Radio West- Policy

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

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

So there is no challenge as to whether the procedure described in  Posted 1 hour ago wasn't followed with the implementation of the "new" policy?

[Calm]

31 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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.

Were either Prince or Wilcox present?  If not, why would we assume they would be privy to all info?  And the alleged source, how do we know s/he was present during the meeting?  Perhaps the scenario is an assistant who helped set things up, was aware of who entered the room, but was not present in the room after the doors were closed.  If so, then they would no clue whether calls were made.

Does anyone know if the 12 and 3 always have assistants or others in their meetings or are these types of meetings limited to them only (which is what sounds most likely to me)?

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

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.

The good faith assumption, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary such as a contradictory claim by a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, is that President Nelson, an anointed servant of God with impeccable integrity and reputation, was not lying when he said the policy was confirmed to the Brethren by revelation. 

Calling someone a liar is the sort of thing that is apt to get you punched out in some quarters. Do you really want to subject an anointed apostle to such calumny?

Edited November 15, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

 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.

 

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?

 

I'm well aware of this statement from President Nelson, as you well know. It does not bolster your claim. Nothing in there rules out that the Brethren individually were subject to the confirming witness of the Holy Ghost prior to ultimately meeting with President Monson such that their hearts were prepared to receive the revelation that he had received from the Lord when he delivered it to them, just as the hearts of Elders Stapley and Petersen had been prepared to receive the 1978 revelation when it was conveyed to them. 

In fact, from what I know of revelation, that is how it generally works. 

Edited November 15, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Were either Prince or Wilcox present?  If not, why would we assume they would be privy to all info?  And the alleged source, how do we know s/he was present during the meeting?  Perhaps the scenario is an assistant who helped set things up, was aware of who entered the room, but was not present in the room after the doors were closed.  If so, then they would no clue whether calls were made.

Does anyone know if the 12 and 3 always have assistants or others in their meetings or are these types of meetings limited to them only (which is what sounds most likely to me)?

Certainly feasible scenarios just not what Prince and Wilcox indicated.  I don't know a lot about Wilcox but I know that Prince is well connected and an honest researcher so I have a certain amount of trust for him.  And nobody else has given any more detailed account of what occurred. 

[rockpond]

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The good faith assumption, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary such as a contradictory claim by a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, is that President Nelson, an anointed servant of God with impeccable integrity and reputation, was not lying when he said the policy was confirmed to the Brethren by revelation. 

Calling someone a liar is the sort of thing that is apt to get you punched out in some quarters. Do you really want to subject an anointed apostle to such calumny?

Kindly read what I wrote Scott.  I've supported what President Nelson said.  Took him at his word.  And I have never called him a liar.  Your veiled accusation is baseless and rude. 

And your commentary on potential excommunication is beneath the level of discourse that I thought we held to on this board. 

[rockpond]

27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm well aware of this statement from President Nelson, as you well know. It does not bolster your claim. Nothing in there rules out that the Brethren individually were subject to the confirming witness of the Holy Ghost prior to ultimately meeting with President Monson such that their hearts were prepared to receive the revelation that he had received from the Lord when he delivered it to them. 

We could spend all night making claims about what isn't ruled out by Pres. Nelson but your "maybe" also isn't at all what he said. 

So perhaps in between your attempts to libel me you could stop putting words into Pres. Nelson's mouth. 

[HappyJackWagon]

This thread has become quite frustrating. From the apologetic side I'm seeing a total unwillingness to consider any possibility other than the classic assumptions based on very vague statements by President Nelson, even though there is no real conflict between his version and the Prince version. The Prince version merely adds detail, but apparently that is unfathomable to many.

Other than Nelson, no one who was present has made any kind of public statement about the revelatory process of the policy. Some people think it is up to those of us questioning the policy to provide proof that someone has disavowed Nelson's words or the policy but that is an absurd request. Scripture repeatedly calls for 2-3 witnesses testifying of truth. We have 1 witness (Nelson) and his testimony was vague. We don't have a single apostle or prophet that is backing up Pres. Nelson, nor are they affirming his statements. Radio silence.

Facts-

1- This policy is divisive and has been a source of much consternation since it came out in November 2015

2- Pres. Nelson is the only person to address it in any way since then

3- Greg Prince and Kendall Wilcox claim inside sources have shed some light on the proceedings and have shared those on a podcast

4- This policy continues to be divisive and we still have no comment by the Prophet or apostles to shed light on the process. So all we can do is assume what we think happened based on Pres. Nelson's vague statements, or we can supplement that information with the claims of Wilcox and Prince.

5- There is a lot we don't know about how this happened. We don't know who was present. We don't know how they were involved or if they were involved in accepting the policy prior to release. We don't now Pres. Monson's state of mind at the time he declared it to be the will of God. We don't know if the other apostles agree that this is revelation or if they disagree, or if they are merely silent so as to not contradict Pres. Nelson. WE DON"T KNOW. Why? Because they haven't told us.

 

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This thread has become quite frustrating. From the apologetic side I'm seeing a total unwillingness to consider any possibility other than the classic assumptions based on very vague statements by President Nelson, even though there is no real conflict between his version and the Prince version. The Prince version merely adds detail, but apparently that is unfathomable to many.

Other than Nelson, no one who was present has made any kind of public statement about the revelatory process of the policy. Some people think it is up to those of us questioning the policy to provide proof that someone has disavowed Nelson's words or the policy but that is an absurd request. Scripture repeatedly calls for 2-3 witnesses testifying of truth. We have 1 witness (Nelson) and his testimony was vague. We don't have a single apostle or prophet that is backing up Pres. Nelson, nor are they affirming his statements. Radio silence.

Facts-

1- This policy is divisive and has been a source of much consternation since it came out in November 2015

2- Pres. Nelson is the only person to address it in any way since then

3- Greg Prince and Kendall Wilcox claim inside sources have shed some light on the proceedings and have shared those on a podcast

4- This policy continues to be divisive and we still have no comment by the Prophet or apostles to shed light on the process. So all we can do is assume what we think happened based on Pres. Nelson's vague statements, or we can supplement that information with the claims of Wilcox and Prince.

5- There is a lot we don't know about how this happened. We don't know who was present. We don't know how they were involved or if they were involved in accepting the policy prior to release. We don't now Pres. Monson's state of mind at the time he declared it to be the will of God. We don't know if the other apostles agree that this is revelation or if they disagree, or if they are merely silent so as to not contradict Pres. Nelson. WE DON"T KNOW. Why? Because they haven't told us.

 

Excellent summary.  Thank you. 

[CV75]

36 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Facts-

1- This policy is divisive and has been a source of much consternation since it came out in November 2015

2- Pres. Nelson is the only person to address it in any way since then

3- Greg Prince and Kendall Wilcox claim inside sources have shed some light on the proceedings and have shared those on a podcast

4- This policy continues to be divisive and we still have no comment by the Prophet or apostles to shed light on the process. So all we can do is assume what we think happened based on Pres. Nelson's vague statements, or we can supplement that information with the claims of Wilcox and Prince.

5- There is a lot we don't know about how this happened. We don't know who was present. We don't know how they were involved or if they were involved in accepting the policy prior to release. We don't now Pres. Monson's state of mind at the time he declared it to be the will of God. We don't know if the other apostles agree that this is revelation or if they disagree, or if they are merely silent so as to not contradict Pres. Nelson. WE DON"T KNOW. Why? Because they haven't told us.

2 - *ahem*  See:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/handbook-changes-same-sex-marriages-elder-christofferson

https://www.lds.org/church/news/elder-christofferson-says-handbook-changes-regarding-same-sex-marriages-help-protect-children?lang=eng

5 – what we do know is the procedure is established in scripture and has been explained enough by those personally involved in it to establish reasonable expectations for its use and of its fulfillment: Posted 1 hour ago

32 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Excellent summary.  Thank you. 

NOT! LOL

[HappyJackWagon]

54 minutes ago, CV75 said:

2 - *ahem*  See:

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/handbook-changes-same-sex-marriages-elder-christofferson

 

https://www.lds.org/church/news/elder-christofferson-says-handbook-changes-regarding-same-sex-marriages-help-protect-children?lang=eng

 

5 – what we do know is the procedure is established in scripture and has been explained enough by those personally involved in it to establish reasonable expectations for its use and of its fulfillment: Posted 1 hour ago

 

NOT! LOL

You're grasping tightly to what you hope happened. I understand why you do that but it doesn't mean your hopes are realized. Those who could speak about what really happened aren't talking.

Your response to #2 is absurd. The Christofferson "interview" and the newsroom notification about the interview hardly shed any light on the process that was followed. None of the topics I stated we don't know about were addressed but I'll be happy to review any quotes you can provide proving otherwise.

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

5 – what we do know is the procedure is established in scripture and has been explained enough by those personally involved in it to establish reasonable expectations for its use and of its fulfillment: Posted 1 hour ago

We have reports from two individuals stating that the process you identified was not followed, at least not in that way.  Have you listened to them?

[CV75]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You're grasping tightly to what you hope happened. I understand why you do that but it doesn't mean your hopes are realized. Those who could speak about what really happened aren't talking.

Your response to #2 is absurd. The Christofferson "interview" and the newsroom notification about the interview hardly shed any light on the process that was followed. None of the topics I stated we don't know about were addressed but I'll be happy to review any quotes you can provide proving otherwise.

What do you think I hope happened? What do you hope happened?

You said: Pres. Nelson is the only person to address it in any way since then. It took "it" to mean the policy, since that is what you referenced in "1". But if you mean the "process that was followed," Elder Cristofferson did address that throughout his remarks:

it’s a ministry

it came from questions that have surfaced

it’s a matter of being clear

the Savior’s pattern

35 minutes ago, rockpond said:

We have reports from two individuals stating that the process you identified was not followed, at least not in that way.  Have you listened to them?

How was the process not followed?

[Scott Lloyd]

18 hours ago, rockpond said:

Kindly read what I wrote Scott.  I've supported what President Nelson said.  Took him at his word.  And I have never called him a liar.  Your veiled accusation is baseless and rude. 

And your commentary on potential excommunication is beneath the level of discourse that I thought we held to on this board. 

Again, the good faith assumption here (absent compelling evidence to the contrary) is that President Nelson spoke the truth when he said that President Monson received revelation on this matter, and that said revelation was confirmed by the Holy Spirit individually to the members of the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Any insinuation to the contrary casts a cloud on their integrity.

And I don't recall talking about potential excommunication. I'm wondering where that came from.

 

Edited November 15, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Again, the good faith assumption here (absent compelling evidence to the contrary) is that President Nelson spoke the truth when he said that President Monson received revelation on this matter, and that said revelation was confirmed by the Holy Spirit individually to the members of the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Any insinuation to the contrary casts a cloud on their integrity.

And I don't recall talking about potential excommunication.

 

I don't think this is necessarily true. There's an interesting conversation on another thread about the reality of words and their interpretations amongst different communication partner. A person could be honest in their intent as they describe a situation, or an object etc, even if their description is fundamentally different than how the majority may view it. IOW-  Pres. Nelson could be completely honest in his version of events (as vague as they may be) based on how he experienced and interpreted the events. That doesn't mean it is universally true. We don't have a  first hand account of how any other person perceived the events.

It seems dangerous to be so fearful of casting "a could on their integrity" that we refuse to even consider other possibilities. It's hard to have an open, honest, and intellectual debate when any alternative narrative is viewed as impugning the unimpugnable.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't think this is necessarily true. There's an interesting conversation on another thread about the reality of words and their interpretations amongst different communication partner. A person could be honest in their intent as they describe a situation, or an object etc, even if their description is fundamentally different than how the majority may view it. IOW-  Pres. Nelson could be completely honest in his version of events (as vague as they may be) based on how he experienced and interpreted the events. That doesn't mean it is universally true. We don't have a  first hand account of how any other person perceived the events.

It seems dangerous to be so fearful of casting "a could on their integrity" that we refuse to even consider other possibilities. It's hard to have an open, honest, and intellectual debate when any alternative narrative is viewed as impugning the unimpugnable.

If there is credible evidence or good reason for shedding doubt on his integrity or the accuracy of his rendition of events, by all means, let's discuss it. So far I haven't seen it. And I haven't seen any other eyewitnesses to the process contradict him. If he was wrong, surely somebody in a position to know would have come forth by now.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

What do you think I hope happened? What do you hope happened?

You said: Pres. Nelson is the only person to address it in any way since then. It took "it" to mean the policy, since that is what you referenced in "1". But if you mean the "process that was followed," Elder Cristofferson did address that throughout his remarks:

This entire thread is about the process of approving and disseminating the policy. The Christofferson interview was really just a clarification of the policy. I view it and the First Presidency letter from 1 week later as part of the roll out/damage control of the actual policy. Neither addressed the process by which the policy was "revealed" or approved.

How was the process not followed?

We don't know exactly. That's kind of the point. Have you been paying attention? But Wilcox and Prince offered additional information. If they are correct, then it would seem the usual process, as Professor Holzapfel stated, and as outlined in the D&C that you quoted, wasn't followed.

There are a few possibilities for how the policy wasn't followed. If Prince is right then...

1- There was no unanimity prior to the policy release

2- not ever member of the Q15 participated in the presentation and discussion surrounding the specific policy that was passed. (Other possibilities had been discussed but nothing had been agreed upon before the final policy was presented)

3- The usual review of the policy wherein wording is reviewed for clarity and the PR Dept. was given a heads up

4- It is also possible that Pres. Uchtdorf wasn't present for 1st Presidency discussion when Pres. Nelson presented the policy to Pres. Monson for approval.

 

[rockpond]

36 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Again, the good faith assumption here (absent compelling evidence to the contrary) is that President Nelson spoke the truth when he said that President Monson received revelation on this matter, and that said revelation was confirmed by the Holy Spirit individually to the members of the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Any insinuation to the contrary casts a cloud on their integrity.

What is being discussed here is simply that some of the members of the Quorum weren't present.  That doesn't cast any cloud on President Nelson's integrity since he never claimed that they were all present.

38 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And I don't recall talking about potential excommunication.

As I mentioned, you veiled your accusations sufficiently to avoid getting yourself into trouble.

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't think this is necessarily true. There's an interesting conversation on another thread about the reality of words and their interpretations amongst different communication partner. A person could be honest in their intent as they describe a situation, or an object etc, even if their description is fundamentally different than how the majority may view it. IOW-  Pres. Nelson could be completely honest in his version of events (as vague as they may be) based on how he experienced and interpreted the events. That doesn't mean it is universally true. We don't have a  first hand account of how any other person perceived the events.

It seems dangerous to be so fearful of casting "a could on their integrity" that we refuse to even consider other possibilities. It's hard to have an open, honest, and intellectual debate when any alternative narrative is viewed as impugning the unimpugnable.

Well said.

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If there is credible evidence or good reason for shedding doubt on his integrity or the accuracy of his rendition of events, by all means, let's discuss it. So far I haven't seen it. And I haven't seen any other eyewitnesses to the process contradict him. If he was wrong, surely somebody in a position to know would have come forth by now.

Did you listen to the podcast?

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

What is being discussed here is simply that some of the members of the Quorum weren't present.  That doesn't cast any cloud on President Nelson's integrity since he never claimed that they were all present.

 

Talk about veiled accusation!

It's an insinuation that, because they weren't all present on one occasion, they weren't unanimous about the policy. In fact, it's hardly an insinuation; I think it has been a direct accusation.

Quote

As I mentioned, you veiled your accusations sufficiently to avoid getting yourself into trouble.

I veiled nothing. Your mention of "potential excommunication" came out of the blue and bore no relationship to anything I said or even thought. Unless you think my remark about calling somebody a liar being apt to get a person punched out in some quarters has some "veiled" reference to excommunication. For my part, I don't see the connection.

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Did you listen to the podcast?

You mean Fabrizio's "Radio West" broadcast? Yes. Both parts.

But even if I hadn't, I presume that by now you have highlighted the (in your view) most damning aspects of it.

Edited November 15, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Daniel2]

On ‎11‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 3:08 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

There can be any number of good and appropriate reasons for keeping things confidential, not the least of which is to avoid distortion by hostile outsiders.

I'm trying to wrap my head around the concept that it's a "good and appropriate reason to keep things confidential"..."to avoid distortion by hostile outsiders."

That seems completely counter-intuitive, to me.

If one wishes to avoid distortion by critical thinkers, I would champion and promote fully open disclosure, rather than keeping things obscure and confidential...

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I'm trying to wrap my head around the concept that it's a "good and appropriate reason to keep things confidential"..."to avoid distortion by hostile outsiders."

That seems completely counter-intuitive, to me.

If one wishes to avoid distortion by critical thinkers, I would champion and promote fully open disclosure, rather than keeping things obscure and confidential...

Your attitude presupposes that there are no hostile and malicious people in the world. I have trouble wrapping my head around such naivete.

 

Edited November 15, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Talk about veiled accusation!

It's an insinuation that, because they weren't all present on one occasion, they weren't unanimous about the policy. In fact, it's hardly an insinuation; I think it has been a direct accusation.

President Nelson didn't say that they (FP & Q12) were all unanimous about the policy.  So there really isn't any accusation or insinuation of him being wrong.

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I veiled nothing. Your mention of "potential excommunication" came out of the blue and bore no relationship to anything I said or even thought. Unless you think my remark about calling somebody a liar being apt to get a person punched out in some quarters has some "veiled" reference to excommunication. For my part, I don't see the connection.

You made a veiled accusation that I was calling President Nelson a liar.  Which I haven't.  And I resent the implication.

I retract and apologize for my comments about you claiming potential excommunication.  When I read your statement I read "punched out in some quarters" in the context of what you wrote, I read it as you referring to one's church membership being "punched out".  I didn't read it as a reference to physical violence.  I misunderstood and apologize for that.