Radio West- Policy

[Scott Lloyd]

30 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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

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

That post was to you, not Rongo.

And I'm not clear on what question you think it is that I'm not answering.

[CV75]

58 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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

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

Why no direct answer to these questions?

Posted 23 hours ago So there is no challenge as to whether the procedure described in Posted 1 hour ago wasn't followed with the implementation of the "new" policy?

Posted 6 hours ago How was the process not followed? (Maybe you can do a better job than this excellent summary: Posted 1 hour ago!!!)

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

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

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

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

Is that political?

That is a great definition of politics in the church.

I'm fine with the way you're distinguishing between unanimity and unity IF it is recognized and discussed as such in the church. But the Nelson talk (which I quoted from earlier) claims unanimity is the reason why we can have confidence in the actions of the church being the will of God because all the brethren agree. Agreeing to sustain the leader is very different than being unanimous in believing something is the will of God. Frankly, if someone believed anything the leader said was truly the word of God, that person would change his mind to agree with the decision of the leader. It's circular.

It seems a bit dishonest to let people think you agree with a decision when really you only agree to sustain the individual making the decision.

[Scott Lloyd]

39 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That is a great definition of politics in the church.

I'm fine with the way you're distinguishing between unanimity and unity IF it is recognized and discussed as such in the church. But the Nelson talk (which I quoted from earlier) claims unanimity is the reason why we can have confidence in the actions of the church being the will of God because all the brethren agree. Agreeing to sustain the leader is very different than being unanimous in believing something is the will of God. Frankly, if someone believed anything the leader said was truly the word of God, that person would change his mind to agree with the decision of the leader. It's circular.

It seems a bit dishonest to let people think you agree with a decision when really you only agree to sustain the individual making the decision.

It may be strange to say so, but I agree with you here and believe that rongo is off-base in applying that interpretation to President Nelson's intent in his remarks about unanimity among the council with regard to the November policy. Either there is unanimity in their belief that it is of God or there isn't. rongo's thinking does not reflect mine on this matter.

Edited November 16, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It may be strange to say so, but I agree with you here and believe that rongo is off-base in applying that interpretation to President Nelson's intent in his remarks about unanimity among the council with regard to the November policy. Either there is unanimity in their belief that it is of God or there isn't. rongo's thinking does not reflect mine on this matter.

While righteous decisions must be made by the unanimous voice of the participating majority (per D&C 107:27-28), I think each quorum member also receives the spiritual witness of, and then represents, the rightness of the decision (hearkening back to President Hinckley's quote).

From D&C 29:6, “And, as it is written—Whatsoever ye shall ask in faith, being united in prayer according to my command, ye shall receive.” The only place I can find where this was written before is Nephi 27:1-2: “And it came to pass that as the disciples of Jesus were journeying and were preaching the things which they had both heard and seen, and were baptizing in the name of Jesus, it came to pass that the disciples were gathered together and were united in mighty prayer and fasting. And Jesus again showed himself unto them…” The same thing happens in D&C 84:1.

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That post was to you, not Rongo.

And I'm not clear on what question you think it is that I'm not answering.

Do you really believe that they (the apostles) are always unanimous in their feelings? (Emphasis added)

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Why no direct answer to these questions?

 

Posted 23 hours ago So there is no challenge as to whether the procedure described in Posted 1 hour ago wasn't followed with the implementation of the "new" policy?

 

Posted 6 hours ago How was the process not followed? (Maybe you can do a better job than this excellent summary: Posted 1 hour ago!!!)

 

I thought I had answered both of those:

There is no challenge to the thought that those present in the Nov 3 meeting unanimously approved the handbook policy additions.  There is a challenge that all 12 of the apostles were present.  

[rongo]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It may be strange to say so, but I agree with you here and believe that rongo is off-base in applying that interpretation to President Nelson's intent in his remarks about unanimity among the council with regard to the November policy.

rongo never "applied that interpretation to President Nelson's intent in his remarks about unanimity among the council with regard to the November policy." rongo was speaking of his experience with unity vs. unanimity, and suggesting that this is often how things work at the ward and stake level. 

Using a hypothetical that hits a little close to home for you: let's say that your bishop instituted a no electronics at church policy. You have already said that you would go up the chain of command against that. Let's say that your stake president sustained your bishop, and in rage, you write to your area seventy --- and he also sustains the local leaders. 

Where would you be on this issue?

My guess, in interacting with you here, is that you would sustain the action through your actions, but that you would continue to strongly believe that the policy was misguided and wrong. You would be unified with your leaders, but by no means unanimous in your feelings. 

I'm frankly surprised at your insistence that the apostles, in their quest for absolute unanimity in everything, have a Borg-like oneness in all their thoughts, feelings, etc. I believe that they are actual, in the flesh men, not cardboard cutouts that think alike with a hive mind in a quest for absolute unanimity. I wouldn't want them to be that way. 

I want to make it clear that I don't think there is any dissension among them with this policy, and overall, I think they often largely agree about many/most things. But, I don't for a minute believe that they never differ in their thoughts about things. They have said that they do.

There's nothing wrong with acquiescing to a majority if it's not our hill to die on. We do this all the time in the Church. My personal one is the scouting program. 

[rongo]

48 minutes ago, rockpond said:

There is no challenge to the thought that those present in the Nov 3 meeting unanimously approved the handbook policy additions.  There is a challenge that all 12 of the apostles were present.  

What also often happens is sustaining through not opposing. Whether or not all of them were present, the fact that none have spoken out against the policy constitutes de facto sustaining or acceptance of it. Granted, it is highly unlikely that anyone would speak out publicly, even if they did disagree, but that doesn't matter. 

We see this at the local level all the time. People wish someone would be reined in, but the higher authorities choose not to. They may not agree, but don't want to contribute to loss of influence, perceived/real conflict, or whatever. The practical result is sustaining and functional unanimity. 

[Scott Lloyd]

55 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Do you really believe that they (the apostles) are always unanimous in their feelings? (Emphasis added)

No. I've not indicated that. I believe they can and perhaps very often do differ in their opinions during the discussion and deliberation stages, which are very much a learning and fact-finding experience for them individually and collectively, but there comes a point when the Lord manifests His will to them individually and as a group, and they then act as one body in the governance of the Church under revelation from Jesus Christ.

And if I may point it out, we saw this with respect to the priesthood ban in the years leading up to June 1978, when, from everything I could tell, they were of one mind and witness that the revelation had been received. Consider the remarkable declaration of Elder Bruce R. McConkie saying people should forget everything that he or anyone else had said earlier that was contrary to the revelation that had been received. Could there be any more of a dramatic demonstration of what I am saying here?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

rongo never "applied that interpretation to President Nelson's intent in his remarks about unanimity among the council with regard to the November policy." rongo was speaking of his experience with unity vs. unanimity, and suggesting that this is often how things work at the ward and stake level. 

Using a hypothetical that hits a little close to home for you: let's say that your bishop instituted a no electronics at church policy. You have already said that you would go up the chain of command against that. Let's say that your stake president sustained your bishop, and in rage, you write to your area seventy --- and he also sustains the local leaders. 

Where would you be on this issue?

My guess, in interacting with you here, is that you would sustain the action through your actions, but that you would continue to strongly believe that the policy was misguided and wrong. You would be unified with your leaders, but by no means unanimous in your feelings. 

I'm frankly surprised at your insistence that the apostles, in their quest for absolute unanimity in everything, have a Borg-like oneness in all their thoughts, feelings, etc. I believe that they are actual, in the flesh men, not cardboard cutouts that think alike with a hive mind in a quest for absolute unanimity. I wouldn't want them to be that way. 

I want to make it clear that I don't think there is any dissension among them with this policy, and overall, I think they often largely agree about many/most things. But, I don't for a minute believe that they never differ in their thoughts about things. They have said that they do.

There's nothing wrong with acquiescing to a majority if it's not our hill to die on. We do this all the time in the Church. My personal one is the scouting program. 

I'm saddened that you would use disparaging terms such as "borg-lke oneness" and "hive mind" with respect to the sacred process of becoming one with Christ in mind and purpose.

Consider the entry for "Prayer" in our Bible Dictionary. I have for many years cherished what is said therein. It has helped me understand that prayer ideally is a process of unification whereby we bring our mind and will into conformity with that of the Almighty. If members of any of the councils in the Church were to do that, individually and collectively, they would eventually arrive at perfect agreement on a given course of action.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I thought I had answered both of those:

There is no challenge to the thought that those present in the Nov 3 meeting unanimously approved the handbook policy additions.  There is a challenge that all 12 of the apostles were present.  

And just so we're clear, my challenge is to the supposition that their absence on one particular occasion is of any great moment considering the extensive deliberations that, according to President Nelson, must have occurred prior to that one occasion.

[rongo]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm saddened that you would use disparaging terms such as "borg-lke oneness" and "hive mind" with respect to the sacred process of becoming one with Christ in mind and purpose.

That's how *your* approach and explanation of things feels to me. It's not a position or a state that I believe in. I do believe that the Brethren deal with the same issues of mortality that we do, and unify together on things that they don't see eye-to-eye on. And they are a wonderful example to each of us as to how to do that in our sphere!

Consider the entry for "Prayer" in our Bible Dictionary. I have for many years cherished what is said therein. It has helped me understand that prayer ideally is a process of unification whereby we bring our mind and will into conformity with that of the Almighty. If members of any of the councils in the Church were to do that, individually and collectively, they would eventually arrive at perfect agreement on a given course of action.

This seems like a self-imposed fundamentalist assumption on your part. For my part, I don't find it necessary to believe that they "arrive at perfect agreement" on courses of action. This is not the experience of anyone in real life, and isn't necessary for unity to reign in their quorums. 

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No. I've not indicated that. I believe they can and perhaps very often do differ in their opinions during the discussion and deliberation stages, which are very much a learning and fact-finding experience for them individually and collectively, but there comes a point when the Lord manifests His will to them individually and as a group, and they then act as one body in the governance of the Church under revelation from Jesus Christ.

So up to the point that President Monson reportedly presented the Lord's will on the matter, it was possible that the apostles had differing opinions on the matter?

I think that would be consistent with the wrestle described by Pres. Nelson.

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And just so we're clear, my challenge is to the supposition that their absence on one particular occasion is of any great moment considering the extensive deliberations that, according to President Nelson, must have occurred prior to that one occasion.

If Pres. Monson was, in that 3-Nov meeting, presenting a revelation from the Lord on how to move forward, I agree, it really is of no significance (to me, at least) that one or two of the apostles may not have been present.  You've acknowledged that up to that point there may have been differing feelings on the matter among the apostles, so for those who subscribe to the teaching that all 12 must be in unanimous agreement on everything, it seems that having them participate in that ratification would have been important. 

Does that make sense?

[rockpond]

28 minutes ago, rongo said:

What also often happens is sustaining through not opposing. Whether or not all of them were present, the fact that none have spoken out against the policy constitutes de facto sustaining or acceptance of it. Granted, it is highly unlikely that anyone would speak out publicly, even if they did disagree, but that doesn't matter. 

We see this at the local level all the time. People wish someone would be reined in, but the higher authorities choose not to. They may not agree, but don't want to contribute to loss of influence, perceived/real conflict, or whatever. The practical result is sustaining and functional unanimity. 

Yes, I think that's how it should work at all levels of the church.  Councils discuss, pray, deliberate, ponder, seek a confirmation, and ideally reach unanimous consent.  But if not, once the presiding authority within the council has made a decision, all other members of the council should support the decision. 

Am I off base on that?  Too much of a military approach?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

So up to the point that President Monson reportedly presented the Lord's will on the matter, it was possible that the apostles had differing opinions on the matter?

I think that's a simplistic reading of the matter. I believe it more likely that the Spirit was working on the hearts of each of them during the deliberative process to the point they were well prepared to embrace the revelation when President Monson conveyed it to them.

Quote

I think that would be consistent with the wrestle described by Pres. Nelson.

We've been over this. I don't concede you are understanding his use of the word "wrestle" correctly. I believe it refers to the earnest and difficult effort required in the factfinding, and prolonged deliberation. I don't feel compelled to believe it indicates animosity or factionalism as you apparently do.

 

Quote

 

If Pres. Monson was, in that 3-Nov meeting, presenting a revelation from the Lord on how to move forward, I agree, it really is of no significance (to me, at least) that one or two of the apostles may not have been present.  You've acknowledged that up to that point there may have been differing feelings on the matter among the apostles, so for those who subscribe to the teaching that all 12 must be in unanimous agreement on everything, it seems that having them participate in that ratification would have been important. 

Does that make sense?

 

See above. It might just as likely be that they had come to a unity of thought prior to that point. Nothing in President Nelson's account of what happened precludes that. (And I believe I already made that point earlier on this thread. So we seem to be repeating ourselves. Which can be a good indication we are at loggerheads and it is time to lay the matter down.)

Edited November 16, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

38 minutes ago, rongo said:

That's how *your* approach and explanation of things feels to me. It's not a position or a state that I believe in. I do believe that the Brethren deal with the same issues of mortality that we do, and unify together on things that they don't see eye-to-eye on. And they are a wonderful example to each of us as to how to do that in our sphere!

 

 

This seems like a self-imposed fundamentalist assumption on your part. For my part, I don't find it necessary to believe that they "arrive at perfect agreement" on courses of action. This is not the experience of anyone in real life, and isn't necessary for unity to reign in their quorums. 

You cannot authoritatively say, "This is not the experience of anyone in real life."

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Yes, I think that's how it should work at all levels of the church.  Councils discuss, pray, deliberate, ponder, seek a confirmation, and ideally reach unanimous consent.  But if not, once the presiding authority within the council has made a decision, all other members of the council should support the decision. 

Am I off base on that?  Too much of a military approach?

I would characterize it as too earthly of an approach. The teaching of Jesus Christ is to "be one, and if ye are not one, ye are not mine." The "go-along-to-get-along" approach, or, as rongo puts it, "sustaining by not opposing" is not worthy of the covenant people of God. It hardly characterizes the oneness that should prevail among them.

Edited to add:

This expression of Joseph Smith from the newly published Nauvoo Council of Fifty minutes expresses the concept very well (Joseph, like our Elder Ballard of today, had given extensive thought and study to the concept of councils as they pertain to the Church and Kingdom of God):

Quote

I want every man to get knowledge, search the laws of nations and get all the information they can. There can be no exceptions taken to anything that any man can say in this council. I don’t want any man to ever assent to anything in this council and then find fault with it. Don’t decide in favor of anything until you know it.

Edited November 16, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think that's a simplistic reading of the matter. I believe it more likely that the Spirit was working on the hearts of each of them during the deliberative process to the point they were well prepared to embrace the revelation when President Monson conveyed it to them.

We've been over this. I don't concede you are understanding his use of the word "wrestle" correction. I believe it refers to the earnest and difficult effort required in the factfinding, and prolonged deliberation. I don't feel compelled to believe it indicates animosity or factionalism as you apparently do.

 

See above. It might just as likely be that they had come to a unity of thought prior to that point. Nothing in President Nelson's account of what happened precludes that. (And I believe I already made that point earlier on this thread. So we seem to be repeating ourselves. Which can be a good indication we are at loggerheads and it is time to lay the matter down.)

At loggerheads just when we had gotten so close to common ground?

We have both acknowledged that they may have differed in their feelings prior to the 3-Nov meeting.  I also agree with you that Pres. Nelson's use of wrestle "refers to the earnest and difficult effort required in the factfinding, and prolonged deliberation."

I don't believe that it refers to animosity or factionalism.  I've never suggested such a thing.  Maybe you have me confused with someone else.

I respect your belief that they may have been prepared by the spirit to receive the new handbook additions.

Perhaps you could respect my beliefs without this ongoing need to cast them in a negative light. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

At loggerheads just when we had gotten so close to common ground?

We have both acknowledged that they may have differed in their feelings prior to the 3-Nov meeting.  I also agree with you that Pres. Nelson's use of wrestle "refers to the earnest and difficult effort required in the factfinding, and prolonged deliberation."

I don't believe that it refers to animosity or factionalism.  I've never suggested such a thing.  Maybe you have me confused with someone else.

I respect your belief that they may have been prepared by the spirit to receive the new handbook additions.

Perhaps you could respect my beliefs without this ongoing need to cast them in a negative light. 

Fair enough.

 

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I would characterize it as too earthly of an approach. The teaching of Jesus Christ is to "be one, and if ye are not one, ye are not mine." The "go-along-to-get-along" approach, or, as rongo puts it, "sustaining by not opposing" is not worthy of the covenant people of God. It hardly characterizes the oneness that should prevail among them.

I agree...  "being one" is certainly the goal of the process I described.  In your experience in councils, have they not ever failed to reach that point and needed to instead sustain the decision of the presiding officer and move forward?

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Fair enough.

 

I guess that's as close as an apology I'll get from you.  Thanks. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I guess that's as close as an apology I'll get from you.  Thanks. 

I didn't realize that's what you were requiring.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I agree...  "being one" is certainly the goal of the process I described.  In your experience in councils, have they not ever failed to reach that point and needed to instead sustain the decision of the presiding officer and move forward?

Not that I recall.

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I didn't realize that's what you were requiring.

 

I wasn't.  I wouldn't "require" such a thing from you.