of the Twelve, and also that the policy was then distributed to the local leaders in the Church without being reviewed by the Correlation Committee ("Two days later it was broadcast privately to regional and local leaders of the church. Both sources confirmed that the addendum, as written, circumvented customary vetting by church’s persnickety correlation committee.").  The odd thing is that the Correlation Committee is headed by . . . two apostles.  So the same apostles who approved the changes to the CHI did not facilitate the review of those changed by the Correlation Committee which they head?

2. Moreoever, the changes to the CHI are rather profound.  And if they originated with Pres. Monson and were sustained/endorsed by the other members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve apostles, then what role would the Correlation Committee have in reviewing the changes?  It's not like the Committee has some sort of veto power over decisions made by the highest quorums in the Church.

3. To the extent the Correlation Committee would have had a part in the promulgation of the changes to the CHI, it would seem that role would pertain to cleaning up or otherwise streamlining the precise verbiage so that it fits the tone and content of the other parts of the CHI.  And the Committee could have also been involved in figuring out precisely where in the CHI to insert the changes.  And I think it would go without saying that once all these things are finalized, and the revisions to the CHI are ready for distribution, they would again be reviewed and approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.  The Committee is there to facilitate the actions of the First Presidency and the Twelve.  It is not the final word.

4. The changes to the OP were distributed in a form that has clear, precise verbiage.  And the revised/added text was either either inserted into pre-existing subsections in the CHI, or else new subsections were created for new provisions.  Somehow I doubt that President Monson sat down and drafted the precise language we now have in the CHI, and then also rifled through the CHI and identified the specific subsections to be revised or created to reflect the new policy.  I also don't think the Quorum of the Twelve, during their "regular Tuesday meeting", would have hashed all of that out either.  And yet the local church leaders received paper copies of the changes/additions to the CHI which plainly show that someone went through all that work.  But if it wasn't the First Presidency or the Quorum of the Twelve, then who was it?  I think the answer is likely . . . the Correlation Committee.

5. The OP references a number of snide things in passing.  President Monson came up with the policy, but only in a "fleeting lucid moment".  There's not much reason to say this, and to say it in such a lurid way, unless of course the gossipmonger is hostile the Church and wants to put the Church in a negative light.  And to the extent he had help, it came from "church attorneys" and unidentified "staff members"?  Which attorneys?  My understanding is that the Church outsources legal work, primarily to Kirton & McConkie.  So it seems more than a bit misleading to describe them as employees ("church attorneys and other staff members"), unless of course the gossipmonger is hostile the Church and wants to put the Church in a negative light.  And suggesting that the policy change was a legal, rather than spiritual, decision also smacks of the gossipmonger being hostile the Church and wanting to put it in a negative light.  And who are these "staffers"?  Did they sit down and research the subsections in the CHI which were to be affected, and did they create the precise verbiage which was distributed to the local leaders in the Church?  Someone had to have done this, but why "church attorneys and other staff members"?

6. The article undermines itself.  The OP highlights the gossip that the policy change came from President Monson, but the article says that there is an alternative theory: "According to an official with routine access to members of the governing councils of the church, the new instructions were the brainchild of two senior apostles who used as a guide the church’s policy on baptizing children of parents practicing plural marriage found in the 2010 edition of the Handbook #1 for regional and local leaders of the church."  These theories are not complementary.  They contradict each other.

6. I know very little of R.B. Scott, except that he appears to be LDS.  But the article is so loaded with gossipy, inflammatory rhetoric it's hard to accept that:

"Mormon 'anti-LGBT' Policy Provokes Anger, Resignations and Questions"

==Characterizing the policy as "anti-LGBT" is inflammatory, inaccurate and offensive.

"According to an official with routine access to members of the governing councils of the church, the new instructions were the brainchild of two senior apostles who used as a guide the church’s policy on baptizing children of parents practicing plural marriage found in the 2010 edition of the Handbook #1 for regional and local leaders of the church. Although the source did not reveal the names of the apostles involved, it is reasonable to assume that one of them would have been Russell M. Nelson, 91, the president of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles and first in line to succeed Thomas S. Monson, the acutely ailing current president of the church."

=="It is reasonable to assume..."  What better way to dress up unadulterated gossip and speculation?

"Faithful critics say the diktat penalizes children for their parents’ choices, and endangers the well-being of young LGBT Mormons striving to reconcile their personal lives with profound commitments to their families, church and heritage."

==So Scott characterizes critics publicly finding fault with the Brethren as "faithful", and he then characterizes the Brethren as issuing a "diktat" ("a harsh, punitive settlement or decree imposed unilaterally on a defeated nation, political party, etc. ... any decree or authoritative statement").

"Procedural and doctrinal inconsistencies as well as the abrupt about-face it represents have not only prompted questions about the policy’s durability but resurrected festering concerns about the vigor and mental acuity of increasingly aged church leaders. Through the 1950s the average lifespan of presidents of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was around 80 years. As the average rose to more than 90 years, so too did the rate of dementia and the need for their counselors to run the church for increasingly longer periods of time."

==Note the passive voice.  Who is raising these "questions" and "festering concerns"?  R.B. Scott.  What are these questions about?  The "mental acuity" and "dementia" of the Brethren.

"The new imperative, officially an addendum to the 2010 handbook, instructs regional leaders..."

=="Imperative" is defined as "a command" and carries with it, like "diktat", imagery offensive and alien to the LDS worldview.  President Monson is not an emperor.  He does not preside by issuing "diktats" and "imperatives".  He presides by the sustaining vote of the Church, and with the assistance of counselors, the Quorum of the Twelve and other general and local authorities.

==The more I read the article, the more spite and evil speaking of the Lord's anointed I see in it.

"The new imperative ... may have the effect of discouraging contact between (children) and their LGBT parents."

==Sheer speculation at its worst.  Fearmongering.  This is reprehensible.

"When these new instructions are encorporated into the 2010 edition of Handbook (#1), that is now updated electronically in real time and is available online to authorized leaders, they will be reviewed finally by the demanding correlation committee, discussed thoroughly by the governing quorums of the church and aligned with church doctrines, teachings and related policies. Many hope that the process will dilute or eliminate altogether language that could be easily construed as mean-spirited attacks on the LGBT community generally and discourage local leaders from treating the rules as church doctrine. "

=="Many hope"?  Who are these "many"?  This is not journalism.  This is R.B. Scott dressing up his personal opinion.

=="Mean-spirited attacks on the LGBT community"?  Well, I will defer to Scott's expertise on all matters pertaining to "mean-spirited attacks".  Indeed, he appears to be an expert on the subject.

"A clarifying letter rushed out a week later from the First Presidency did little to mollify concerns. Engaged members continued to insist that the policy simply was unnecessary. Several adamantly insisted in public and to their local church leaders that they knew the policy was not from God. Through tears a young mother asked 'is this the church I love? It's just so mean.'"

==A journalist wrote this?

"Was it the last bitter hurrah from a passing generation that for more than a quarter century stridently opposed civil same sex marriage throughout the United States?"

==A journalist wrote this?

"James Picht, an economics and Russian professor at Louisiana Scholars College predicted a short life for the new edict. 'As a policy, it can change on a dime. And, I do expect it to change. Someone jumped ahead of himself. If I was as good a watcher of Temple Square as I am of the Kremlin, I'd be looking for changes in assignments as an indication of who's taking a beat-down. Even if this is a product of narrow legal thinking…it was clumsy, and someone will pay.'"

==Well, I'm glad we have an authoritative opinion and prediction from ... an economics and Russian professor at Louisiana Scholars College (and since his academic post is apparently being used to bolster his opinion on the subject, I'll note that this college has a grand total of 12 on its "academic staff").  He's apparently LDS.  And he's apparently comfortable publicly comparing prophets and apostles to the ex-KGB despot Vladimir Putin.

"An engaged high priest on the East Coast who once served as a missionary, and later in pivotal ward and stake leadership positions, hopes the policy is very short lived. His wife, an extraordinarily supportive non-member, delivered this wrenching challenge to him: 'How long are you going to stick with that hate-filled and prejudiced church? I will never join --not now--not ever,' she said. 'It is a very sad day,' he wrote. 'If they just admitted that they goofed...it would be way easier for all of us to move on.'"

==A journalist wrote this?

"On the opposite coast his former missionary companion, who has since served in similar regional and local leadership capacities, and counselled with all of the prophets and many apostles over the past 50 years, advised indelicately: 'After stepping in fresh ordure, it’s best to scrape it off your boots before it hardens.'"

==A journalist wrote this?  

==A Latter-day Saint publicly declaring the policy to be "ordure" ("dung; manure; excrement").  Sigh.

==The article is trash.  It is not journalism.  It is not fair.  It is slanted and slanderous.  It is mean-spirited.  It is full of invective and venom.  It vilifies and ridicules good and decent men.  It is a screed.  It is yellow.  It is ugly.

==I'll close with this prescient statement by Elder Oaks:

Quote

I have given the following counsel to Church members—those who have committed themselves by upraised hands to sustain their church leaders:

“Criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward Church authorities, general or local. Jude condemns those who ‘speak evil of dignities.’ (Jude 1:8.) Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true. As Elder George F. Richards, President of the Council of the Twelve, said in a conference address in April 1947,

“‘When we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause.’ (In Conference Report, Apr. 1947, p. 24.)” (Address to Church Educational System teachers, Aug. 16, 1985.)

There is nothing new about this counsel. Even though King Saul sought to kill him, David would not allow his companion to strike the king, saying, “for who can stretch forth his hand against the Lord’s anointed, and be guiltless?” (1 Sam. 26:9.) The prophet Isaiah denounced those who “make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate” (Isa. 29:21; see also 2 Ne. 27:32.) (Those who reproved in the gate in Isaiah’s time were the religious leaders.) This modern revelation from the Doctrine and Covenants is to the same effect:

“Cursed are all those that shall lift up the heel against mine anointed, saith the Lord, and cry they have sinned when they have not sinned before me, saith the Lord, but have done that which was meet in mine eyes, and which I commanded them.” (D&C 121:16.)

The counsel against speaking evil of Church leaders is not so much for the benefit of the leaders as it is for the spiritual well-being of members who are prone to murmur and find fault. The Church leaders I know are durable people. They made their way successfully in a world of unrestrained criticism before they received their current callings. They have no personal need for protection; they seek no personal immunities from criticism—constructive or destructive. They only seek to declare what they understand to be the word of the Lord to his people.

President David O. McKay said this about what he called “murmurers” and “faultfinders”:

“‘Speak not against the authorities.’ What does it mean? Be not a murmurer; that is what it means. It is one of the most poisonous things that can be introduced into the home of a Latter-day Saint—this murmuring against presidents of stakes, high councilors, Sunday School superintendents, etc. …

“Better stop murmuring and build. Remember that one of the worst means of tearing down an individual is slander. It is one of the most poisonous weapons that the evil one uses. Backbiting and evil speaking throw us into the class of malefactors rather than the class of benefactors.” (Gospel Ideals, Salt Lake City: Improvement Era, 1953, pp. 142–43.)

President McKay’s teaching against speaking evil of others is a principle of Christian behavior that applies to all people. But his companion counsel against “murmuring” is a teaching that applies uniquely to Church members and Church leaders.

Government or corporate officials, who are elected directly or indirectly or appointed by majority vote, must expect that their performance will be subject to critical and public evaluations by their constituents. That is part of the process of informing those who have the right and power of selection or removal. The same is true of popularly elected officers in professional, community, and other private organizations. I suppose that the same is true even of church leaders who are selected by popular vote of members or their representative bodies. Consistent with gospel standards, these evaluations—though critical and public—should be constructive.

A different principle applies in our Church, where the selection of leaders is based on revelation, subject to the sustaining vote of the membership. In our system of Church government, evil speaking and criticism of leaders by members is always negative. Whether the criticism is true or not, as Elder George F. Richards explained, it tends to impair the leaders’ influence and usefulness, thus working against the Lord and his cause. (In Conference Report, Apr. 1947, p. 24, quoted above.)

The prophet Moses expressed another reason we should refrain from criticizing Church leaders. On one occasion, the whole congregation of the children of Israel became dissatisfied and “murmured against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness.” (Ex. 16:2.)

“What are we, that ye murmur against us?” Moses asked them. “The Lord heareth your murmurings which ye murmur against him: and what are we? your murmurings are not against us, but against the Lord.” (Ex. 16:7–8.) Similarly, when the children of Israel ignored the prophet Samuel’s inspired warnings and begged him to appoint a king to rule over them, the Lord directed him to do as they asked, explaining: “They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me.” (1 Sam. 8:7.)

In these two instances, the Bible teaches that rejection of or murmuring against the counsel of the Lord’s servants amounts to actions against the Lord himself. How could it be otherwise? The Lord acts through his servants. That is the pattern he has established to safeguard our agency in mortality. His servants are not perfect, which is another consequence of mortality. But if we murmur against the Lord’s servants, we are working against the Lord and his cause and will soon find ourselves without the companionship of his Spirit.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 23, 2015 by smac97

[VideoGameJunkie]

I know the author of the article personally, Ron Scott. He was in the bishopric of my ward and was always bringing up liberal politics when he spoke. His 2 daughters who I had crushes on are the same. 1 went inactive after being baptized and the other daughter served a mission but is very outspoken against the new policy on facebook. In fact the author was inactive for awhile with his whole family before reactivating. But politics and policy aside I love the authors family.

[JLHPROF]

 

Quote

A second similarly-connected source insisted that the policy came from Monson himself, with assistance from church attorneys and other staff members.

Both reports maintain that in a fleeting lucid moment the 88-year-old Monson approved the policy, an endorsement that was immediately supported by his counselors. Most of the remaining apostles were surprised when the new policy was introduced for the first time to them at their regular Tuesday meeting, where they too obligingly sustained it.

 

So President Monson set a policy which the Apostles were asked to sustain and that came as a surprise to them.  And the problem is?

Isn't that President Monson's role?

• D&C 43:3 And this ye shall know assuredly—that there is none other appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations until he be taken, if he abide in me.

 

As for the lack of Correlation...who cares.

Edited December 23, 2015 by JLHPROF

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

 

So President Monson set a policy which the Apostles were asked to sustain and that came as a surprise to them.  And the problem is?

Isn't that President Monson's role?

• D&C 43:3 And this ye shall know assuredly—that there is none other appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations until he be taken, if he abide in me.

 

As for the lack of Correlation...who cares.

The article is intending to portray the Brethren as a bunch of uninspired, scheming, conniving manipulators.  Circumventing the Correlation Committee would seemingly bolster the narrative of the Brethren being factionalized and using underhanded means to foist their personal preferences on the body of the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The article is intending to portray the Brethren as a bunch of uninspired, scheming, conniving manipulators.  Circumventing the Correlation Committee would seemingly bolster the narrative of the Brethren being factionalized and using underhanded means to foist their personal preferences on the body of the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Only if we see the Church as factionalized.  Correlation is designed to protect against strange doctrines keeping in.  It is not designed to vet instructions from the prophet.  I understand the purpose of correlation, but I am not a fan.  I think it has done more harm than good in the long run.  The very idea of correlation would have made the first few presidents of the Church laugh out loud.

[TheSkepticChristian]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So...no comment because you must not believe anything on the internet...must not believe anything on the internet...must not believe anything on the internet?

 

 

the burden of proof falls you. 

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Only if we see the Church as factionalized.  Correlation is designed to protect against strange doctrines keeping in.  It is not designed to vet instructions from the prophet.  I understand the purpose of correlation, but I am not a fan.  I think it has done more harm than good in the long run.  The very idea of correlation would have made the first few presidents of the Church laugh out loud.

I'm not sure such "vetting" is going on.  There is speculation to that effect is all.

And regarding rumors about "factions" amongst the Brethren . . . I'm not buying 'em.  See here ("Michael R. Otterson, the managing director of LDS Public Affairs, spoke at the FairMormon Conference to respond to criticism on a wide range of topics August 7, 2015 . . . 'There are no factions among the Twelve.' There is no 'Packer- faction' and no 'Oaks-faction.' 'Unless the Brethren are united on an issue, the issue doesn’t move forward.'").

Thanks,

-Smac

[Zakuska]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure such "vetting" is going on.  There is speculation to that effect is all.

And regarding rumors about "factions" amongst the Brethren . . . I'm not buying 'em.  See here ("Michael R. Otterson, the managing director of LDS Public Affairs, spoke at the FairMormon Conference to respond to criticism on a wide range of topics August 7, 2015 . . . 'There are no factions among the Twelve.' There is no 'Packer- faction' and no 'Oaks-faction.' 'Unless the Brethren are united on an issue, the issue doesn’t move forward.'").

Thanks,

-Smac

There have been factions in the twelve since the time Christ himself called twelve men from Israel into his leadership.

Look how many times the Apostles in the Bible "argued" about doctrine and practice,and even mundain daily tasks.  The Peter (judeizers) and Paul (Gentiliers) factions continues to this very day.  (Gal 2:11)

Edited December 23, 2015 by Zakuska

[Russell C McGregor]

4 hours ago, ksfisher said:

The article barely rises to the level of gossip.

QFT.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Zakuska said:

I remember President Hinkley's final public address given at the Utah State Capital rededication.  I was greatly taken aback by how quickly he deteriorated.  He kept struggling to find the words. 

I was there on that occasion as well, and this strikes me as exaggeration.

While he was showing signs of age (he died very soon after that) I didn't get the sense of alarming deterioration.

[JLHPROF]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure such "vetting" is going on.  There is speculation to that effect is all.

And regarding rumors about "factions" amongst the Brethren . . . I'm not buying 'em.  See here ("Michael R. Otterson, the managing director of LDS Public Affairs, spoke at the FairMormon Conference to respond to criticism on a wide range of topics August 7, 2015 . . . 'There are no factions among the Twelve.' There is no 'Packer- faction' and no 'Oaks-faction.' 'Unless the Brethren are united on an issue, the issue doesn’t move forward.'").

Thanks,

-Smac

Fair enough.  I'm just saying I don't see any issue with the OP if it even is true.  All I see there is the prophet delivering instruction and the other GA's agreeing to sustain it.  Sometimes that happens instead of the GA's discussing an issue and deciding together.  That's not a problem.

[Scott Lloyd]

32 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Only if we see the Church as factionalized.  Correlation is designed to protect against strange doctrines keeping in.  It is not designed to vet instructions from the prophet.  I understand the purpose of correlation, but I am not a fan.  I think it has done more harm than good in the long run.  The very idea of correlation would have made the first few presidents of the Church laugh out loud.

I think that notion is your own unsubstantiated invention.

 

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think that notion is your own unsubstantiated invention.

 

I was sure you would.

Joseph frequently pronounced revelation from the pulpit and it was approved by no other GA.

Brigham and Orson went head to head on several of Brigham's revelations.

John Taylor was in hiding for much of the 1880s yet presumably was being led by the Lord in leading the Church.

Correlation would have been a foreign concept to them, at least as far as on doctrinal issues.  Even getting united approval from the GA's was preferred, not required.