Radio West- Policy

[CV75]

On 11/3/2016 at 3:28 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

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?

1: Not if they had been part of the discussion all along and their views and support were known. From what I understand, every apostle is “key,” and from what every apostle I’ve heard say about his personal support of the President in carrying out his apostolic role, I would say that Elder Nelson represents the united voice of the Quorum of Twelve. Technology enables a good deal of the council process to be conducted while members are out of town / country.

2: Probably, but I don’t think that necessarily matters since they can "meet" on a virtual platform.

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

I'm almost always listening to podcasts as I drive which makes it tough to transcribe.   But I didn't find anything in this podcast to be particularly important.  Just interesting. 

Since Holzapfel's account of the events seemed to make an impression on you, would you mind sharing how his account of the events differed from Prince and Wilcox?  I don't remember him saying much about the actual events. 

[Robert F. Smith]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm almost always listening to podcasts as I drive which makes it tough to transcribe.   But I didn't find anything in this podcast to be particularly important.  Just interesting. 

Since Holzapfel's account of the events seemed to make an impression on you, would you mind sharing how his account of the events differed from Prince and Wilcox?  I don't remember him saying much about the actual events. 

As I said previously, I suggest that each listener draw his own subjective conclusions,.  You are certainly welcome to differ with me, as you have already done.  And you might want to listen to the next day's podcast (part 2) to see whether it is relevant to the larger discussion.  Since you go into this with a different set of apriori notions, it would be pointless for me to do your work for you.  You are only responsible for your own conclusions.

The one lesson we should all gain from this is that Doug Fabrizio is an extraordinarily good interviewer and he is not afraid to tackle any subject.

[rockpond]

16 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As I said previously, I suggest that each listener draw his own subjective conclusions,.  You are certainly welcome to differ with me, as you have already done.  And you might want to listen to the next day's podcast (part 2) to see whether it is relevant to the larger discussion.  Since you go into this with a different set of apriori notions, it would be pointless for me to do your work for you.  You are only responsible for your own conclusions.

The one lesson we should all gain from this is that Doug Fabrizio is an extraordinarily good interviewer and he is not afraid to tackle any subject.

Ok.  I just can't recall Holzapfel having much to offer regarding the actual events.  So I was curious if I had missed something. 

I did listen to Part 2.  And I agree that Fabrizio is a great interviewer.  I'm a subscriber to the podcasts of his RadioWest program and I always look forward to them. 

Edited November 7, 2016 by rockpond

[hope_for_things]

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.

Holzapfel provided important insight, I totally agree.  Unfortunately the church leadership is often absent from discussions like this happening in the public sphere and it was so refreshing to have Holzapfel give a perspective that probably aligns closely with the church's position, even though he didn't officially represent the church. Kudos to him for joining in on the conversation.

I disagree that his perspective was broader and more reasonable, it didn't resonate with me, and I think he missed some important points that Prince was making.  

[hope_for_things]

On 11/4/2016 at 11:37 PM, 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?

Why the assumption of confidentiality?  We live in an increasingly transparent world.  Confidentiality is important on certain subjects, but not every subject. 

[Scott Lloyd]

On November 4, 2016 at 11:37 PM, 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?

 

On November 7, 2016 at 10:48 AM, hope_for_things said:

Why the assumption of confidentiality?  We live in an increasingly transparent world.  Confidentiality is important on certain subjects, but not every subject. 

I think you are evading Calm's question: How is not publicizing what goes on in a private meeting lying? 

It is a serious matter to accuse a person or group of people of lying. It is reckless to do so and then fail to back it up. 

[hope_for_things]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think you are evading Calm's question: How is not publicizing what goes on in a private meeting lying? 

It is a serious matter to accuse a person or group of people of lying. It is reckless to do so and then fail to back it up. 

You don't understand the point I'm making.  I'm not accusing anyone of lying directly.  Calm said that the person leaked the information was betraying trust, and therefore, why should we trust the person betraying the trust of others.  I wondered if this logic isn't similar to the concepts in the lying for the Lord idea.  That a person is justified in lying because its it aligned with God's will to keep things a secret.  

My question back to Calm is why should we assume that any betrayal happened at all.  Why is there an underlying assumption that everything in those meetings is confidential and should never be discussed with anyone outside of those meetings. 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

You don't understand the point I'm making.  I'm not accusing anyone of lying directly.  Calm said that the person leaked the information was betraying trust, and therefore, why should we trust the person betraying the trust of others.  I wondered if this logic isn't similar to the concepts in the lying for the Lord idea.  That a person is justified in lying because its it aligned with God's will to keep things a secret.  

My question back to Calm is why should we assume that any betrayal happened at all.  Why is there an underlying assumption that everything in those meetings is confidential and should never be discussed with anyone outside of those meetings. 

Oh, I'm fairly sure I get your point, and as I sift through your spin, I still reject it.

You seem to be laboring under the presumption that there is never an appropriate reason for keeping proceedings of a meeting confidential, that to do so is tantamount to "lying for the Lord." Pardon the French, but that premise is bull. There can be any number of good and appropriate reasons for keeping things confidential, not the least of which is to avoid distortion by hostile outsiders. And when one breaches such a confidence it is indeed betrayal of a trust.

When Jesus told the chief apostles to keep in confidence the events that occurred on the Mount of Transfiguration, was he telling them to "lie for the Lord"?

 

Edited November 11, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Thinking]

On 11/3/2016 at 1:28 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

Does it matter that a key apostle...

What's the difference between a key apostle and a non-key apostle?

[hope_for_things]

29 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Oh, I'm fairly sure I get your point, and as I sift through your spin, I still reject it.

You seem to be laboring under the presumption that there is never an appropriate reason for keeping proceedings of a meeting confidential, that to do so is tantamount to "lying for the Lord." Pardon the French, but that premise is bull. There can be any number of good and appropriate reasons for keeping things confidential, not the least of which is to avoid distortion by hostile outsiders. And when one breaches such a confidence it is indeed betrayal of a trust.

When Jesus told the chief apostles to keep in confidence the events that occurred on the Mount of Transfiguration, was he telling them to "lie for the Lord"?

You seem passionate about this, and I had no intention to arouse your passions on this topic.  I don't deal in absolutes and I didn't say there is "never an appropriate reason for confidentiality".  Lying to protect the church is a part of the history, whether you agree with the justifications and find them honorable, or not.  Did Jesus also teach this concept, perhaps, but we don't have the words of Jesus directly, just the authors of the gospels.  

[Scott Lloyd]

19 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

You seem passionate about this, and I had no intention to arouse your passions on this topic.  I don't deal in absolutes and I didn't say there is "never an appropriate reason for confidentiality".  Lying to protect the church is a part of the history, whether you agree with the justifications and find them honorable, or not.  Did Jesus also teach this concept, perhaps, but we don't have the words of Jesus directly, just the authors of the gospels.  

If you please, let's keep a focus here. Nebulous allegations about what has been "a part of the history" of the Church are the sort of thing that is apt to take the conversation afield.

You appear to have implied that holding matters in confidence -- such as the content of a meeting -- is tantamount to "lying for the Lord." I say you have yet to make a persuasive case for that notion.

 

Edited November 12, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

16 hours ago, Thinking said:

What's the difference between a key apostle and a non-key apostle?

Perhaps I should have said "senior" apostle instead of "key". But I think my meaning is pretty clear. There is a hierarchy among the apostles based on seniority, and considering that this policy change was implemented less than one month after 3 new apostles were called into the quorum I feel that having an Elder Holland or a Pres. Uchtdorf missing from the discussion may be a little more significant than an Elder Rasband. (No offense Elder Rasband  )

 

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Scott- Are you able to shed any light on who was or wasn't present at the meetings where this was discussed and decided? I think it's clear that Elder Holland was in the Middle East at the time but I'm curious if you have access to the travel itineraries of the apostles to say whether or not they were present?

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Perhaps I should have said "senior" apostle instead of "key". But I think my meaning is pretty clear. There is a hierarchy among the apostles based on seniority, and considering that this policy change was implemented less than one month after 3 new apostles were called into the quorum I feel that having an Elder Holland or a Pres. Uchtdorf missing from the discussion may be a little more significant than an Elder Rasband. (No offense Elder Rasband  )

 

Scott- Are you able to shed any light on who was or wasn't present at the meetings where this was discussed and decided? I think it's clear that Elder Holland was in the Middle East at the time but I'm curious if you have access to the travel itineraries of the apostles to say whether or not they were present?

I'm not made privy to such things unless I'm invited specifically to cover something they are doing or have done, such as the recent visit by President Nelson, Elder Ballard and other Church leaders to Baton Rouge to view flood relief efforts. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Scott- Are you able to shed any light on who was or wasn't present at the meetings where this was discussed and decided? I think it's clear that Elder Holland was in the Middle East at the time but I'm curious if you have access to the travel itineraries of the apostles to say whether or not they were present?

'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'.

[rockpond]

46 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

'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'.

The accounts given by Prince and Wilcox are consistent with this statement by Pres. Nelson. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

26 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The accounts given by Prince and Wilcox are consistent with this statement by Pres. Nelson. 

So you agree that obsessing over 'who was or wasn't present' over the course of such a long and clearly inclusive process is pointless ... unless driven by one's need/wish/hope to identify some 'fractures' in the senior quorums of the Church on this topic?

Edited November 12, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan

[rockpond]

14 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

So you agree that obsessing over 'who was or wasn't present' over the course of such a long and clearly inclusive process is pointless ... unless driven by one's need/wish/hope to identify some 'fractures' in the senior quorums of the Church on this topic?

I made that statement because it seems that the process was long.  That the apostles all probably had chances to give input.  That they weren't able to come to a consensus.  And that Pres. Monson gave the final answer/policy change that was used.  

[Scott Lloyd]

13 hours ago, rockpond said:

I made that statement because it seems that the process was long.  That the apostles all probably had chances to give input.  That they weren't able to come to a consensus.  And that Pres. Monson gave the final answer/policy change that was used.  

I don't think it's self-evident that they "weren't able to come to a consensus." More than a consensus, they were seeking to know the will of the Lord. When that was made manifest through the president of the Church and they each felt the confirming witness of the Holy Ghost, that was their consensus.

In fact, I daresay that a consensus all by itself, without that confirming witness, would not have been sufficient for such an important matter.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎11‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 4:40 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

'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'.

Quote

So you agree that obsessing over 'who was or wasn't present' over the course of such a long and clearly inclusive process is pointless ... unless driven by one's need/wish/hope to identify some 'fractures' in the senior quorums of the Church on this topic?

First, who is obsessing? Is the mere act of asking a question an obsession or is this a way to discredit a person who even asks a question?

The Prince version and the Nelson comments do not conflict. Look at my posts earlier in the thread.

It is very possible that as both Prince and Nelson agree, this topic was discussed repeatedly after SSM was legalized nationwide. It seems accurate to say that countless scenarios were considered over time. It makes sense that they met in the temple.

What Nelson's version doesn't address is whether or not any kind of consensus was achieved prior to the final policy being presented to the Q15. Prince suggests it wasn't. Nelson doesn't say. All of the first part could be true and Prince could still be correct in the way that he described the behind the scenes of Nelson taking the policy to Monson and moving it through an unusual approval and publication process that doesn't match the church's usual process. Holzapfel's testimony that this isn't the way it usually happens in his experience doesn't disagree either. It sounds like the normal processes were bypassed and it brings up additional questions when you consider...

1- The prophet suffers from some level of decreased mental capacity. It's hard to know where dementia ends and revelation begins.

2- At least one Senior apostle(s) wasn't present for final presentation and approval

3- Over the past year the prophet has not addressed this issue even once, nor has any apostle other than Nelson. Those who know aren't supplying any details

4- We don't know how much the 3 new apostles had been involved in many of the past discussion since they had only been in their callings for less than a month. It also seems unlikely to me that 3 new junior apostles would be in a position to push back to prevent a bad policy even IF they had strong misgivings about it.

There are a lot of questions. I think the church owes the members transparency on this process.

Edited November 14, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[rockpond]

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't think it's self-evident that they "weren't able to come to a consensus." More than a consensus, they were seeking to know the will of the Lord. When that was made manifest through the president of the Church and they each felt the confirming witness of the Holy Ghost, that was their consensus.

In fact, I daresay that a consensus all by itself, without that confirming witness, would not have been sufficient for such an important matter.

Do you "dare say" that, Scott?  So bold.   Yes, obviously they needed the confirming witness, my comments didn't dismiss that.  But I should have been clear that I was speaking of the time leading up to November 2015).

I'm deriving a lack of consensus (prior to the Nov 3 meeting) based on the accounts of Prince and Wilcox.  I'll also add that your comments that I've quoted here seem to underscore the need for all 12 to be present.  Consensus does technically mean a majority but I always thought when we spoke of the Q12 we thought that all of them had to be in agreement to move forward on something.  Although, I think that the Prophet can certainly act without the 12.  

 

[HappyJackWagon]

22 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Do you "dare say" that, Scott?  So bold.   Yes, obviously they needed the confirming witness, my comments didn't dismiss that.  But I should have been clear that I was speaking of the time leading up to November 2015).

I'm deriving a lack of consensus (prior to the Nov 3 meeting) based on the accounts of Prince and Wilcox.  I'll also add that your comments that I've quoted here seem to underscore the need for all 12 to be present.  Consensus does technically mean a majority but I always thought when we spoke of the Q12 we thought that all of them had to be in agreement to move forward on something.  Although, I think that the Prophet can certainly act without the 12.  

 

They don't just claim consensus. They claim unanimity within the highest quorums.

From the October 2014 conference, Elder Nelson said...

Quote

The calling of 15 men to the holy apostleship provides great protection for us as members of the Church. Why? Because decisions of these leaders must be unanimous.¹³ Can you imagine how the Spirit needs to move upon 15 men to bring about unanimity? These 15 men have varied educational and professional backgrounds, with differing opinions about many things. Trust me! These 15 men—prophets, seers, and revelators—know what the will of the Lord is when unanimity is reached! They are committed to see that the Lord’s will truly will be done.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2014/11/sunday-morning-session/sustaining-the-prophets.p1?lang=eng

According to Elder Nelson, unanimity is essential. So when it comes to a very controversial policy it seems reasonable to ask questions about the unanimity of the brethren. It seems reasonable to expect them to share details of how this worked. As it is now, only Elder Nelson has spoken, and it was in very vague terms.

[Gray]

28 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

They don't just claim consensus. They claim unanimity within the highest quorums.

From the October 2014 conference, Elder Nelson said...

According to Elder Nelson, unanimity is essential. So when it comes to a very controversial policy it seems reasonable to ask questions about the unanimity of the brethren. It seems reasonable to expect them to share details of how this worked. As it is now, only Elder Nelson has spoken, and it was in very vague terms.

That's a great point. Unanimity is so important, I guess, until it isn't. 

[Jeanne]

I admit that I am not in the know of many things.  Just one question...was it a relative surprise to at least some apostles that the said policy became a revelation?  It seems that when this happened, there was some disconnect.  Can't pin point it..which is why I ask. 

[HappyJackWagon]

24 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I admit that I am not in the know of many things.  Just one question...was it a relative surprise to at least some apostles that the said policy became a revelation?  It seems that when this happened, there was some disconnect.  Can't pin point it..which is why I ask. 

This is part of the problem. We have no idea because those who know, don't share. There is a lack of institutional and leadership transparency.

So if we look to other sources like Greg Prince, who is a reliable historian with what I assume to be strong sources, we piece together a more full picture of what happened. It sounds like Elder Holland was quite unhappy about not being involved in the decision making process.