Radio West- Policy

[Jeanne]

17 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

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

I am deaf...so this should work.  Interesting...this whole thing.

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, rongo said:

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

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

Elsewhere?  You identified it as "his claim on the radio".

On which radio program did he make the claim that:  "an end-run was done around dissenting apostles to ramrod the policy through, like Congressional shenanigans?"

I don't deny that his outlook colors his works.  Isn't that true for all of us?  But we ought to be fair about his claims.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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

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

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

My questions are these:

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

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

That hour-long discussion is certainly worth listening to, although Greg Prince's version of things should not be the last word here.  Professor Richard Holzapfel put it in much broader and more understandable context. Let the listeners decide which version of events is more credible.

Edited November 3, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[california boy]

One thing is undeniable.  To my knowledge, there has never been a revelation from God to his prophet for the church to follow that the prophet refused to acknowledge that he received such a revelation.  After an entire year, Elder Nelson is the lone ranger on this being a revelation from God.  Can anyone point to any similar claim of a revelation that the one who received it never stepped forward to support such a claim throughout all the history of mankind?  

 

 

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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

 

Keep in mind that when the priesthood ban was rescinded in 1978, two apostles weren't there.  Mark E. Peterson was on assignment in South America, and Delbert Stapley was in the hospital.  And those were arguably the two apostles who would have resisted the change the most based on their past statements about their view of black people in the grand scheme of things.

To their credit, when both were told about the action that the First Presidency and Q10 had agreed upon, they said they would support it. 

Sometimes God works in mysterious ways.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

One thing is undeniable.  To my knowledge, there has never been a revelation from God to his prophet for the church to follow that the prophet refused to acknowledge that he received such a revelation.  After an entire year, Elder Nelson is the lone ranger on this being a revelation from God.  Can anyone point to any similar claim of a revelation that the one who received it never stepped forward to support such a claim throughout all the history of mankind?  

It is always helpful if such claims can be formally published as part of the Scriptural Canon, and with the approval of General Conference.  Only then can such claims be taken seriously.  Anyone want to take odds on such taking place?

[Duncan]

26 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That hour-long discussion is certainly worth listening to, although Greg Prince's version of things should not be the last word here.  Professor Richard Holzapfel put it in much broader and more understandable context. Let the listeners decide which version of events is more credible.

I love Prof. Holzapfel! Where did he say this?

[rongo]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Elsewhere?  You identified it as "his claim on the radio".

On which radio program did he make the claim that:  "an end-run was done around dissenting apostles to ramrod the policy through, like Congressional shenanigans?"

I don't deny that his outlook colors his works.  Isn't that true for all of us?  But we ought to be fair about his claims.

Fair enough. I did say "his claim on the radio."

Isn't that essentially what he said? 

[Calm]

Did Prince explain why they didn't use the phone or Skype to get input from the travelers?

[carbon dioxide]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Did Prince explain why they didn't use the phone or Skype to get input from the travelers?

That was my thought also.  A person does not need to physically present for something these days.  I also have a hard time believing that this was an issue that needed to be resolved immediately.  Waiting a week or two would not make any difference.

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Did Prince explain why they didn't use the phone or Skype to get input from the travelers?

I think the implicit 'explanation' is to feed the fantasies of those who, for personal reasons, sincerely hope that discord and coercion both exist within the senior councils of the Church when it comes to this specific issue.

Edited November 4, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan

[Calm]

Lost a post...

Three things..

It feels so deja vu, two apostles out of town...

It is always Pres. Utchdorf these days as the or one of the uninformed, dissenting, ________ apostle.  He is in the First Presidency, for goodness' sake.  How much more 'mainstream' can you get in the Church?

The ease of picking up a phone, sending an email, skyping these days...

----

Not sayingPrince is lying, I think someone between him and the 15 probably is or they passed on speculation that got confused with reality.  I wouldn't be surprised if the Handbook release was accidentally too soon and information was meant to be sent or training done prior to or with, but the rest seems unlikely.

Edited November 4, 2016 by Calm

[sunstoned]

6 hours ago, djf1981 said:

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

I agree,  And the way this "revelation" was slipped into the handbook with no announcement what so ever seems very odd.  

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Duncan said:

I love Prof. Holzapfel! Where did he say this?

Toward the end of the Radio West program, part 1, which was cited by HappyJackWagon -- the Nov 2, 2016, interview by Doug Fabrizio, the podcast at http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/story-mormon-lgbt-policy .

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, djf1981 said:

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

 

9 hours ago, djf1981 said:

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

It could be that experience with lack of fulfillment of promises by some gay men (as described in detail in Kevin Christiensen's powerful review online at http://www.squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleChristensenRashomon.html ) has frosted the opinions of the Brethren, and led them to believe that children in a same sex family are too likely to be hostage to the beliefs and practices of their parents to make sound decisions about baptism and priesthood.  In other words, the situation may be seen by them as high risk for everyone -- the children and even their friends at church.  Just speculation my part however.

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, bluebell said:

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

I agree that speculation isn't ideal, especially when our leaders could tell us exactly what happened but don't.

I find your second statement rather ironic on a Mormon discussion board. Do we ever talk about things regarding Mormonism that has no evidence to support it? Um...yeah. So we depend on hearsay a lot and try to uncover the reliability of the person speaking. 

Other than a couple of jabs at the character of Greg Prince, does anyone have reason to discount him as a reliable and trustworthy witness?

For the record, it appears Holland was definitely out of town and most likely traveling when the policy was released. I haven't been able to confirm whether or not Uchtdorf was in town or not. https://www.lds.org/church/news/we-can-find-peace-elder-holland-says-during-visit-to-middle-east?lang=eng

I haven't seen too many people try to tackle my 2 questions in the OP.

[kllindley]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree that speculation isn't ideal, especially when our leaders could tell us exactly what happened but don't.

I find your second statement rather ironic on a Mormon discussion board. Do we ever talk about things regarding Mormonism that has no evidence to support it? Um...yeah. So we depend on hearsay a lot and try to uncover the reliability of the person speaking. 

Other than a couple of jabs at the character of Greg Prince, does anyone have reason to discount him as a reliable and trustworthy witness?

For the record, it appears Holland was definitely out of town and most likely traveling when the policy was released. I haven't been able to confirm whether or not Uchtdorf was in town or not. https://www.lds.org/church/news/we-can-find-peace-elder-holland-says-during-visit-to-middle-east?lang=eng

I haven't seen too many people try to tackle my 2 questions in the OP.

The 6th was when he left.  That's really pushing it to suggest he wasn't around as it was published. He was out of town for the press release, damage control, but not before it was added to the handbook.

[kllindley]

18 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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

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

1)  No.  To think that it was not discussed for months and full agreement was in place is pure speculation pitting one man's word against that of 15 other men.  

2) Yes there would be ways to verify.  The data thus far presented is not remotely compelling that they were not part of the decision.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

47 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Our leaders could tell us exactly what happened but don't.

They don't tell us what happened, or you just don't like what they say when they do? Pres Nelson, on topic:

Quote

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.

That sounds pretty exact to me.

Quote

Other than a couple of jabs at the character of Greg Prince, does anyone have reason to discount him as a reliable and trustworthy witness?

Er, do you actually know what the word witness means? From Merriam-Webster online: 'Witness: a person who sees something (such as a crime) happen; a person who is present at an event (such as a wedding) and can say that it happened'. In no meaning of the word is Greg Prince a witness to anything he's reporting on. In stark contrast, Russel M. Nelson, quoted above, is. Do you have any reason to discount him as a reliable and trustworthy witness?

Edited November 4, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan

[Gray]

15 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

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

Greg Prince vs Mystery Meat. I don't know about anyone else, but the only mystery meat I trust comes in the form of Polish sausages. 

 

[Gray]

9 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I agree,  And the way this "revelation" was slipped into the handbook with no announcement what so ever seems very odd.  

Not to mention the way they walked back half of the content from the "revelation" a week or two later. 

[hope_for_things]

18 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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

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

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

My questions are these:

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

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

These Radio West interviews were fascinating, I just finished the second one this morning.  You ask some good questions.  I don't know how to answer #2 the verification piece, but I trust that the sources that Greg Prince used are trustworthy.

For question #1.  Does is matter if key apostles are out of the country and not involved?  Yes, it does matter, especially since most policies and changes require unanimity in the quorum.  This reminds me of the situation where Hugh B. Brown tried to get the church to change the policy on priesthood, while I believe Harold B. Lee was away, but when he got back Lee scuttled the project. 

As an observer of this historical situation, and as a supporter of racial equality, I would have been happy if Hugh B. Brown was successful.  Now as a supporter of LGBT individuals, I am sad that the current leadership didn't follow the practice of having unanimous agreement.  I find it ironic that these two situations are so similar, but with different outcomes.

Also, let me say that I think for effective church leadership that the idea of unanimous agreement between 15 men is a structure that doesn't work well logistically, and is fraught with problems.  I would prefer taking the common consent principle and coming up with logistics that would work for a democratic church process and partnership between leadership and membership.   

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

I will provide my source when Prince provides his.

For those of us who've read Prince's books over the years and seen how methodical he is with his scholarship, he has a built up level of trust.  I trust what he's saying.  I don't know you, haven't read any books if you're written any, so you saying that he's wrong without providing any backup isn't a very effective way of refuting the statements of Prince.  

[hope_for_things]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That hour-long discussion is certainly worth listening to, although Greg Prince's version of things should not be the last word here.  Professor Richard Holzapfel put it in much broader and more understandable context. Let the listeners decide which version of events is more credible.

I loved that Holzapfel was on the interview as well, but he didn't refute any of Prince's claims directly.  He said he didn't believe that this is how events would happen, based on his experiences with church leadership and his faith that they wouldn't handle things that way.  However, Holzapfel had no evidence to refute the series of events that Prince described.  A belief based on faith and trust is not an effective dismissal of events.  

[kllindley]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

 A belief based on faith and trust is not an effective dismissal of events.  

But didn't you just describe the trust you had in Prince's work as a reason to believe him and dismiss Elder Nelson's witness of what really happened?