Radio West- Policy

[rockpond]

29 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

There is nothing damning about the broadcast (podcast for me since I don't live within radio signal of the station).  I've never suggested there was.  I'm not even sure why you would bring up that kind of a description in this conversation.

I mention it because that is the evidence (albeit hearsay) that we're discussing here... Not that President Nelson has lied or is wrong but that it's possible one or more of the apostles weren't there and weren't included in the experience that President Nelson described in January.

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

Part of the trouble might be that you seem to see hostility and maliciousness when it isn't there.  You've done that with me on this thread.

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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.

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.

OK, I understand now.

No, I meant "punched out" as in what might happen in a bar fight.

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Part of the trouble might be that you seem to see hostility and maliciousness when it isn't there.  You've done that with me on this thread.

No, I have in mind hostility and malice beyond anything I've seen from you or that I even believe you capable of.

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, rockpond said:

There is nothing damning about the broadcast (podcast for me since I don't live within radio signal of the station).  I've never suggested there was.  I'm not even sure why you would bring up that kind of a description in this conversation.

I mention it because that is the evidence (albeit hearsay) that we're discussing here... Not that President Nelson has lied or is wrong but that it's possible one or more of the apostles weren't there and weren't included in the experience that President Nelson described in January.

We are accustomed to expecting the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve to have unanimity in their governing of the Church. To hint that they don't or that some of them went behind the backs of the others or that there was factionalism (a suggestion that came up in the Fabrizio program) strikes me as derogatory.

Edited to add:

I interviewed Elder Ballard a couple weeks ago on the subject of councils in the Church, so I think I understand pretty well his attitude (and, by extension, that of the other Brethren) about Church governance by means of councils.

 

Edited November 15, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No, I have in mind hostility and malice beyond anything I've seen from you or that I even believe you capable of.

Have you seen hostility and malice from me?  I certainly hope I've never given you that impression.

[Daniel2]

54 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

 

No, nothing in my wording "presupposes that there are no hostile and malicious people in the world."  Where on earth did you get an idea that I believe that?!

That has nothing to do with what I said, which is below.  If it helps, when I said "critical thinkers" in my original quote, I intentionally used a more inclusive term to refer to ANY one who might be thinking critically about whatever issue is being "kept confidential," whether sympathetic/supportive, neutral, OR hostile critics, or somewhere in between (just as many of such types are represented in this very thread with regards to the policy being discussed)

Quote

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...

And let me add: even when facing such hostile and malicious people in the world, as you suggest, I still believe that fully-open disclosure of an issue like this would be preferable if the goal is "avoiding distortion by hostile outsiders," as opposed to "keeping things confidential." 

When things are confidential or obscured, it's easier for malicious forces to distort them. 

When things are fully and candidly disclosed, it's easier to avoid or prevent malicious forces from misrepresentation, innuendo, misrepresentation, speculation, and falsifications about the issue.

When the issue is kept confidential and it's origins obscured, even well-intentioned sympathizers are left confused, trying to make sense of what feels like conflicting information and vague explanations.  And I think this thread (as well as others having to do with the policy) is evidence of that.

It seems counter-intuitive to me that someone would argue otherwise.

Edited November 15, 2016 by Daniel2

[rockpond]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

We are accustomed to expecting the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve to have unanimity in their governing of the Church. To hint that they don't or that some of them went behind the backs of the others or that there was factionalism (a suggestion that came up in the Fabrizio program) strikes me as derogatory.

Edited to add:

I interviewed Elder Ballard a couple weeks ago on the subject of councils in the Church, so I think I understand pretty well his attitude (and, by extension, that of the other Brethren) about Church governance by means of councils.

 

I agree that there is an expectation of unanimity.  I think that's why it is so shocking for many of us to hear details on how the policy was possibly implemented that differ from what we would have imagined.

Also, while we have that expectation of unanimity, I don't see anything within our doctrine or scripture that would preclude the Prophet/President of the Church from acting unilaterally on something?  Or even acting without having all 12 apostles consent?  Do you?

[rongo]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

We are accustomed to expecting the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve to have unanimity in their governing of the Church. To hint that they don't . . .  strikes me as derogatory.

Do you really believe that they are always unanimous in their feelings? D&C 107 says that the quorums have to be unanimous for their authority to be equal to that of the other quorums (in fact, unified quorums of the 70 have more authority than a divided Q12 or QFP), but I don't see unanimity as an absolute requirement. There are any number of examples people can name where Brethren differed strongly in their opinions on various matters. 

In our married stake at BYU, President Packer and Elder Maxwell were speaking. A question was asked about singles wards, and President Packer said that he would let Elder Maxwell answer the question, because he was recusing himself because of his strong feelings against singles wards. This was said with self-deprecating humor, but he meant it seriously. I have since heard from other sources of his philosophical disagreement with singles wards. It was impressive to me that he didn't publicly undermine something that he personally was against, and thus gave a public appearance of unanimity. I think the Church in the intervening years has cultivated a super-appearance of 100% unanimity in all things among the Brethren, and this can be a mistake. While I don't believe that the evidence that there is a rift among the Brethren over this policy is compelling (Prince says that his sources say so, and he's a good historian, so it must be true), I absolutely believe that the Brethren can and do differ in their views on things. While being very careful to present a public united front. 

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Also, while we have that expectation of unanimity, I don't see anything within our doctrine or scripture that would preclude the Prophet/President of the Church from acting unilaterally on something?  Or even acting without having all 12 apostles consent?  Do you?

The president holds and exercises all priesthood keys, and can act unilaterally. According to D&C 107, united quorums have more authority than un-united quorums. Theoretically, a decision from a divided Q12 or QFP is overruled by a united Q70 --- assuming that they are willing to unitedly stand against the divided upper quorum(s). That would present a "constitutional crisis" in the Church, for sure, but the provisions are there --- and these provisions have been quoted in the past as safeguards and checks and balances.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

Do you really believe that they are always unanimous in their feelings? D&C 107 says that the quorums have to be unanimous for their authority to be equal to that of the other quorums (in fact, unified quorums of the 70 have more authority than a divided Q12 or QFP), but I don't see unanimity as an absolute requirement. There are any number of examples people can name where Brethren differed strongly in their opinions on various matters. 

In our married stake at BYU, President Packer and Elder Maxwell were speaking. A question was asked about singles wards, and President Packer said that he would let Elder Maxwell answer the question, because he was recusing himself because of his strong feelings against singles wards. This was said with self-deprecating humor, but he meant it seriously. I have since heard from other sources of his philosophical disagreement with singles wards. It was impressive to me that he didn't publicly undermine something that he personally was against, and thus gave a public appearance of unanimity. I think the Church in the intervening years has cultivated a super-appearance of 100% unanimity in all things among the Brethren, and this can be a mistake. While I don't believe that the evidence that there is a rift among the Brethren over this policy is compelling (Prince says that his sources say so, and he's a good historian, so it must be true), I absolutely believe that the Brethren can and do differ in their views on things. While being very careful to present a public united front. 

I think this is a great description of the unanimity that we are accustomed to seeing.

[Jeanne]

Just now, rockpond said:

I think this is a great description of the unanimity that we are accustomed to seeing.

I agree and was just ready to quote Rongo myself.  It is good that there are different minds..and perhaps a discussion on things.  That being said...why have a united front..I mean why not go with the majority then if that is what it is.  Be upfront and honest in all your dealings with members..why isn't that okay? 

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

Do you really believe that they are always unanimous in their feelings? D&C 107 says that the quorums have to be unanimous for their authority to be equal to that of the other quorums (in fact, unified quorums of the 70 have more authority than a divided Q12 or QFP), but I don't see unanimity as an absolute requirement. There are any number of examples people can name where Brethren differed strongly in their opinions on various matters. 

In our married stake at BYU, President Packer and Elder Maxwell were speaking. A question was asked about singles wards, and President Packer said that he would let Elder Maxwell answer the question, because he was recusing himself because of his strong feelings against singles wards. This was said with self-deprecating humor, but he meant it seriously. I have since heard from other sources of his philosophical disagreement with singles wards. It was impressive to me that he didn't publicly undermine something that he personally was against, and thus gave a public appearance of unanimity. I think the Church in the intervening years has cultivated a super-appearance of 100% unanimity in all things among the Brethren, and this can be a mistake. While I don't believe that the evidence that there is a rift among the Brethren over this policy is compelling (Prince says that his sources say so, and he's a good historian, so it must be true), I absolutely believe that the Brethren can and do differ in their views on things. While being very careful to present a public united front. 

So if they're not unanimous in belief about the right course of action, why is it useful to act like they are. I readily admit that they seem to be unanimous in the most important action of sustaining their leader. But that's not the same thing as being unanimous in understanding the will of God.

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So if they're not unanimous in belief about the right course of action, why is it useful to act like they are. I readily admit that they seem to be unanimous in the most important action of sustaining their leader. But that's not the same thing as being unanimous in understanding the will of God.

So that "their decisions [are] of the same power or validity one with the other [quorums]."

 "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"

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, rongo said:

Do you really believe that they are always unanimous in their feelings?

 

I didn't say that. I said unanimous in their governance of the Church. Meaning unanimity in their decisions and actions following a period of due deliberation.

I think such unanimity among them is more typical than some -- perhaps even you -- suppose.

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I agree and was just ready to quote Rongo myself.  It is good that there are different minds..and perhaps a discussion on things.  That being said...why have a united front..I mean why not go with the majority then if that is what it is.  Be upfront and honest in all your dealings with members..why isn't that okay? 

Because they are subject in all they do to the will of God. They seek it, they receive it, and they try earnestly to act in accordance with it. Their propensity to do so is characteristic of the prophetic mantle they each have that is integral to the apostolic office. It is a gift of the Spirit to which they are entitled by virtue of their callings.

 

[rockpond]

24 minutes ago, rongo said:

Do you really believe that they are always unanimous in their feelings?

 

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I didn't say that. I said unanimous in their governance of the Church. Meaning unanimity in their decisions and actions following a period of due deliberation.

I think such unanimity among them is more typical than some -- perhaps even you -- suppose.

It's fascinating watching Scott avoid answering questions.  In absence of an answer, I will assume that Scott, like me, believes that the Brethren aren't always unanimous in their feelings but do always put up a unanimous front once they have left the council room.

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

So that "their decisions [are] of the same power or validity one with the other [quorums]."

 "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"

So it's political?

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

This raises 3 questions:

1. We don’t know exactly how the process was not followed, but what? 2. Exactly how was the D&C quote not followed in the four points you listed?

“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).

“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).

These verses (and I’ll point out that verses 28 and 29 allow the majority to decide for the quorum) do not fulfill your “hopes” that 2-4 must take place. So all you are left with is your “hope” that there was no unanimity among the majority of the quorum. 3. Exactly how is that idea supported?

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Because they are subject in all they do to the will of God. They seek it, they receive it, and they try earnestly to act in accordance with it. Their propensity to do so is characteristic of the prophetic mantle they each have that is integral to the apostolic office. It is a gift of the Spirit to which they are entitled by virtue of their callings.

 

I realize that a united "front" is necessary in this church and obedience is key.  But they are not being true to themselves and I believe that takes away a part of agency that is a divine gift. 

[Scott Lloyd]

29 minutes ago, rockpond said:

 

It's fascinating watching Scott avoid answering questions.  In absence of an answer, I will assume that Scott, like me, believes that the Brethren aren't always unanimous in their feelings but do always put up a unanimous front once they have left the council room.

I have been very clear in my expression.. You have no justification to try to twist what I've said.

I believe that at such time as  the Lord makes His will known -- as he did with respect to the policy that emerged last November -- the  Brethren are united in every material respect, including their feelings. There is no need to "put up a ... front," because they become of one mind with the Lord.

 

Edited November 15, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I realize that a united "front" is necessary in this church and obedience is key.  But they are not being true to themselves and I believe that takes away a part of agency that is a divine gift. 

One whose intent and goal is to be of one mind with God is being true to himself when he  achieves that goal.

I have no desire to follow someone who does not want to be one with God.

 

Edited November 15, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rongo]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So it's political?

No. It's the practical reality of how life in the Church works. 

I made the point once in bishopric training when several bishoprics strongly objected to a ramrodded policy that "unity does not equal unanimity." A frustrated member of the stake presidency said that we were destroying unity by voicing our objections, and I replied that we are unified even when we are not unanimous if we sustain the action, don't fight or incite against it, etc. It was kind of the spirit of Bellatrix LeStrange I was arguing against ("You have to mean it, Potter!")  The policy ended up being abandoned after our objections were realized to a T, and it would have behooved the stake presidency to take seriously our "advice and consent." But, we recognized and sustained the keys of the stake president in his sustaining of his counselors (by not overruling them), and thus were united, while not being unanimous. 

To carry full authority in the Church, quorum decisions and actions have to be united. There is really nothing to be gained, practically speaking, by struggling against the current (like with President Packer and what I assume is the rest of the quorum with respect to singles wards). If someone feels very, very strongly about something, then that can well be the hill one chooses to die on and make a stand, but if not, then it's best to sustain the quorum decision even if one disagrees with it. 

Is that political?

Edited November 15, 2016 by rongo

[Jeanne]

16 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So it's political?

 

It is how corporations are run.

[rockpond]

40 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I have been very clear in my expression.. You have no justification to try to twist what I've said.

I believe that at such time as  the Lord makes His will known -- as he did with respect to the policy that emerged last November -- the  Brethren are united in every material respect, including their feelings. There is no need to "put up a ... front," because they become of one mind with the Lord.

 

Aaannndd... still avoided a direct answer to the question.

That said, I agree that once the will of the Lord is made known, they are all of one mind and no need to put up a front.  But I don't think that's what Rongo was asking.