Radio West- Policy

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

They don't just claim consensus. They claim unanimity within the highest quorums.

From the October 2014 conference, Elder Nelson said...

According to Elder Nelson, unanimity is essential. So when it comes to a very controversial policy it seems reasonable to ask questions about the unanimity of the brethren. It seems reasonable to expect them to share details of how this worked. As it is now, only Elder Nelson has spoken, and it was in very vague terms.

I thought that there had been a statement like that.  So if unanimity among the 15 is important, why did they move forward with something as big as this with members absent?

[Scott Lloyd]

On 11/14/2016 at 8:39 AM, rockpond said:

Do you "dare say" that, Scott?  So bold.   Yes, obviously they needed the confirming witness, my comments didn't dismiss that.  But I should have been clear that I was speaking of the time leading up to November 2015).

I'm deriving a lack of consensus (prior to the Nov 3 meeting) based on the accounts of Prince and Wilcox.  I'll also add that your comments that I've quoted here seem to underscore the need for all 12 to be present.  Consensus does technically mean a majority but I always thought when we spoke of the Q12 we thought that all of them had to be in agreement to move forward on something.  Although, I think that the Prophet can certainly act without the 12.  

 

If you're cognizant of "a time leading up to November 2015," then obviously you are aware that this thing was not hammered out in merely one session with a couple of the Brethren out of town. Rather, it was apparently the subject of protracted discussion and careful deliberation over time.

And, notwithstanding the reports of non-primary sources, a lengthy discussion period is not necessarily indicative of disharmony. It may be simply an earnest desire to weigh the matter carefully, diligently considering all aspects of the decision, before presenting a proposed course of action to the Lord for ratification.

I look at it this way: Discussion in a council is the group form of "studying it out in your mind," which we are taught is an essential prelude to receiving revelation. If it is wrong, the group will never arrive at unified decision -- the group equivalent of the "stupor of thought" causing them to forget that which was wrong.

In this instance, apparently they as a group felt the proverbial burning in the bosom.

 

 

 

Edited December 15, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If your cognizant of "a time leading up to November 2015," then obviously you are aware that this thing was not hammered out in merely one session with a couple of the Brethren out of town. Rather, it was apparently the subject of protracted discussion and careful deliberation over time.

Yes, I've stated as much.  And that point was made by Prince and Wilcox.

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And, notwithstanding the reports of non-primary sources, a lengthy discussion period is not necessarily indicative of disharmony. It may be simply an earnest desire to weigh the matter carefully, diligently considering all aspects of the decision, before presenting a proposed course of action to the Lord for ratification.

Agreed.  Entirely possible.  As it's also possible that they couldn't come to consensus.  You acknowledge that, right?

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I look at it this way: Discussion in a council is the group form of "studying it out in your mind," which we are taught is an essential prelude to receiving revelation. If it is wrong, the group will never arrive at unified decision -- the group equivalent of the "stupor of thought" causing them to forget that which was wrong.

Agreed.  And also possibly what has happening over the years that they discussed it.

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In this instance, apparently they as a group felt the proverbial burning in the bosom.

We don't really know that.  It's a possibility.  But we only have Elder Nelson's vague account of it.  And we have reports that not all of the 15 were there.

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I thought that there had been a statement like that.  So if unanimity among the 15 is important, why did they move forward with something as big as this with members absent?

The most logical implication is that unanimity was either achieved by simple communication technology such as the phone or it was achieved prior to anyone leaving.

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

The most logical implication is that unanimity was either achieved by simple communication technology such as the phone or it was achieved prior to anyone leaving.

I don't know if that is the most logical.  And we have no reports of such.

I tend to think that the most logical is that the Prophet presented a policy and plan to move forward immediately and the apostles who were present agreed.

[Scott Lloyd]

42 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes, I've stated as much.  And that point was made by Prince and Wilcox.

Agreed.  Entirely possible.  As it's also possible that they couldn't come to consensus.  You acknowledge that, right?

Agreed.  And also possibly what has happening over the years that they discussed it.

We don't really know that.  It's a possibility.  But we only have Elder Nelson's vague account of it.  And we have reports that not all of the 15 were there.

President Nelson's account is explicit and powerful enough for me to have full faith and confidence in its veracity.

And you missed my point. Not all of them needed to be there at the very moment if they were parties to the lengthy discussion leading up to it and if they felt the confirmation of the Holy Spirit. We don't know but what they had already felt it independently of those who were meeting there that day.

 

Edited to add:

And furthermore, it occurs to me that having engaged in such lengthy and careful deliberation and such diligent seeking and receiving  of the will of the Lord in the matter, the Brethren were and are poised to withstand the bitter and hostile criticism that perhaps was inevitable with a decision of this nature.

 

 

Edited November 14, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

The most logical implication is that unanimity was either achieved by simple communication technology such as the phone or it was achieved prior to anyone leaving.

It is a safe bet that something like that happened.

Think back to the time when the 1978 revelation on the priesthood was received. Two members of the Twelve were not present on that occasion: Elders Delbert L. Stapley and Mark E. Petersen. Elder Stapley readily affirmed his agreement with it when the matter was brought to him as he lay in his hospital bed. And Elder Petersen, traveling on Church assignment at the time, also readily approved of it when he was reached.

Consider the fact that these two men years earlier had each made embarrassingly racist statements. Yet they were humble enough that the will of the Lord could change their hearts once it was made manifest to them.

Revelation from God can easily transcend the walls of a conference room if need be.

 

Edited November 15, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

The most logical implication is that unanimity was either achieved by simple communication technology such as the phone or it was achieved prior to anyone leaving.

Both of those possibilities require assumptions that they did what we think would be logical. But Elder Nelson never said either of those things happened. The truth is we don't know because no one has shared that information. Elder Nelson said...

Quote

The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles counsel together and share all the Lord has directed us to understand and to feel individually and collectively. And then we watch the Lord move upon the President of the Church to proclaim the Lord’s will.

This prophetic process was followed in 2012 with the change in minimum age for missionaries and again with the recent additions to the Church’s handbook, consequent to the legalization of same-sex marriage in some countries. Filled with compassion for all, and especially for the children, we wrestled at length to understand the Lord’s will in this matter. Ever mindful of God’s plan of salvation and of His hope for eternal life for each of His children, we considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise. We met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration. And then, when the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord, each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation. It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson. Revelation from the Lord to His servants is a sacred process, and so is your privilege of receiving personal revelation.

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

If you read this closely, it doesn't say there was unanimity before the policy was released, only that they had spiritual confirmation and were privileged to sustain the prophet (at some point in time). The policy was released in early November. This talk was given in late January. This "confirmation" and "sustaining" could have even occurred after the policy was released but before Elder Nelson gave his talk.

Sooooo many questions. "Wrestled" indicates a struggle and shows that perhaps there were different opinions on what should happen. They "considered" many options but it doesn't say anything was agreed upon or even that a final proposal had been made. They met repeatedly in the temple. I don't think anyone is arguing that but I think it's fair to ask who "we" is. Were the 3 brand new apostles also a part of the consideration of countless permutations? Were they part of the regular meetings in the temple on the subject? Maybe. I don't know. But it would seem that at best these considerations happened over a 1 month span or less.

 

Edited November 14, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

President Nelson's account is explicit and powerful enough for me to have full faith and confidence in its veracity.

And you missed my point. Not all of them needed to be there at the very moment if they were parties to the lengthy discussion leading up to it and if they felt the confirmation of the Holy Spirit. We don't know but what they had already felt it independently of those who were meeting there that day.

 

I didn't find President Nelson's account to be particularly explicit.  Even so, while it's possible that there was agreement prior to the Nov 3 meeting his account doesn't indicate such:  they wrestled, considered countless combinations and permutations, met repeatedly.  It wasn't until President Monson presented the policy that they felt the spiritual confirmation.

What Prince and Wilcox had to say aligns with what President Nelson had to say.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

I didn't find President Nelson's account to be particularly explicit.  Even so, while it's possible that there was agreement prior to the Nov 3 meeting his account doesn't indicate such:  they wrestled, considered countless combinations and permutations, met repeatedly.  It wasn't until President Monson presented the policy that they felt the spiritual confirmation.

What Prince and Wilcox had to say aligns with what President Nelson had to say.

Can you cite any instance where any member of the Twelve -- including those who allegedly were not present for the latter council meeting -- have since dissented from the November policy or have contradicted what President Nelson said about it being revelation from God?

And how do you know it wasn't until President Monson presented the policy that they felt spiritual confirmation? Maybe their hearts had been individually prepared for it even before then.

 

[CV75]

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1994/04/god-is-at-the-helm?lang=eng&_r=1

We have heard this testimony over and over again throughout the years. Why is it reasonable to assume this wasn't followed with the implementation of the "new" policy?

“And now I quote again from the word of the Lord: “And every decision made by either of these quorums must be by the unanimous voice of the same; that is, every member in each quorum must be agreed to its decisions, in order to make their decisions of the same power or validity one with the other” (D&C 107:27).

“No decision emanates from the deliberations of the First Presidency and the Twelve without total unanimity among all concerned. At the outset in considering matters, there may be differences of opinion. These are to be expected. These men come from different backgrounds. They are men who think for themselves. But before a final decision is reached, there comes a unanimity of mind and voice.

“This is to be expected if the revealed word of the Lord is followed. Again I quote from the revelation:

“The decisions of these quorums, or either of them, are to be made in all righteousness, in holiness, and lowliness of heart, meekness and long suffering, and in faith, and virtue, and knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness and charity;

“Because the promise is, if these things abound in them they shall not be unfruitful in the knowledge of the Lord” (D&C 107:30–31).

“I add by way of personal testimony that during the twenty years I served as a member of the Council of the Twelve and during the nearly thirteen years that I have served in the First Presidency, there has never been a major action taken where this procedure was not observed.”

 

[Jeanne]

There are just way too many maybes on this thread.  IMO . 

Edited November 14, 2016 by Jeanne

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Can you cite any instance where any member of the Twelve -- including those who allegedly were not present for the latter council meeting -- have since dissented from the November policy or have contradicted what President Nelson said about it being revelation from God?

Of course not.  Nor would I expect to.  Can you cite any member of the Twelve who has publicly spoken and confirmed what President Nelson has said?

 

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And how do you know it wasn't until President Monson presented the policy that they felt spiritual confirmation? Maybe their hearts had been individually prepared for it even before then.

I don't know... but it is what President Nelson said.

Edited November 14, 2016 by rockpond

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1994/04/god-is-at-the-helm?lang=eng&_r=1

We have heard this testimony over and over again throughout the years. Why is it reasonable to assume this wasn't followed with the implementation of the "new" policy?

We were discussing the fact that Prince and Wilcox indicated that, per their sources, not all of the 12 were present.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Both of those possibilities require assumptions that they did what we think would be logical. But Elder Nelson never said either of those things happened. The truth is we don't know because no one has shared that information. Elder Nelson said...

If you read this closely, it doesn't say there was unanimity before the policy was released, only that they had spiritual confirmation and were privileged to sustain the prophet (at some point in time). The policy was released in early November. This talk was given in late January. This "confirmation" and "sustaining" could have even occurred after the policy was released but before Elder Nelson gave his talk.

Sooooo many questions. "Wrestled" indicates a struggle and shows that perhaps there were different opinions on what should happen. They "considered" many options but it doesn't say anything was agreed upon or even that a final proposal had been made. They met repeatedly in the temple. I don't think anyone is arguing that but I think it's fair to ask who "we" is. Were the 3 brand new apostles also a part of the consideration of countless permutations? Were they part of the regular meetings in the temple on the subject? Maybe. I don't know. But it would seem that at best these considerations happened over a 1 month span or less.

 

"Wrestled' doesn't indicate to me conflict or factionalism. Rather, in view of the context of President Nelson's statement, it indicates that they were aware of and talked through all the foreseeable and potential problems that might emerge, whatever course of action they decided to take. His use of the word "permutations" indicates to me that they discussed a number of hypothetical scenarios and what would need to be done to deal with them. Such a thing can be a difficult process, demanding whole-souled effort, similar to the struggle Enos had to obtain forgiveness of his sins when he used that same word "wrestle."

 

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

There are just way too many maybes on this thread.  IMO . 

The "maybes" I see are coming from those who doubt that President Nelson was telling the truth when he spoke of revelation coming to the apostles and prophets.

[bluebell]

Sincere question.  I haven't been following the thread very well so maybe this has already been addressed.  If so, i apologize.  

Is this issue coming from a "I don't believe the policy is revelation and that's why all of this is fishy to me and why i have doubts about how this all went down" angle, or is it a "even if it was a revelation claiming that SSM is o.k. with God, i would still find this whole process fishy and would still have doubts about the revelation because of how it all went down" angle?

I can't tell if this thread is about how the policy can't be revelation because God would never be behind it (and that's why there are questions on how it all went down), or if it's a thread about how it can't be revelation because it wasn't received or delivered in the correct manner (and that's why there are questions on how it all went down).

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

We were discussing the fact that Prince and Wilcox indicated that, per their sources, not all of the 12 were present.

I think you're reading too much into that report.

Talk about "maybes"!

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Of course not.  Nor would I expect to.  Can you cite any member of the Twelve who has publicly spoken and confirmed what President Nelson has said?

 

Why would you expect them to do that any more than you would expect one or more of them to contradict him?

 

Quote

I don't know... but it is what President Nelson said.

Did President Nelson say none of them had felt any divine inspiration or revelation prior to that occasion? Can you cite the precise wording with which he made such a claim?

 

[rongo]

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Both of those possibilities require assumptions that they did what we think would be logical. But Elder Nelson never said either of those things happened. The truth is we don't know because no one has shared that information. 

I think reactions to this are more of a Rorshach test  that reveal things about us than having any bearing on what actually did or didn't happen with the Q15. President Nelson never said unanimity wasn't achieved or that apostles abroad weren't communicated with, either. That is purely an assumption on the part of those unhappy with the policy, and without reason. These are the default setting assumptions on our parts --- that unanimity/communication did/did not take place.

If you read this closely, it doesn't say there was unanimity before the policy was released

See above.

Sooooo many questions. "Wrestled" indicates a struggle and shows that perhaps there were different opinions on what should happen.

And perhaps it shows that they (rightly) anticipated reactions and concerns. Hence "wrestling."

They "considered" many options but it doesn't say anything was agreed upon or even that a final proposal had been made.

See above. Why assume, if it was "wrestled" with and "considered," that nothing was agreed on or even that a final proposal hadn't been made? Simply because that's what you want to assume, because you are unhappy with the policy.

Were the 3 brand new apostles also a part of the consideration of countless permutations? Were they part of the regular meetings in the temple on the subject? Maybe. I don't know.

Why this repeated assumption that Elder Rasband (formerly of the presidency of the Seventy), Elder Stevenson (formerly of the presiding bishopric), and Elder Renlund (formerly of the 1st quorum of the Seventy) were shrinking violets when called as apostles, afraid to speak up or assert themselves? Given their past leadership in the Church (necessarily as bishops, stake presidents, mission presidents, and seventies), I'm afraid I have no basis whatsoever to assume that they were timid or afraid to voice opinions or concerns, if they had any. Or to speak up if they were being ignored or bypassed. 

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think you're reading too much into that report.

Talk about "maybes"!

The thread is a discussion of what was said by Prince and Wilcox in the RadioWest broadcast (see the title and the OP).  I acknowledged early on that it was hearsay but it is what we are discussing and we have not other reports to work from.

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why would you expect them to do that any more than you would expect one or more of them to contradict him?

Because of the whole "two witnesses" mandate in scripture.  But you are the one who asked for the citation.  I answered your question.  I noticed that you avoided answering mine, but that is par for the course in discussions with you.  You avoid being straightforward... tells me a lot about your position on things.

 

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Did President Nelson say none of them had felt any divine inspiration or revelation prior to that occasion? Can you cite the precise wording with which he made such a claim?

I'm surprised I need to quote this for you again but here goes... President Nelson:  "And then, when the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord, each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation."

Notice the "and then" and "that sacred moment".

To conclude that they had the spiritual confirmation of something that may not have even been presented to them beforehand is a huge MAYBE on your part.  Are you willing to acknowledge that?

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I don't know if that is the most logical.  And we have no reports of such.

I tend to think that the most logical is that the Prophet presented a policy and plan to move forward immediately and the apostles who were present agreed.

And why do you think they would neglect to include any apostle not present (has this even been confirmed yet, can't remember) by speaker phone, especially if it had been discussed in depth beforehand?

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

And why do you think they would neglect to include any apostle not present (has this even been confirmed yet, can't remember) by speaker phone, especially if it had been discussed in depth beforehand?

It's possible.  I'm just not aware of any reports indicating that such was done or is even a routine practice.  Prince and Wilcox didn't indicate that the missing apostle(s) was joining via phone call.  And President Nelson's "explicit" account didn't mention anything either.

[Jeanne]

48 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The "maybes" I see are coming from those who doubt that President Nelson was telling the truth when he spoke of revelation coming to the apostles and prophets.

Maybe  But it makes sense in a way that the said policy went into a church handbook first...perhaps waiting for confirmation?  To me; it would have been a revelation first if all had been there and agreed.