Radio West- Policy

[bluebell]

1 hour 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. 

 

Given that this message board finds great value in the CFR, and that we pretty much always talk about something that is supported by some authoritative statement, scripture, or doctrinal concept, I don't think we depend on hearsay very much at all.   It's one of the things that i enjoy about the board-it has a little bit of a higher standard for discussion than a lot of other boards do.

[hope_for_things]

19 minutes ago, kllindley said:

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?

Hmm, you bring up a good point, and I'm willing to consider.  I don't remember the Nelson talk well enough to know if he specifically stated that all 15 members of the quorum were present.  Do you recall?  

Also, personally, I am more inclined to believe Prince's account even if Nelson directly claimed all 15 members were present.  Partly because if Nelson was a key player in the process, he had a vested interest in spinning the event towards his personal interest.  Also because I trust Prince as someone who takes a more balanced approach to things, but is also willing to tell the truth about messy history, and our church leaders have shown time and time again they don't follow this kind of standard.  

Also, consider this situation about Nelson's talk first being added to a seminary manual, and later being redacted.  Evidence of potential controversy on the "revelation".  http://religionnews.com/2016/09/03/watch-the-mormon-seminary-curriculum-transform-before-your-very-eyes/

[kllindley]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Also, personally, I am more inclined to believe Prince's account even if Nelson directly claimed all 15 members were present.  Partly because if Nelson was a key player in the process, he had a vested interest in spinning the event towards his personal interest.  Also because I trust Prince as someone who takes a more balanced approach to things, but is also willing to tell the truth about messy history, and our church leaders have shown time and time again they don't follow this kind of standard.

Absolutely your right and prerogative and very reasonable. It just doesn't make sense to criticize people for trusting and believing when that is what we all do.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

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

That sounds pretty exact to me.

President Nelson's explanation is extremely vague. His version and Prince/Wilcox version could both be true. It would be great to get some detail and clarification. I don't understand why that desire is offensive. Let's look at Nelson's words.

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.

The Prince version doesn't discount this but adds detail. Yes, immediately after SSM was legalized by the Supreme Court the brethren began discussing options. That matches what Nelson says. But Prince adds detail that there had been no final policy proposed during these discussions. They were more loose conversations around the topic.

Wouldn't it be great to know how long they actually considered this particular policy option? Nelson doesn't say. Prince/Wilcox state that it was presented to Monson one day, the next it was presented to the Q12, and the next it was released. Nothing Nelson says disputes this version of events.

 We met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration.

Yep- They met and discussed the topic. Nothing here disputes the Prince version.

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,

It would be interesting to get more detail about how the Lord inspired His prophet. Was it a direct revelation or visitation from God? Or could it have been through more standard means; could it have been then President Nelson spoke to Pres. Monson about a specific proposal that "inspired" Pres. Monson? How much would Pres. Nelson's opinion and proposal to Pres. Monson influence him? What kind of state of mind was Pres. Monson in at the time? Again, nothing here disputes the Prince version.

each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation.

Prince doesn't address this issue. But what does it mean? How does Pres. Nelson know what the others felt and/or experienced? It would be very helpful to have him and others share their experiences on this contentious issue.

It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson.

I have no doubt that the apostles find sustaining the prophet to be a privilege. Prince doesn't dispute that. But why are they sustaining the prophet? Because he's the prophet? Or because the policy is right?

 

KLindley just said

Quote

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?

Again, Elder Nelson's words were vague and does not dispute anything Prince said. These men know the detail of what happened but they're old and won't  be here for long. I hope they share the detailed story of how this went down before they are gone. There are many, many unanswered questions.

Edited November 4, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

Absolutely your right and prerogative and very reasonable. It just doesn't make sense to criticize people for trusting and believing when that is what we all do.

Its a point well taken, we place trust in others all the time, and we have to make evaluations with limited information and based on trust.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

So your trust in Prince is enough to get you to accept his claims, but Holzapfel's personal interaction with the 15 and other leaders is not enough for him to validly accept other beliefs on trust.

Prince may br trustworthy, the person he got info from may be...but what about the original source?  Has s/he proved trustworthy by breaking their word in all probability on keeping confidentiality or if finding out through personal contacts, betraying friends or family members' confidences?

Why should we trust a source who most likely shared the info with Prince or Prince's source by being untrustworthy?

Edited November 4, 2016 by Calm

[cinepro]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Also, consider this situation about Nelson's talk first being added to a seminary manual, and later being redacted.  Evidence of potential controversy on the "revelation".  http://religionnews.com/2016/09/03/watch-the-mormon-seminary-curriculum-transform-before-your-very-eyes/

That's one of the biggest concerns for me.  If it was a bona fide "revelation", then I would hope it would be clearer and defended more strongly and publicly than we've seen in the past year.   I would hope that President Monson would stand in Conference and say "I know this is hard, but what part of 'Thus Saith The Lord...' do you not understand?"

If it wasn't a "revelation", then there never should have been any insinuation (or statement) that it was, and it should have been made clear that when changes were made, it was being done because the implementation was done based on their best fallible view of the situation based on other policies, but the feedback from Church members has prompted them to reconsider the impact the policy would have and go another direction.

But the way things are playing out, they either want to have it both ways or they have no idea what they are doing.

Edited November 4, 2016 by cinepro

[rockpond]

20 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 don't recall Holzapfel providing a "version of events" he just reiterated his support for the little information about it that has been published by the Church.  Did I miss something?

[rockpond]

19 hours ago, rongo said:

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

Isn't that essentially what he said? 

No.  He and Wilcox seemed to agree that there was quite a lengthy process without consensus and that Pres Monson likely make the decision in the end and informed the apostles who were present.  Then took action.

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

No.  He and Wilcox seemed to agree that there was quite a lengthy process without consensus and that Pres Monson likely make the decision in the end and informed the apostles who were present.  Then took action.

I based my statement off of your representation in the OP:

"Gregory Prince made the statement that . . . 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 [i.e., by Prince] 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."

I don't think that my response to this:

"Does his strong disapproval of the policy have any bearing on his claim on the radio that an end-run was done around dissenting apostles to ramrod the policy through, like Congressional shenanigans?"

is inconsistent with your above representation. 

 

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

I based my statement off of your representation in the OP:

"Gregory Prince made the statement that . . . 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 [i.e., by Prince] 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."

I don't think that my response to this:

"Does his strong disapproval of the policy have any bearing on his claim on the radio that an end-run was done around dissenting apostles to ramrod the policy through, like Congressional shenanigans?"

is inconsistent with your above representation. 

 

Calling it an "end-run" and comparing it to "congressional shenanigans" is definitely inconsistent with what Prince said and the tone with which he said it (have you listened to it?).  I'm confident Prince himself would agree with me. 

[kllindley]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Calling it an "end-run" and comparing it to "congressional shenanigans" is definitely inconsistent with what Prince said and the tone with which he said it (have you listened to it?).  I'm confident Prince himself would agree with me. 

Those descriptions may have been inconsistent with Prince's tone, but they very much fit the tone of the OP. Just my view.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

So your trust in Prince is enough to get you to accept his claims, but Holzapfel's personal interaction with the 15 and other leaders is not enough for him to validly accept other beliefs on trust.

Prince may br trustworthy, the person he got info from may be...but what about the original source?  Has s/he proved trustworthy by breaking their word in all probability on keeping confidentiality or if finding out through personal contacts, betraying friends or family members' confidences?

Why should we trust a source who most likely shared the info with Prince or Prince's source by being untrustworthy?

Hozapfel had no information about the specifics of this particular event. He based his comments on past interactions. That's fine, but one of the main points Wilcox and Prince were making was how this policy didn't follow the usual processes. So Holzapfel's character references (which is what his comments amounted to) served their purpose but didn't speak to the situation at hand.

 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

So your trust in Prince is enough to get you to accept his claims, but Holzapfel's personal interaction with the 15 and other leaders is not enough for him to validly accept other beliefs on trust.

Prince may br trustworthy, the person he got info from may be...but what about the original source?  Has s/he proved trustworthy by breaking their word in all probability on keeping confidentiality or if finding out through personal contacts, betraying friends or family members' confidences?

Why should we trust a source who most likely shared the info with Prince or Prince's source by being untrustworthy?

I think there is an important difference with respect to the two types of trust.  Holzapfel's trust was with respect to how he viewed his personal interactions with church leaders, and an underlying assumption based on those personal interactions that this kind of behavior (politics in the governance of the church) does not happen.  Perhaps Holzapfel has never seen this kind of behavior personally, and perhaps he is ignorant of the history of this kind of behavior within church leadership ranks that goes all the way back to the beginnings of the church.  

I don't accept your characterization that there was a betrayal of trust in this situation. Why do you assume that someone broke confidentiality just because they reported to Prince that there wasn't unanimity among the 15 and that not all of the 15 were involved in this decision.  I don't see that as a betrayal at all.  This sounds like the old lying for the Lord trope.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

That's one of the biggest concerns for me.  If it was a bona fide "revelation", then I would hope it would be clearer and defended more strongly and publicly than we've seen in the past year.   I would hope that President Monson would stand in Conference and say "I know this is hard, but what part of 'Thus Saith The Lord...' do you not understand?"

If it wasn't a "revelation", then there never should have been any insinuation (or statement) that it was, and it should have been made clear that when changes were made, it was being done because the implementation was done based on their best fallible view of the situation based on other policies, but the feedback from Church members has prompted them to reconsider the impact the policy would have and go another direction.

But the way things are playing out, they either want to have it both ways or they have no idea what they are doing.

The kind of transparency and openness that you're asking for is really refreshing to think about.  I see this kind of thing helping Mormonism to thrive in a 21st century world.  

[rongo]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Calling it an "end-run" and comparing it to "congressional shenanigans" is definitely inconsistent with what Prince said and the tone with which he said it (have you listened to it?).  I'm confident Prince himself would agree with me. 

I detest podcasts, and don't listen to them. I'm a reader, and will read lengthy things, though.

I agree that Prince's tone was probably more diplomatic than yours in the OP, but I also think he would agree with the gist of what you said. That's where you got it from, just couched how you wanted to put it. 

This whole "issue" smacks of wishful thinking projection. What evidence does Greg Prince or anyone else have that those who wanted the policy waited until a couple who were less-supportive were out of the country? Even stakes "poll the high council" using phone, text, email, etc. for important sustaining votes if they are out-of-town or unavailable. Why would the apostles not contact brethren abroad for their input and sustaining or concerns? 

You may take umbrage with my expression "end run," but that's actually what you and Prince are suggesting. I think the value you see in his interviews is in de-legitimizing the policy (because proper protocol allegedly wasn't followed, alleged opposers of the policy weren't allowed to object to it, etc.). 

I also see no evidence that President Uchtdorf, Elder Holland, Elder Christofferson, etc. feel any differently than President Nelson about it. This seems like more projection to me: President Uchtdorf often speaks of inclusion and compassion in his talks, so of course he would be upset by the policy. Elder Christofferson has a gay brother, so of course he would be upset with the policy (and, the evidence brought to bear in this thread for this is subjective body language interpretation of his interview with Church PA). Why Elder Holland would be included in this speculation is less clear to me. 

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

I thought that Holzapfel made a much more reasonable case than Prince, but each listener must make his own judgment.  Often, as in this case, those judgments are rendered based on apriori assumptions.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

I don't recall Holzapfel providing a "version of events" he just reiterated his support for the little information about it that has been published by the Church.  Did I miss something?

I did not say that Holzapfel provided a "version of events."  I said:  "Professor Richard Holzapfel put it in much broader and more understandable context.". Part of the problem here is automatic assumption fills in the blanks for those who have strongly held apriori assumptions (on both sides). I suggest that we try always to quote the actual words people use, rather than attributing to them claims which they did not make.  In our current social media world, such a call for restraint and mutual respect often goes unheeded.

[Calm]

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

 This sounds like the old lying for the Lord trope.  

How is not sharing what happens in confidential meetings lying?

Or do you understand meetings of the 12 and 1st Presidency are to be public in some fashion?

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

How is not sharing what happens in confidential meetings lying?

Or do you understand meetings of the 12 and 1st Presidency are to be public in some fashion?

We can always hope for something like the Nixon tapes . . . 

[rockpond]

On 11/4/2016 at 3:43 PM, rongo said:

I detest podcasts, and don't listen to them. I'm a reader, and will read lengthy things, though.

I agree that Prince's tone was probably more diplomatic than yours in the OP, but I also think he would agree with the gist of what you said. That's where you got it from, just couched how you wanted to put it. 

This whole "issue" smacks of wishful thinking projection. What evidence does Greg Prince or anyone else have that those who wanted the policy waited until a couple who were less-supportive were out of the country? Even stakes "poll the high council" using phone, text, email, etc. for important sustaining votes if they are out-of-town or unavailable. Why would the apostles not contact brethren abroad for their input and sustaining or concerns? 

You may take umbrage with my expression "end run," but that's actually what you and Prince are suggesting. I think the value you see in his interviews is in de-legitimizing the policy (because proper protocol allegedly wasn't followed, alleged opposers of the policy weren't allowed to object to it, etc.). 

I also see no evidence that President Uchtdorf, Elder Holland, Elder Christofferson, etc. feel any differently than President Nelson about it. This seems like more projection to me: President Uchtdorf often speaks of inclusion and compassion in his talks, so of course he would be upset by the policy. Elder Christofferson has a gay brother, so of course he would be upset with the policy (and, the evidence brought to bear in this thread for this is subjective body language interpretation of his interview with Church PA). Why Elder Holland would be included in this speculation is less clear to me. 

I have not suggested that it was an end run. Nor do I believe that.  I also didn't write the OP so you likely have me confused with someon else. 

You didn't listen to Prince so it's inappropriate for you to make the claims that you have made about what he said. 

[rockpond]

On 11/4/2016 at 7:59 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

I did not say that Holzapfel provided a "version of events."  I said:  "Professor Richard Holzapfel put it in much broader and more understandable context.". Part of the problem here is automatic assumption fills in the blanks for those who have strongly held apriori assumptions (on both sides). I suggest that we try always to quote the actual words people use, rather than attributing to them claims which they did not make.  In our current social media world, such a call for restraint and mutual respect often goes unheeded.

I can't quote Holzapfel directly because I don't have a transcript.  But I didn't find his statements to be any broader or more understandable... just more faith-in-the-Brethren-based.  If that makes sense. 

[rongo]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

I have not suggested that it was an end run. Nor do I believe that.

You're using "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is." Fine, then. In your own words, what expression would you use to describe the claim that supportive apostles elected to get the policy in place when non-supportive apostles were physically absent? I'm being careful to avoid words such as "ramrodded" or anything else that you will object to as not being your words.  What is your preferred way of referring to this, since you are going to object to anything I say as not being your words?

Do you also reject the notion, suggested by Prince (based on what others have represented) that Uchtdorf, Christofferson, and Holland are opposed to the policy and are/were upset about it? Or, do you agree with him?

 I also didn't write the OP so you likely have me confused with someone else.

You're right. That was HappyJack. I've been responding to you and what you have said in this thread, however. 

You didn't listen to Prince so it's inappropriate for you to make the claims that you have made about what he said.

On a discussion board where he's being quoted and discussed? Why is it inappropriate? People who have listened to the podcast who think I misrepresent what he said can point out wherein I'm wrong, but to make claims based on what others have written about what he said is appropriate for a message board, isn't it?

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, rongo said:

You're using "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is." Fine, then. In your own words, what expression would you use to describe the claim that supportive apostles elected to get the policy in place when non-supportive apostles were physically absent? I'm being careful to avoid words such as "ramrodded" or anything else that you will object to as not being your words.  What is your preferred way of referring to this, since you are going to object to anything I say as not being your words?

Do you also reject the notion, suggested by Prince (based on what others have represented) that Uchtdorf, Christofferson, and Holland are opposed to the policy and are/were upset about it? Or, do you agree with him?

 

 

You're right. That was HappyJack. I've been responding to you and what you have said in this thread, however. 

 

 

On a discussion board where he's being quoted and discussed? Why is it inappropriate? People who have listened to the podcast who think I misrepresent what he said can point out wherein I'm wrong, but to make claims based on what others have written about what he said is appropriate for a message board, isn't it?

It isn't inappropriate for you to respond here and make claims.  I said, and stand by it, that the (specific) claims you made are inappropriate because they misrepresented what Prince said and how he said it. 

Having listened to Prince, Wilcox, Hozapfel, and Pres Nelson it sounds to me like the following is what occurred:

The 15 had discussed the policy in some form for a year and possibly several years.  No consensus was ever reached.  

On Tuesday, 3-Nov, Pres Monson presented the policy to the Q12 as the course of action he was choosing to take. I guess there were at least 1 or 2 apostles not present.  Nelson interpreted this as Monson declaring to the 12 that the Lord had told him to move forward with it.  

The policy was published on Wednesday, 4-Nov (online).   A notification went to at least some SP/Bp but didn't seem to go out to all.  By Thursday, 5-Nov, copies of the changes had made their way to social media through several people.

That is my understanding from what was said in the podcast and I think it fits with Nelson's account.  I don't see it as an end-run nor as shenanigans because I would think it is well within the prophets calling/authority to unilaterally implement a policy for the church.

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

18 hours ago, rockpond said:

I can't quote Holzapfel directly because I don't have a transcript.  But I didn't find his statements to be any broader or more understandable... just more faith-in-the-Brethren-based.  If that makes sense. 

Maybe so, but I did not base my judgment upon any faith claims made by Holzapfel, but rather upon his personal acquaintance with the Brethren, their standard operating procedure, and his rational accounting for the events at issue.  For all I know, the more cynical views of Prince may be on point, but much of this is speculation in any case, so that we ought to be cautious in drawing instant conclusions which serve our apriori notions.

By the way, when I find a particular comment of importance, I take the time to transcribe it directly from the podcast or recording, rather than make more general statements based on mere impressions.