Radio West- Policy

[HappyJackWagon]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Are you advocating that they change, even if right, because an extremely vocal and contentious segment of the population demands it?

Is it advisable to ignore revelation because of a hostile outcry denying its authenticity?

I should think that the Prophet Joseph Smith -- who endured mob violence, calumny, unjust imprisonment, betrayal; and ultimately died rather than forsake principles of truth -- would be deeply saddened if today's prophets and apostles were to cave in on this.

I like to think I personally would have been one of those who stood by the Prophet during the darkest of days. My inclination to stand with the prophets of today helps assure me that I would have been.

 

You already know my position that I think the policy is wrong. No surprise there, right?

But I think the question I asked is interesting because it sounds like you and Rongo would be disappointed and a bit skeptical if they changed the policy. It sounds like you would consider any change to be evidence of caving to social pressure, instead of considering the possibility that the prophets my change their mind to get it right. It sounds like you'd prefer they stay with a policy that isn't right if it meant they had to admit they were wrong and/or look like they are too weak to uphold the revelation God already gave. To me that indicates a lack of trust in the prophets. Am I reading this wrong?

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Believe me, to me it sounds whiny. And blustery. And pouty and fussy and spoiled. And needy. But I overlook all that and try to tease out anything of substance you might have to say. Which, when I see that I'm the last one posting with you, means there very likely isn't anything...

Is that all, or do you also want to tell me I'm the son of a motherless goat, I have body odor and have no friends?

I think you're selling this rant short.

 

Edited November 18, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You already know my position that I think the policy is wrong. No surprise there, right?

But I think the question I asked is interesting because it sounds like you and Rongo would be disappointed and a bit skeptical if they changed the policy. It sounds like you would consider any change to be evidence of caving to social pressure, instead of considering the possibility that the prophets my change their mind to get it right. It sounds like you'd prefer they stay with a policy that isn't right if it meant they had to admit they were wrong and/or look like they are too weak to uphold the revelation God already gave. To me that indicates a lack of trust in the prophets. Am I reading this wrong?

Just as you cannot entertain the possibility that you are wrong about the policy, I cannot seriously conceive that the prophets and apostles are mistaken or speaking falsehood on this.

Not only do I believe President Nelson about it being confirmed by revelation, the policy itself strikes me as eminently reasonable in light of the explanations that have been given.

Furthermore, I trust the prophets and apostles to hold fast to truth, as Joseph Smith did. Those who are clamoring for them to capitulate in effect want them to be inconsistent with the values, beliefs, doctrines and teachings they have clearly expressed in the past and to be inconsistent with comparable policy as it pertains to polygamous individuals and their offspring.

(And I think I've already made clear that I don't speak for Rongo, nor he for me.)

 

Edited November 18, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Just as you cannot entertain the possibility that you are wrong about the policy, I cannot seriously conceive that the prophets and apostles are mistaken or speaking falsehood on this.

Not only do I believe President Nelson about it being confirmed by revelation, the policy on itself strikes me as eminently reasonable in light of the explanations that have been given. Furthermore, I trust the prophets and apostles to hold fast to truth, as Joseph Smith did.

(And I think I've already made clear that I don't speak for Rongo, nor he for me.)

 

Fair enough. So IF the policy changes I'm sure you will support the brethren just as you would support Joseph. IF the policy changes I will also support the brethren. See, we have something in common

 

[rongo]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Are you advocating that they not change, even if wrong, because it would look bad?

From a human pride standpoint: yes. I know that sounds bad, but that's how I feel, and what I would like to see happen. 

To mark it as a hill to die on, including calling it revelation, and then a very short time later to completely reverse course on it would call into question the initial declaration that it was revelation. Was it to only be a revelation for a year and a half, and then be completely reversed?

Is it better for people to think it is revelation if it's not?

I don't know that it makes much of a difference, one way or another. In the canon of revelations, it is much, much more a policy update than a Revelation. It adds nothing to doctrinal understanding. To reverse course a short time later, obviously due to outcry and public perception/pressure would be terrible, and not just from a PR standpoint. I think it would contribute to the undermining of faith in the Brethren and difficult Church policies, going forward. 

I sure hope that Dehlin and Reel aren't right.  And not just because it's Dehlin and Reel.

 

[rongo]

45 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Just as you cannot entertain the possibility that you are wrong about the policy, I cannot seriously conceive that the prophets and apostles are mistaken or speaking falsehood on this.

Not only do I believe President Nelson about it being confirmed by revelation, the policy itself strikes me as eminently reasonable in light of the explanations that have been given.

Furthermore, I trust the prophets and apostles to hold fast to truth, as Joseph Smith did. Those who are clamoring for them to capitulate in effect want them to be inconsistent with the values, beliefs, doctrines and teachings they have clearly expressed in the past and to be inconsistent with comparable policy as it pertains to polygamous individuals and their offspring.

(And I think I've already made clear that I don't speak for Rongo, nor he for me.)

While you can't seriously conceive of the possibility that the prophets and apostles are mistaken on this, I'm curious how you would react or what you would think if the policy were completely reversed within, say, six months? Hypothetically.

Would the response be something like "they acted with limited light and understanding a year and a half ago, but now greater light has broken forth. Forget everything that was said in favor of the policy a year and a half ago. Today is a new day . . .?" 

Wouldn't that bother you, just a little bit?

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Fair enough. So IF the policy changes I'm sure you will support the brethren just as you would support Joseph. IF the policy changes I will also support the brethren. See, we have something in common

 

Actually, I don't see the commonality. In effect, you have indicated your intent to support them only insofar as they reinforce your already existing opinion on this matter; I have not.

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

From a human pride standpoint: yes. I know that sounds bad, but that's how I feel, and what I would like to see happen. 

To mark it as a hill to die on, including calling it revelation, and then a very short time later to completely reverse course on it would call into question the initial declaration that it was revelation. Was it to only be a revelation for a year and a half, and then be completely reversed?

 

I don't know that it makes much of a difference, one way or another. In the canon of revelations, it is much, much more a policy update than a Revelation. It adds nothing to doctrinal understanding. To reverse course a short time later, obviously due to outcry and public perception/pressure would be terrible, and not just from a PR standpoint. I think it would contribute to the undermining of faith in the Brethren and difficult Church policies, going forward. 

I sure hope that Dehlin and Reel aren't right.  And not just because it's Dehlin and Reel.

 

Thanks for your honesty. I respect that and I think many people agree with that sentiment, even if they are hesitant to admit it. Still, you won't be surprised to see that I disagree with that philosophy 

I agree that it can create a problem when the brethren make a strong claim that they later have to reverse but that's already happened a number of times.The church seems to be so tied to the "prophet will never lead you astray" mentality that it has created a culture of prophetic infallibility even if there isn't a doctrine to back it up. But it seems to me that wanting the church to look good is a misplaced priority, when it should be doing the will of God. If they got it wrong, it should change. Theoretically, which would be more important, following God by reversing a harmful policy, or helping church leaders save face?

There are a lot of "IF's" in here. I get that, but if the policy is really not a revelation, and it is causing harm to families and individuals, then I would hope church leaders would have the integrity to make the change, even if it is a little embarrassing.

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, rongo said:

While you can't seriously conceive of the possibility that the prophets and apostles are mistaken on this, I'm curious how you would react or what you would think if the policy were completely reversed within, say, six months? Hypothetically.

Would the response be something like "they acted with limited light and understanding a year and a half ago, but now greater light has broken forth. Forget everything that was said in favor of the policy a year and a half ago. Today is a new day . . .?" 

Wouldn't that bother you, just a little bit?

I quickly grow bored with the exercise of exploring highly unlikely hypotheticals: What if God doesn't love His children? What if Jesus never existed? What if the Book of Mormon is fiction? etc.

Incidentally, I've noticed a rather disquieting habit on your part of late, the tendency to borrow freely from the anti-Mormon lexicon, with phrases such as "borg-like oneness," "hive mind," "thinking-has-been-done mentality," and now the mockery of Elder McConkie's words. What's next? "Cognitive dissonance"?

[Jeanne]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I quickly grow bored with the exercise of exploring highly unlikely hypotheticals: What if God doesn't love His children? What if Jesus never existed? What if the Book of Mormon is fiction? etc.

Incidentally, I've noticed a rather disquieting habit on your part of late, the tendency to borrow freely from the anti-Mormon lexicon, with phrases such as "borg-like oneness," "hive mind," "thinking-has-been-done mentality," and now the mockery of Elder McConkie's words. What's next? "Cognitive dissonance"?

Quote

 

Scott..please answer Rongo's question.

[Daniel2]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What's next? "Cognitive dissonance"?

What an unusual thing to say.  It sounds as if you're disparaging and/or dismissing the concept of cognitive dissonance as merely part of "the anti-Mormon lexicon."

 

 

 

[CV75]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

I hope, hope, hope that Bill Reel, John Dehlin, et. al. aren't correct and that this isn't going to be removed from the handbook in 2017. Only 1-2 years removed from this, it will look exactly like caving to social pressure and backlash. Such that it would be difficult for all but the most "We are at war with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia" of people not to see it. Especially given the attention and outcry when President Nelson specifically explained it as revelation.

Which is why I think they and their alleged sources are completely wrong. I would be stunned if this policy were undone any time remotely soon.

Consideration of dropping the policy only seems to be fueled by ignorance of the process, disbelief that it was followed, and so-called “possibilities” that have taken on a life of their own. These are not the stuff of valid thought experiments. I’d need better theories and hypotheses; otherwise, it is just an exercise in the suspension of belief, and I have much better sources of entertainment for that!

[rongo]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I quickly grow bored with the exercise of exploring highly unlikely hypotheticals: What if God doesn't love His children? What if Jesus never existed? What if the Book of Mormon is fiction? etc.

All hypotheticals aren't created equal. You give ridiculous extremes above that are nothing like what I asked. I asked about a Church policy implemented a year ago that ex- (or working on it, ex-) Mormon bloggers are saying will be reversed next year, based on alleged leaks and insider info. I share your skepticism and hope that these rumors are completely false, but I can conceive of (even if only as a thought exercise) the possibility that they might also have accurate information. I sincerely hope not!

I think it's interesting that you sidestep the question, because I think this also ties into the earlier discussion about whether it is possible to sustain things when there isn't complete intellectual and emotional unanimity. Answering the question would have required you to put yourself in the uncomfortable position of sustaining a Church actions and policy reversal when you don't have complete intellectual and emotional unanimity with it --- or to claim that you would believe with equal fervor in that case that the fully-reversed policy was just as inspired as the 1.5 year prior one. (And, before you apoplectically insist that I don't speak for you and haven't accurately described the either/or, remember, you refuse to answer exactly how you would feel. You can hardly complain when I try to figure out how you would respond and feel and get it wrong . . .  )

Incidentally, I've noticed a rather disquieting habit on your part of late, the tendency to borrow freely from the anti-Mormon lexicon, with phrases such as "borg-like oneness," "hive mind," "thinking-has-been-done mentality," and now the mockery of Elder McConkie's words. What's next? "Cognitive dissonance"?

Oh, brother. 

And I didn't mock Elder McConkie's words. I was asking if this would form part of your response and feeling in the hypothetical. I was typing off of memory.

 

[Calm]

8 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If the CEO of Wells Fargo was asked by congress about the behaviors that led to widespread abuse and fraud, and he simply recited the employee handbook which states high ethical standards that prevent fraudulent activity, would that really do anything to speak to the question being asked? No. It's sidestepping. (Before you get all excited, I'm not comparing the church or Nelson to Wells Fargo- they are simply the most recent example that popped to mind. But it makes the point)

Apples/oranges.

In the case of Wells Fargo, there is highly significant evidence that SOP was not followed.  There is no evidence outside a report given by a person who has no personal knowledge and who gave no reference of his source so we can even estimate what the source might or might not know.  For example, unless the source was one of the 12 or 3, then if it was a closed door meeting, the source would be unable to report if there was any communication with any apostles that might be missing.

And given the source couldn't even tell Prince whether or not there was one or two apostles not physically present at the meeting or who the second one might be, the source is hardly one who is in any inner circles, but more likely someone just reporting talk they have eavesdropped on; otherwise, the source could have easily asked for details and IMO would have if they thought it was worthwhile to pass the info onto Prince.

[Scott Lloyd]

50 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

What an unusual thing to say.  It sounds as if you're disparaging and/or dismissing the concept of cognitive dissonance as merely part of "the anti-Mormon lexicon."

 

 

 

Just the ignorant, agenda-driven anti-Mormon appropriation of the concept. 

[Rain]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You already know my position that I think the policy is wrong. No surprise there, right?

But I think the question I asked is interesting because it sounds like you and Rongo would be disappointed and a bit skeptical if they changed the policy. It sounds like you would consider any change to be evidence of caving to social pressure, instead of considering the possibility that the prophets my change their mind to get it right. It sounds like you'd prefer they stay with a policy that isn't right if it meant they had to admit they were wrong and/or look like they are too weak to uphold the revelation God already gave. To me that indicates a lack of trust in the prophets. Am I reading this wrong?

I'm uncomfortable with the policy. Not saying it is wrong, or right. Just that I'm uncomfortable with it.  My gut feeling is that it is necessary though.

I would have a problem with it being changed. If it were a bad thing I totally think it should be changed,  but I really don't want to deal with the fallout if that were to happen.  I'd pray about it just like I did when it came out and assuming the Spirit told me that the policy was not necessary I would support my leaders discontinuing the policy despite the fallout. 

So this leaves me to wonder. I'm assuming you have spent time and prayer pondering over the policy and that's the reason you feel as you do about it. What if, in 6 months time instead of our leaders changing the policy you were now inspired by the Holy Ghost that even though you felt you got an answer against the policy,  that the time was now to be supportive of the policy, would you would you be willing to do so? 

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

There is no evidence outside a report given by a person who has no personal knowledge and who gave no reference of his source so we can even estimate what the source might or might not know ... likely someone just reporting talk they have eavesdropped on.

I.e. gossip or rumour-mongering. And the whole point of gossip is that it tickles the fancy of those who embrace and repeat it.

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, Rain said:

I'm uncomfortable with the policy. Not saying it is wrong, or right. Just that I'm uncomfortable with it.  My gut feeling is that it is necessary though.

I would have a problem with it being changed. If it were a bad thing I totally think it should be changed,  but I really don't want to deal with the fallout if that were to happen.  I'd pray about it just like I did when it came out and assuming the Spirit told me that the policy was not necessary I would support my leaders discontinuing the policy despite the fallout. 

So this leaves me to wonder. I'm assuming you have spent time and prayer pondering over the policy and that's the reason you feel as you do about it. What if, in 6 months time instead of our leaders changing the policy you were now inspired by the Holy Ghost that even though you felt you got an answer against the policy,  that the time was now to be supportive of the policy, would you would you be willing to do so? 

If the Holy Ghost told me the policy was good and/or necessary I'd accept it in a heart beat.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 11/18/2016 at 3:51 PM, rongo said:

All hypotheticals aren't created equal. You give ridiculous extremes above that are nothing like what I asked. I asked about a Church policy implemented a year ago that ex- (or working on it, ex-) Mormon bloggers are saying will be reversed next year, based on alleged leaks and insider info. I share your skepticism and hope that these rumors are completely false, but I can conceive of (even if only as a thought exercise) the possibility that they might also have accurate information. I sincerely hope not!

 

 

(bold emphasis mine)

ALERT: This 2016 thread has been zombified.

 

I'm purposely reviving (or, as Calm would put  it, zombifying) this thread because I am curious what happened with the "alleged leaks and insider info" to the effect that the policy of November 2015 would be reversed within a year after 2016. I also recall (though I can't find it now) a claim by Bill Reel to have such leaked information. My recollection is that Reel claimed there would be a handbook revision with the 2015 policy quietly removed.

The reversal was predicted to have taken place in 2017. We are now roughly one-third of the way through 2018. Yet there has been no sign of a reversal. I wonder if any of those claiming leaks and insider information can explain to us what happened.

 

Edited April 17, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[strappinglad]

Prophecy and the reputed fulfillment thereof have always been subject to interpretation. Prophecies specifying the date of the Second Coming have had to be " adjusted " .

As for changing policy , I recall something about Moses and things written in stone changing because of an uproar from the people. That only took about 30 days IIRC .

[cinepro]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

(bold emphasis mine)

ALERT: This 2016 thread has been zombified.

 

I'm purposely reviving (or, as Calm would put  it, zombifying) this thread because I am curious what happened with the "alleged leaks and insider info" to the effect that the policy of November 2015 would be reversed within a year after 2016. I also recall (though I can't find it now) a claim by Bill Reel to have such insider information. My recollection is that Reel claimed there would be a handbook revision with the 2015 policy quietly removed.

The reversal was predicted to have taken place in 2017. We are now roughly one-third of the way into 2018. Yet there has been no sign of a reversal. I wonder if any of those claiming leaks and insider information can explain to us what happened.

 

Take your pick:

A.  They made up the leak.

B.  The source was unreliable.

C.  The source was reliable, but the Church subsequently changed their mind about the change.

[Michael Sudworth]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The reversal was predicted to have taken place in 2017. We are now roughly one-third of the way into 2018. Yet there has been no sign of a reversal. I wonder if any of those claiming leaks and insider information can explain to us what happened.

If there were as many "insiders" leaking out reliable information, all GAs would be in on the conspiracy!  These claims to having "inside" info are so tiresome.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

Prophecy and the reputed fulfillment thereof have always been subject to interpretation. Prophecies specifying the date of the Second Coming have had to be " adjusted " .

As for changing policy , I recall something about Moses and things written in stone changing because of an uproar from the people. That only took about 30 days IIRC .

Nope. This was no prophecy. It was alleged leaks and insider information. I’m just wondering if those in the know can tell us what happened. Calling Bill Reel!

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

Take your pick:

A.  They made up the leak.

B.  The source was unreliable.

C.  The source was reliable, but the Church subsequently changed their mind about the change.

That’s a good summary of the possibilities. Again, I would like somebody who purports to know to tell us if it’s A, B or C. 

[HappyJackWagon]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That’s a good summary of the possibilities. Again, I would like somebody who purports to know to tell us if it’s A, B or C. 

I don't recall people claiming to know as much as they were speculating. Personally, it was my wishful thinking that it would be reversed quickly, but with Pres. Nelson and Pres Oaks at the helm I don't see it going away any time soon.