His opinion becomes my opinion

[maxrep12]

Elder Sybrowsky:

 "His opinion immediately becomes my opinion.... Isn't that the way of the gospel? Don't we all have opinions? Until those whom we sustain have a different opinion? And when they have a different opinion, their opinions become our opinions."

 

Start at the 27min mark. More evidence that the thinking has been done?

 

 

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, maxrep12 said:

Elder Sybrowsky:

 "His opinion immediately becomes my opinion.... Isn't that the way of the gospel? Don't we all have opinions? Until those whom we sustain have a different opinion? And when they have a different opinion, their opinions become our opinions."

 

Start at the 27min mark. More evidence that the thinking has been done?

 

 

This is concerning...

[Duncan]

But don't they counsel together, as evidenced by the fact of these videos, to come together with everyone's opinions to "study it out" and then go to the Lord to get his opinion and when they get the revelation they give it to us?

[JLHPROF]

o·pin·ion

noun

• a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
• the beliefs or views of a large number or majority of people about a particular thing.
• an estimation of the quality or worth of someone or something.

Opinions, since they don't have to come from fact or knowledge, really don't matter as far as truth is concerned.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

Within the past year my bishop has asserted the same kind of "doctrine". Paraphrasing, he stated that since we sustained him when he was called and are therefore bound to his leadership, when he proposes a project, activity, goal, whatever, we should act on it as though it was our own idea. To him it wasn't even enough to sustain him in his proposal but we needed to actually view it as though it was our own will.

I find that kind of blind obedience to be troubling. It's basically a repackage of the "when the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done." Placing that level of trust in fallible men (or women) and abdicating our own reason and conscience is a dangerous act.

[JLHPROF]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I find that kind of blind obedience to be troubling. It's basically a repackage of the "when the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done." Placing that level of trust in fallible men (or women) and abdicating our own reason and conscience is a dangerous act.

Leaving all personal feelings aside for a moment, this is one of the most tricky principles to understand and apply correctly.

I can show you quotes and examples for both "finding out for ourselves" AND "following our leader's judgment".
I don't know if we'll ever find out in mortality how exactly to find the correct middle ground.
Too far one way and you give up your agency and ability to learn and progress.
Too far the other and you are fast on your way to apostasy.

[maxrep12]

32 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

o·pin·ion

noun

• a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
• the beliefs or views of a large number or majority of people about a particular thing.
• an estimation of the quality or worth of someone or something.

Opinions, since they don't have to come from fact or knowledge, really don't matter as far as truth is concerned.

 

I'm not sure your posting the definition of the word opinion was at all necessary. To me, you are simply circumventing the topic by doing so.

As area president, Elder Sybrowsky was addressing over one hundred missionaries when he told them to adopt the opinions of their leaders.

If, as you say, opinions don't matter, why the need to supress alternate opinions?

Edited October 6, 2016 by maxrep12
Looks like I was typing during your 2nd post. Noted

[rpn]

I watched that video and I was astounded.   And it very much contradicted what the same guy said later when explaining what happened in a personnel change.    Adopting another's opinion?   Another's belief or direction, if based on inspiration, yes.  I'd get that.

But not opinions.  And not ideas.   Inspired thoughts are not the sole purview of church leaders, or bosses.   And inspired thoughts are felt, heard, had the same by everyone with stewardship.

Another reason I was concerned about what was said was that when I've been moving in an incorrect direction, God has sometimes inspired others to challenge my thinking, and that challenge was required to get me back in tune.    My decisions would have held great error in the absence of that nudge, which would be impossible if everyone adopted the suggested approach.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Leaving all personal feelings aside for a moment, this is one of the most tricky principles to understand and apply correctly.

I can show you quotes and examples for both "finding out for ourselves" AND "following our leader's judgment".
I don't know if we'll ever find out in mortality how exactly to find the correct middle ground.
Too far one way and you give up your agency and ability to learn and progress.
Too far the other and you are fast on your way to apostasy.

I agree completely which is why every individual should make the decision for themselves without undue pressure being placed on them to follow the authority because the authority said so.

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree completely which is why every individual should make the decision for themselves without undue pressure being placed on them to follow the authority because the authority said so.

But lean too far in that direction and you run the risk of apostasy.  Lucifer made his decision for himself (literally) and refused to follow the authority because the authority said so/decreed.
And look where he landed.

It's almost too easy to argue either side from scripture and the prophets.  Which is what makes the doctrine tricky.

Edited October 6, 2016 by JLHPROF

[HappyJackWagon]

24 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

But lean too far in that direction and you run the risk of apostasy.  Lucifer made his decision for himself (literally) and refused to follow the authority because the authority said so/decreed.
And look where he landed.

It's almost too easy to argue either side from scripture and the prophets.  Which is what makes the doctrine tricky.

Which is why I qualified my statement by mentioning undue pressure.

Quote

D&C 121:37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

 41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

I think God and Jesus would have followed the principles of verse 41 and not made the mistakes of verse 37

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, maxrep12 said:

Elder Sybrowsky:

 "His opinion immediately becomes my opinion.... Isn't that the way of the gospel? Don't we all have opinions? Until those whom we sustain have a different opinion? And when they have a different opinion, their opinions become our opinions."

Start at the 27min mark. More evidence that the thinking has been done?

What year is this? He was in the 2nd Quorum of Seventy from 2005 -2001 and died in 2014. In any case, it doesn't seem to qualify as "more" evidence of a global phenomenon; considering the longevity of this topic, good evidence would call for more (even the most) recent examples.

[hagoth7]

This thread kinda reminds me of these 2 things:

1) https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/ruth/1.16?lang=eng#15

and:

2) 

 

There are times when it's appropriate to accept another's opinions/beliefs.

And there's a time to clearly know who you are and what's important to you.

The two don't always have to collide. 

Edited October 6, 2016 by hagoth7

[stemelbow]

what a terrible thing to say to missionaries. 

[Gray]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Within the past year my bishop has asserted the same kind of "doctrine". Paraphrasing, he stated that since we sustained him when he was called and are therefore bound to his leadership, when he proposes a project, activity, goal, whatever, we should act on it as though it was our own idea. To him it wasn't even enough to sustain him in his proposal but we needed to actually view it as though it was our own will.

I find that kind of blind obedience to be troubling. It's basically a repackage of the "when the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done." Placing that level of trust in fallible men (or women) and abdicating our own reason and conscience is a dangerous act.

More than dangerous, it also negatively impacts spiritual growth and maturity. 

[mrmarklin]

2 hours ago, maxrep12 said:

I'm not sure your posting the definition of the word opinion was at all necessary. To me, you are simply circumventing the topic by doing so.

As area president, Elder Sybrowsky was addressing over one hundred missionaries when he told them to adopt the opinions of their leaders.

If, as you say, opinions don't matter, why the need to supress alternate opinions?

Context is important.

 

Obviously in speaking to the missionaries his opinions are essentially the equivalent to orders to the troops.  As team members, when the leader makes a decision, everyone should follow even if their opinion differs.

He's not speaking to the general membership here.  Please move on--nothing to see here.

[Duncan]

3 hours ago, maxrep12 said:

I'm not sure your posting the definition of the word opinion was at all necessary. To me, you are simply circumventing the topic by doing so.

As area president, Elder Sybrowsky was addressing over one hundred missionaries when he told them to adopt the opinions of their leaders.

If, as you say, opinions don't matter, why the need to supress alternate opinions?

I know a guy who was in his Mission, not sure what he thought about him 

[Tacenda]

And thus the word sheeple comes to mind. I'm not saying it's a common thing, but may be the root. 

Edited October 6, 2016 by Tacenda

[strappinglad]

I wonder what opinions he was referring to. Was it how many baptisms each pair should be having each week? How many lessons should be given? Or was it they should be praying at least 3 times a day? Maybe it was that they should not be alone in the company of the opposite sex.

 On my mission, there was mostly a routine to be followed. I suppose I could have had an opinion about which area we would tract or which investigator to see , but mostly opinions were restricted to where to have lunch. Was I allowed to have an opinion about whether or not to get a tattoo? Nope, all decided.

[The Nehor]

The context is about a deep and profound spiritual question. Apostles are there to help teach on deep and profound spiritual questions. He is deferring to an expert. If he was talking about political views on mandatory gay abortions or about the best hamburger joint in town I doubt he would insist we all have to go to Elder Scott's favorite restaurant.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, maxrep12 said:

 

[thatjimguy]

I have used a football story to explain this idea.

I think run the ball...the quarterback calls for a passing play.

Do I block like I want to? Or go out for the pass like I am told to?

It really doesn't work once the ball is thrown in the direction of where I should have been once the play starts.

 

Of course, I still could have been right, but it wasn't my play to call at the time.

However, I would still reserve the right to make my case about it...which is the only thing lacking that you can't do in this church without problems.

Edited October 7, 2016 by thatjimguy

[Robert F. Smith]

 

Quote

Elder Sybrowsky:

 "His opinion immediately becomes my opinion.... Isn't that the way of the gospel? Don't we all have opinions? Until those whom we sustain have a different opinion? And when they have a different opinion, their opinions become our opinions."

Start at the 27min mark. More evidence that the thinking has been done?

You misquoted him, even though I think that he misspoke:  "our opinions become their opinions."  He makes his point to the assembled missionaries several times, and he is correct to think that they are under direct orders as to how they will conduct their mission activities.

Your major mistake is to believe that he is advising group think (which is just dumb) in all circumstances when a GA is speaking.  If he meant to apply that notion everywhere and at all times within the LDS Church, then of course he is wrong.  Just try to imagine Elder Jensen (whom he mentions herewith) advising all members of the LDS Historical Dept to have the same opinion he does on historical matters.  No professional historian could do that in good conscience, and Elder Jensen would be the first to decry such stupidity.  So your point is a very poor one, and does not justify the old "the thinking has been done" malarky.

Edited October 7, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Within the past year my bishop has asserted the same kind of "doctrine". Paraphrasing, he stated that since we sustained him when he was called and are therefore bound to his leadership, when he proposes a project, activity, goal, whatever, we should act on it as though it was our own idea. To him it wasn't even enough to sustain him in his proposal but we needed to actually view it as though it was our own will.

I find that kind of blind obedience to be troubling. It's basically a repackage of the "when the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done." Placing that level of trust in fallible men (or women) and abdicating our own reason and conscience is a dangerous act.

I take it that you let him know that he was off base, and that you would do him the favor of letting him know when he had overstepped his job/calling as bishop.  I am more than willing to sustain a bishop, not only by raising my hand, but also by taking assignments from time to time, etc.  No need to make him a tin horn dictator, however.

[Bernard Gui]

I like the football analogy.

Here's my music analogy. The conductor says to the orchestra, "At bar 232 the tempo will change from quarter note=120 to quarter note=84. 

The cellos think it should change to 76, the first violins want 72, the tympanist wants 144. The violists can't find bar 232. The bassists are out visiting the bar.

So everyone does what they want. 

The result is called cacaphony. 

At some point, the conductor's opinion must become everyone's opinion if they are to make beautiful music together. At some point the debate has to end and the music has to be played as the conductor wishes. 

The result is called symphony.