Radio West- Policy

[HappyJackWagon]

On Radio West yesterday, the topic was the November 2015 policy and how it came to be. http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/story-mormon-lgbt-policy Today they are airing a 2nd episode about the effects of the policy. I want to focus on one tidbit from the discussion on yesterdays podcast (I haven't listened to todays yet).

Gregory Prince made the statement that since SSM was legalized the brethren had been considering options about how to address the issue but that no consensus had been reached. The final process of presenting and approving the policy didn't follow the standard protocol. Specifically, it was stated that Elder Nelson spoke with Pres. Monson about the possible policy while Pres. Uchtdorf was out of the country and that the next day the policy was presented to the Q12 as a finalized policy. It was suggested that another "key" apostle was also out of the country and was upset about not being a part of the discussion on the policy. I've heard it suggested that Elder Holland is the other apostle who was out of the country at the time (I believe in the middle east). The next day the policy change was updated on the handbook website and the rest is history.

So it is being claimed that the process from a specific policy proposal-acceptance-publication all happened within a couple of days with two key apostles absent from the proceedings and at least one of them was upset about being excluded from the discussion. I would also note that there were three new apostles at the time, all of whom had been in their position for less than a month.

My questions are these:

1- Does it matter that a key apostle and a member of the 1st Presidency were absent for the very quick, presentation and acceptance of a policy of this magnitude before publishing the policy?

2- Is there a way to verify if these apostles were out of the country at the time and not a part of the deliberations?

 

[bluebell]

Does Prince gives references for how he knows all of this information?

[Duncan]

Pres. Uchtdorf was dedicating the Tijuana Mexico in Dec. 2015, they had the open house in Nov. Elder Bednar was in Africa for two days at the beginning of Nov. 2015. Elder Christofferson was in Hawaii Nov. 1. If Pres. Uchtdorf was out of town at the beginning of Nov. I can't find a record of it.

Elder Holland was in the Middle East in 2015,but Nov. 6 and onwards

https://www.lds.org/church/news/we-can-find-peace-elder-holland-says-during-visit-to-middle-east?lang=eng

 

 

I would imagine that something like this not being discussed with everyone present would breed resentment, if someone was upset wouldn't they be resentful or feel unimportant to things? like what they say their contribution to the whole would be ? 

Edited November 3, 2016 by Duncan

[JLHPROF]

I think it matters very much in the Church structure today (assuming it is true).

However, President Monson is the Lord's mouthpiece.  He doesn't need their permission even if tradition dictates he consult them in council.

That would explain the slight pullback on the policy's origins we've discussed lately.

[HappyJackWagon]

39 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I think it matters very much in the Church structure today (assuming it is true).

However, President Monson is the Lord's mouthpiece.  He doesn't need their permission even if tradition dictates he consult them in council.

That would explain the slight pullback on the policy's origins we've discussed lately.

I get what you're saying, but it seems that church leaders have made a specific point in the past few years to state that unanimity in the highest quorums is necessary and that we can have confidence in actions taken because we are led by unanimity of prophets and apostles. This case is made specifically because of Pres. Monson's health. The church acknowledges that he is experiencing the effects of old age, which many believe includes dementia.

IF Pres. Monson truly has dementia, doesn't that level of trust in the prophet deteriorate a little bit? Isn't that why the church is focusing on teaching unanimity as a protection?

So IF Pres. Monson is experiencing problems with dementia I think it is reasonable to think that he leans heavily on his counselors in the first presidency. If one of those counselors is out of pocket and Pres. Monson is approached by Elder Nelson with a specific policy proposal that is then immediately presented to the quorum while Uchtdorf is still away, and possibly Holland as well, wouldn't that be troublesome.

I understand there are a lot of IF's in there but this seems like a plausible scenario based on Greg Prince's sources. I have found Prince to be a responsible and thorough researcher so I'm not inclined to dismiss his claims.

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I get what you're saying, but it seems that church leaders have made a specific point in the past few years to state that unanimity in the highest quorums is necessary and that we can have confidence in actions taken because we are led by unanimity of prophets and apostles. This case is made specifically because of Pres. Monson's health. The church acknowledges that he is experiencing the effects of old age, which many believe includes dementia.

IF Pres. Monson truly has dementia, doesn't that level of trust in the prophet deteriorate a little bit? Isn't that why the church is focusing on teaching unanimity as a protection?

So IF Pres. Monson is experiencing problems with dementia I think it is reasonable to think that he leans heavily on his counselors in the first presidency. If one of those counselors is out of pocket and Pres. Monson is approached by Elder Nelson with a specific policy proposal that is then immediately presented to the quorum while Uchtdorf is still away, and possibly Holland as well, wouldn't that be troublesome.

I understand there are a lot of IF's in there but this seems like a plausible scenario based on Greg Prince's sources. I have found Prince to be a responsible and thorough researcher so I'm not inclined to dismiss his claims.

My opinion on "prophetic dementia" is that is can affect when the prophet is speaking, but if the Lord chooses to speak through him he will have all the clarity he needs.

There have been some experiences in my life where I have seen the difference, someone who has lost their clarity day to day who has received absolute spiritual influence when giving a talk or blessing to strengthen them.

[Calm]

Before discussing it, I would like to see evidence that it occurred this way.

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

My opinion on "prophetic dementia" is that is can affect when the prophet is speaking, but if the Lord chooses to speak through him he will have all the clarity he needs.

There have been some experiences in my life where I have seen the difference, someone who has lost their clarity day to day who has received absolute spiritual influence when giving a talk or blessing to strengthen them.

I agree. For a short time I volunteered in an Alzheimer's group home and could see that individuals had good days where they were aware and cogent and others where they weren't. They couldn't tell the difference and sometimes it was hard for me to tell as well.

So the question is, IF the prophet has some level of dementia, how can we have confidence that a prophetic proclamation is from God and not his dementia? In my mind I would think that I would need to judge based on the circumstance and the fruit of what was said or done. Of course different people with different sensibilities will judge those fruits differently.

In any case, there are a whole lot of questions about the way this policy was presented, approved, and published, as well as legitimate questions about Pres. Monson's role based on his state of mind.

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Before discussing it, I would like to see evidence that it occurred this way.

Evidence? From where?

The prophet, who we are told received the revelation, hasn't even mentioned it. We've waited a year and official sources haven't given us any information.

Members of the quorum of 12 and first presidency aren't going to say anything in opposition to Pres. Nelson's claim that it was prophesy. So if the leaders who were involved won't say anything publicly, all we have are unnamed background sources. But again, I think there is a significant difference in believing someone like Greg Prince when he says he has a source, versus someone like the Tanners. Unless I'm mistaken Prince is generally considered to be credible.

Edited November 3, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Evidence? From where?

The prophet, who we are told received the revelation, hasn't even mentioned it. We've waited a year and official sources haven't given us any information.

Members of the quorum of 12 and first presidency aren't going to say anything in opposition to Pres. Nelson's claim that it was prophesy. So if the leaders who were involved won't say anything publicly, all we have are unnamed background sources. But again, I think there is a significant difference in believing someone like Greg Prince when he says he has a source, versus someone like the Tanners. Unless I'm mistaken Prince is generally considered to be credible.

Even though that's all true, it's still hard to really have a discussion on something that is only hearsay.  I mean, how can we really talk about something that has, as you've said above, no evidence supporting it?

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Evidence? From where?

The prophet, who we are told received the revelation, hasn't even mentioned it. We've waited a year and official sources haven't given us any information.

Members of the quorum of 12 and first presidency aren't going to say anything in opposition to Pres. Nelson's claim that it was prophesy. So if the leaders who were involved won't say anything publicly, all we have are unnamed background sources. But again, I think there is a significant difference in believing someone like Greg Prince when he says he has a source, versus someone like the Tanners. Unless I'm mistaken Prince is generally considered to be credible.

For something this significant, I think relying on someone's reputation without even knowing how he got the info is inappropriate.

[Mystery Meat]

I can verify that this isn't how it happened.

[djf1981]

That's very interesting. I have often wondered what led them to decide to instate that policy. When I heard about that policy back in November, it absolutely gutted me inside out. It just felt so unnecessary and hurtful, like they were purposely trying to hurt gay people in the church. 

[djf1981]

To continue my thought... For such a sensitive and serious issue for so many people in the church, I just couldn't believe they couldn't come up with an alternative compromise that wouldn't drive gay people out of the church. I thought the whole point in recent years was to make gays feel included and loved. This did nothing but make gays feel like they had no place whatsoever in the church, at least that's what it did for me.

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

My questions are these:

1- Does it matter that a key apostle and a member of the 1st Presidency were absent for the very quick, presentation and acceptance of a policy of this magnitude before publishing the policy?

2- Is there a way to verify if these apostles were out of the country at the time and not a part of the deliberations?

 

My answers:

1 - Yes (assuming Prince is correct).

2- Someone can verify it but I don't know that they ever will.

 

The podcast is really good and I highly recommend it.  I'm looking forward to listening to part 2 this evening.

One thing that caught my attention is that Prince believed that Christofferson was not happy about having to go on camera to explain the policy (after it was published without involving PA).  Prince recommended watching the Christofferson/Otterson interview with the volume muted and just observing Christofferson's body language.  I haven't tried doing that yet.

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

I can verify that this isn't how it happened.

Do you have something to share or is it just your word against Prince/Wilcox?

[Mystery Meat]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

Do you have something to share or is it just your word against Prince/Wilcox?

I will provide my source when Prince provides his.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

I will provide my source when Prince provides his.

Okay... so it's all hearsay:  from you, from Prince, from Wilcox.

[Mystery Meat]

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Okay... so it's all hearsay:  from you, from Prince, from Wilcox.

Yup.

[Mystery Meat]

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Okay... so it's all hearsay:  from you, from Prince, from Wilcox.

But you can (and probably will) believe Prince because it supports the desperate view you cling to.

[rongo]

We all know exactly what Greg Prince thinks about the policy. We also agree that he is never going to name sources for his claim (whether he has any, or is just speculating). 

Does his strong disapproval of the policy have any bearing on his claim on the radio that an end-run was done around dissenting apostles to ramrod the policy through, like Congressional shenanigans?

To me, it does. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

39 minutes ago, rockpond said:

One thing that caught my attention is that Prince believed that Christofferson was not happy about having to go on camera to explain the policy (after it was published without involving PA).  Prince recommended watching the Christofferson/Otterson interview with the volume muted and just observing Christofferson's body language.  I haven't tried doing that yet.

I just did it, and Prince is right. Watch closely and you'll notice that Elder Christofferson's eye blinks are Morse code: 'I'm being held against my will. I don't believe anything I'm saying. Keep the hope alive'. Fascinating!

Edited November 3, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

But you can (and probably will) believe Prince because it supports the desperate view you cling to.

You'll note that I can discuss other's points of view without needing to insert derogatory adjectives.

What I find more compelling about Prince is that he isn't an anonymous "Mystery Meat" on a message board and that he provided more detail regarding his comments than you have for yours.

That said, as I very clearly stated, it is all hearsay.  I haven't tried to dodge that in the least.

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, rongo said:

We all know exactly what Greg Prince thinks about the policy. We also agree that he is never going to name sources for his claim (whether he has any, or is just speculating). 

Does his strong disapproval of the policy have any bearing on his claim on the radio that an end-run was done around dissenting apostles to ramrod the policy through, like Congressional shenanigans?

To me, it does. 

That's actually not what he said.  You have misrepresented him in the above post.

[rongo]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

That's actually not what he said.  You have misrepresented him in the above post.

I'm not basing that on simply his Radio West interview. He has discussed this elsewhere, and good as he is, his outlook colors his works, including his biography of President McKay. 

In this case, I strongly believe he is speculating without evidence in a "non-CFR-able" way.