Radio West- Policy

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not that I recall.

Fascinating. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Fascinating. 

It's my honest recollection.

And I've been a part of several councils: ward councils and priesthood executive councils when I twice served as executive secretary and as a ward mission leader and high priests group leader; two stake councils when I twice served as stake Sunday School president; and a region council when I was a regional public communications director. I also sat in as a news reporter and observed when Elder Ballard chaired the Pioneer Sesquicentennial Committee prior to that observance in 1996-97.

I remember candid expression of opinion. But I don't recall heated contention or animosity, nor was I conscious of anyone taking the "sustain-by-not-opposing" approach. Joseph Smith would have called people who do that "dough heads" (see the newly published Council of Fifty minutes). I would consider the approach damning with faint praise.

 

Edited November 16, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 hours ago, rongo said:

This is not the experience of anyone in real life, and isn't necessary for unity to reign in their quorums. 

It has been my experience. And earlier in this thread Rockpond claimed it had also been his.

6 hours ago, rockpond said:

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?

Nope.

[CV75]

11 hours 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.  

OK -- thank you.

Why is it important whether all 12 of the apostles were present or not on 11/03/15 (considering the guidance we have in the D&C)? Does it have something to do with tying unanimity and a shared witness to physical proximity? If so, how does that work, or how is it supported by scripture?

It seems to me the phrase "where two or three are gathered" might refer and apply to the pattern of the ancient "quorum of three presidents" and allows for a majority of a quorum to receive the will of Lord in behalf of the full quorum (“A majority ...[is] entitled to the same blessings which the decisions of a quorum of three presidents were anciently…”). The promise is, “… they [the quorum members] shall not be unfruitful in the knowledge of the Lord.” This knowledge includes the common witness, a unanimity in thought and feeling. I am sure those absent from a physical event receive the full blessing as those who were physically present.

Edited November 16, 2016 by CV75

[rockpond]

14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's my honest recollection.

And I've been a part of several councils: ward councils and priesthood executive councils when I twice served as executive secretary and as a ward mission leader and high priests group leader; two stake councils when I twice served as stake Sunday School president; and a region council when I was a regional public communications director. I also sat in as a news reporter and observed when Elder Ballard chaired the Pioneer Sesquicentennial Committee prior to that observance in 1996-97.

I remember candid expression of opinion. But I don't recall heated contention or animosity, nor was I conscious of anyone taking the "sustain-by-not-opposing" approach. Joseph Smith would have called people who do that "dough heads" (see the newly published Council of Fifty minutes). I would consider the approach damning with faint praise.

 

Well, I haven't experienced "heated contention or animosity" in councils.  I wasn't suggesting that.  But I see a big spectrum of possibility between contention/animosity and being of one heart/mind.

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, CV75 said:

OK -- thank you.

Why is it important whether all 12 of the apostles were present or not on 11/03/15 (considering the guidance we have in the D&C)? Does it have something to do with tying unanimity and a shared witness to physical proximity? If so, how does that work, or how is it supported by scripture?

It seems to me the phrase "where two or three are gathered" might refer and apply to the pattern of the ancient "quorum of three presidents" and allows for a majority of a quorum to receive the will of Lord in behalf of the full quorum (“A majority ...[is] entitled to the same blessings which the decisions of a quorum of three presidents were anciently…”). The promise is, “… they [the quorum members] shall not be unfruitful in the knowledge of the Lord.” This knowledge includes the common witness, a unanimity in thought and feeling. I am sure those absent from a physical event receive the full blessing as those who were physically present.

The accounts of Prince and Wilcox claim that the handbook changes were presented, ratified by the apostles (less one or two who weren't present) and then published within 24-48 hours.  The presumption being that those missing one or two members of the quorum were not able to participate in the unanimous agreement that some suggest is required.

I don't disagree that a majority of the quorum could act.  And as I have stated a few times here, I would presume that the Prophet acting under revelation from the Lord and holding the keys that he has, could act even without consultation with the quorum.  Not that he would, but it seems like he could.

[Jeanne]

This past Thursday, a new podcast went out from Radio West (Mormon Discussions) that I haven't listened to yet...it is supposed to explain a lot  of things.  It is on Mormon Discussions..I know a lot of people here to like podcasts but was wondering if any one had heard it yet.  I can't hear well so if anyone does get it..or needs me to get it here, please let me know. 

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

This past Thursday, a new podcast went out from Radio West (Mormon Discussions) that I haven't listened to yet...it is supposed to explain a lot  of things.  It is on Mormon Discussions..I know a lot of people here to like podcasts but was wondering if any one had heard it yet.  I can't hear well so if anyone does get it..or needs me to get it here, please let me know. 

Did you mean to say "Radio Free Mormon" on Mormon Discussions podcast?  I saw that come across my feed but haven't listened to it yet.

[Jeanne]

Just now, rockpond said:

Did you mean to say "Radio Free Mormon" on Mormon Discussions podcast?  I saw that come across my feed but haven't listened to it yet.

Yes...I got it sent to me on a personal message.  On the feed there is also how the policy was actually leaked out..I got to read that part. 

[rongo]

18 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Well, I haven't experienced "heated contention or animosity" in councils.  I wasn't suggesting that.  But I see a big spectrum of possibility between contention/animosity and being of one heart/mind.

I was also surprised at the immediate leap from disagreement to "heated contention or animosity" --- as if the very presence of disagreement denotes contention or animosity. 

Personally, I find the notion of councils free to express concerns or disagree up until the leader makes a decision, whereupon all psychological or mental disagreement within must cease, to be another species of "the thinking is done."  

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

I was also surprised at the immediate leap from disagreement to "heated contention or animosity" --- as if the very presence of disagreement denotes contention or animosity. 

Personally, I find the notion of councils free to express concerns or disagree up until the leader makes a decision, whereupon all psychological or mental disagreement within must cease, to be another species of "the thinking is done."  

Yeah, I take it as an insight into Scott's thinking on the matter.  Perhaps he sees it as somewhat of a black & white dichotomy:  either their is contention/animosity or the council is of one mind/heart.  If one is to look at councils from that perspective, I would agree that I haven't seen councils with "heated contention or animosity".  But I have seen councils with expressed disagreement, extensive discussion, taking time to pray and ponder, and then ultimately needing to sustain a leader even while still disagreeing.

There were times, over my years as a counselor, in which I disagreed with my Bishop.  I always supported him 100% and feel nothing but great love for the man.  But we still disagree on certain things.  And I would say that we were "one" as a bishopric.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

The accounts of Prince and Wilcox claim that the handbook changes were presented, ratified by the apostles (less one or two who weren't present) and then published within 24-48 hours.  The presumption being that those missing one or two members of the quorum were not able to participate in the unanimous agreement that some suggest is required.

I don't disagree that a majority of the quorum could act.  And as I have stated a few times here, I would presume that the Prophet acting under revelation from the Lord and holding the keys that he has, could act even without consultation with the quorum.  Not that he would, but it seems like he could.

I’m still trying to understand the basis of the presumption that missing members of the quorum were not able to participate in the unanimous agreement. Do you have any ideas?

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

I was also surprised at the immediate leap from disagreement to "heated contention or animosity" --- as if the very presence of disagreement denotes contention or animosity. 

Personally, I find the notion of councils free to express concerns or disagree up until the leader makes a decision, whereupon all psychological or mental disagreement within must cease, to be another species of "the thinking is done."  

Heh. If anything, the "thinking has been done" attitude is reflected in the phrase "sustain by not opposing," which sounds like a euphemism for acquiesce halfheartedly.

Have you looked up yet what Joseph Smith is quoted in the Council of Fifty minutes as saying about "dough heads"? Maybe you haven't acquired the book yet. It is rather expensive.

I'll be happy to provide the quote for you, if you like.

Edited November 17, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Yeah, I take it as an insight into Scott's thinking on the matter.  Perhaps he sees it as somewhat of a black & white dichotomy:  either their is contention/animosity or the council is of one mind/heart.  If one is to look at councils from that perspective, I would agree that I haven't seen councils with "heated contention or animosity".  But I have seen councils with expressed disagreement, extensive discussion, taking time to pray and ponder, and then ultimately needing to sustain a leader even while still disagreeing.

There were times, over my years as a counselor, in which I disagreed with my Bishop.  I always supported him 100% and feel nothing but great love for the man.  But we still disagree on certain things.  And I would say that we were "one" as a bishopric.

The model I  have in mind is one in which members of a council, as they participate in diligent and prayerful deliberation, are subject to the workings of the Spirit until, perhaps ever so gradually, they arrive at a meeting of the minds.

If you have a situation where some members of the council continue to harbor disagreement after they have signed off on a something, it strikes me that there is work left to be done that has been ignored. One or more of the parties -- perhaps all of them -- lack sufficient humility and/or faith to come to know the will of the Lord. Perhaps, until they do, they ought not "move ahead."

Edited November 17, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The model I  have in mind is one in which members of a council, as they participate in diligent and prayerful deliberation, are subject to the workings of the Spirit until, perhaps ever so gradually, they arrive at a meeting of the minds.

If you have a situation where some members of the council continue to harbor disagreement after they have signed off on a something, it strikes me that there is work left to be done that has been ignored. One or more of the parties -- perhaps all of them -- lack sufficient humility to come to know the will of the Lord. Perhaps, until they do, they ought not "move ahead."

That model assumes that for any particular decision there is only one course of action that meets with the Lord's approval.  I don't see any reason to believe that to be an appropriate assumption.

[Hamba Tuhan]

 

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

 But I have seen councils with expressed disagreement, extensive discussion, taking time to pray and ponder, and then ultimately needing to sustain a leader even while still disagreeing.

What you are describing sounds completely alien to me. I'm certainly familiar with 'expressed disagreement, extensive discussion, [and] taking time to pray and ponder', but I have never served with a bishop or quorum president who has ever expected me to stop my thinking or to sustain his decision 'even while still disagreeing'. Never. Instead, we have always pushed ahead until perfect unanimity was reached -- with the necessary mechanism always being revelation.

I'm remembering now a serious disagreement with my immediate past stake president that dragged out for several months despite weekly meet-ups. In the end, the stake president thanked me for giving him an opportunity to receive revelation. And he had. I won't share details, but the exact same information was independently given to him, to me, and to my bishop at the time.

I'm also remembering a disciplinary council wherein I simply couldn't agree with my bishop and his first counsellor. I expressed my concerns in detail. We prayed a second time. Nothing changed. We all reviewed our positions, and I was again given a chance to express my concerns in detail. Then the bishop asked me to pray next. I did so. In the midst of praying, the voice of the Spirit spoke the very words I needed to hear, the only ones that could have changed my mind. Outcome: perfect unanimity.

And I could go on and on.

I'm wondering now if your apparently differently experiences can help explain why you seem to think that apostles don't really enjoy the same perfect unanimity that I so easily assume they do based on my experiences.

Edited November 17, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan

[ksfisher]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

That model assumes that for any particular decision there is only one course of action that meets with the Lord's approval.  I don't see any reason to believe that to be an appropriate assumption.

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that there can be only one course of action that pleases the Lord.  But I do think that the Lord expects his councils to work towards a course of action that pleases him. 

[Rain]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The model I  have in mind is one in which members of a council, as they participate in diligent and prayerful deliberation, are subject to the workings of the Spirit until, perhaps ever so gradually, they arrive at a meeting of the minds.

If you have a situation where some members of the council continue to harbor disagreement after they have signed off on a something, it strikes me that there is work left to be done that has been ignored. One or more of the parties -- perhaps all of them -- lack sufficient humility and/or faith to come to know the will of the Lord. Perhaps, until they do, they ought not "move ahead."

I've too often been in councils where things would never get done if we had to wait till we had a meeting of minds. Yes, it came down to people lacking humility or faith (in my experoence). The problem is that sometimes the Lord wants these people in our councils for one reason or another so sometimes you just need go ahead and let the majority decide or sometimes even support the person not agreeing with the rest.

Edited November 17, 2016 by Rain

[CV75]

8 hours ago, Rain said:

I've too often been in councils where things would never get done if we had to wait till we had a meeting of minds. Yes, it came down to people lacking humility or faith (in my experoence). The problem is that sometimes the Lord wants these people in our councils for one reason or another so sometimes you just need go ahead and let the majority decide or sometimes even support the person not agreeing with the rest.

There are many kinds of councils (family and Church). The types of family councils are described here: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2016/04/family-councils?lang=eng and the general, area, stake, and ward levels are mentioned in Handbook 2 here: https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/the-ward-council?lang=eng

There is more in Handbook 1 (Stake presidents and bishops have keys for responsibilities that cannot be delegated).

Most councils in the Church organization are not comprised of individuals possessing the same keys. While all participants seek unity (which is not the same as unanimity), the presiding authority must make the final decision, and the rest sustain him (which also is not the same as unanimity).

In those councils where all the members share the same keys (First Presidency and Twelve), unanimity is established in order to exercise those keys as described in  D&C 107 (and 102, come to think of it).

[CV75]

16 hours ago, rockpond said:

Yeah, I take it as an insight into Scott's thinking on the matter.  Perhaps he sees it as somewhat of a black & white dichotomy:  either their is contention/animosity or the council is of one mind/heart.  If one is to look at councils from that perspective, I would agree that I haven't seen councils with "heated contention or animosity".  But I have seen councils with expressed disagreement, extensive discussion, taking time to pray and ponder, and then ultimately needing to sustain a leader even while still disagreeing.

There were times, over my years as a counselor, in which I disagreed with my Bishop.  I always supported him 100% and feel nothing but great love for the man.  But we still disagree on certain things.  And I would say that we were "one" as a bishopric.

 

14 hours ago, rockpond said:

That model assumes that for any particular decision there is only one course of action that meets with the Lord's approval.  I don't see any reason to believe that to be an appropriate assumption.

This is tricky. It asserts that it is possible that those in a council that disagree with the presiding authority’s decision and unite and sustain him in good faith are also under the influence of an alternative (even opposing) revelation of God’s will on how to exercise the keys.

That might happen where the presiding authority is the only one on the council with the keys and the right to exercise them, and does so incorrectly, but that is not what D&C 107 calls for when all council members possess and exercise the same keys in the same way.

Does this have something to do with the basis of the presumption that missing members of the Quorum of Twelve were not able to participate in the unanimous agreement on the policy mentioned in the OP?

[HappyJackWagon]

17 hours ago, Jeanne said:

This past Thursday, a new podcast went out from Radio West (Mormon Discussions) that I haven't listened to yet...it is supposed to explain a lot  of things.  It is on Mormon Discussions..I know a lot of people here to like podcasts but was wondering if any one had heard it yet.  I can't hear well so if anyone does get it..or needs me to get it here, please let me know. 

I just listened to the Mormon Discussion podcast about the anniversary of the policy. Bill Reel's main point on the podcast was that this policy has the potential to have huge impact on the church.

He quotes the recently leaked video in which they discuss YSA activity rates. The millenials are falling away fast. 28% are still active at age 20. If you combine that information with the Jana Reiss Survey in which something like 75% of active millenials somewhat or strongly approve of the policy stating SSM participants are apostate. 62% agree with the ordinance restrictions on children. So that is 75% (policy- apostate) or 62% (policy-children) out of the active 28%. Unless something shifts dramatically, those numbers represent a giant gap between the policy of the brethren and the thinking of the millenials. Will those number expand or contract? Time will tell, but society is generally moving in one direction and the millenials seem to be more aligned with the societal notions of fairness in treatment of LGBT and SSM.

This is the rising generation. Not only will their changed ideas influence future leadership, but it will also influence church growth as it's possible that at least 72% of millenials will not to raise their families in the church (extrapolation).

[Rain]

53 minutes ago, CV75 said:

There are many kinds of councils (family and Church). The types of family councils are described here: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2016/04/family-councils?lang=eng and the general, area, stake, and ward levels are mentioned in Handbook 2 here: https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/the-ward-council?lang=eng

 

There is more in Handbook 1 (Stake presidents and bishops have keys for responsibilities that cannot be delegated).

Most councils in the Church organization are not comprised of individuals possessing the same keys. While all participants seek unity (which is not the same as unanimity), the presiding authority must make the final decision, and the rest sustain him (which also is not the same as unanimity).

In those councils where all the members share the same keys (First Presidency and Twelve), unanimity is established in order to exercise those keys as described in  D&C 107 (and 102, come to think of it).

Yes. I knew I wasn't wording that well.  I was just trying to say that there are times when members of councils don't even seek unity.  

[rongo]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

Most councils in the Church organization are not comprised of individuals possessing the same keys. While all participants seek unity (which is not the same as unanimity), the presiding authority must make the final decision, and the rest sustain him (which also is not the same as unanimity).

Agreed. This is what I said earlier.

In those councils where all the members share the same keys (First Presidency and Twelve), unanimity is established in order to exercise those keys as described in  D&C 107 (and 102, come to think of it).

Only the president of the Church "holds and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys." The other 14 apostles collectively share the keys, but can only exercise them in fullness when setting apart another president. The Quorum of the First Presidency has not always consisted of three apostles, nor does it have to, although that has been the custom for some time now (some FP members have been high priests only). So, it's not technically accurate to think of the First Presidency as always consisting of members all sharing the same keys. 

Section 107 doesn't require unanimity absolutely. It states that quorum decisions that are not unanimous do not have the same authority as unanimous decisions from lower quorums. This, of course, presupposes that it is possible to have less-than-unanimous quorum decisions. In practice (and it's a very good thing), the Brethren strive to have all quorum decisions be unanimous. There are known and unknown exceptions, and I cited President Packer's disagreement on having separate single's wards as one. I would argue, and I think you would agree, that he was unified with the Brethren on Church policy with single's ward, but not unanimous. Importantly, the end result was functional unanimity --- his strong feelings were not a source of contention or a stumbling block. This is a good example to us at the ward and stake level when we have strong feelings or concerns about decisions from key-holders.

[rongo]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

Section 107 doesn't require unanimity absolutely. It states that quorum decisions that are not unanimous do not have the same authority as unanimous decisions from lower quorums. This, of course, presupposes that it is possible to have less-than-unanimous quorum decisions. In practice (and it's a very good thing), the Brethren strive to have all quorum decisions be unanimous. 

Adding: sustaining votes and actions are what matters, not whether everyone is in absolute lockstep emotionally and intellectually with decisions. In this, the Brethren can be considered to be unanimous. What I disagree with is the claim by some here that it isn't true unanimity unless everyone sees absolutely eye-to-eye emotionally and intellectually. 

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

Adding: sustaining votes and actions are what matters, not whether everyone is in absolute lockstep emotionally and intellectually with decisions. In this, the Brethren can be considered to be unanimous. What I disagree with is the claim by some here that it isn't true unanimity unless everyone sees absolutely eye-to-eye emotionally and intellectually. 

North Korea has unanimous votes. Not because everyone agrees about the candidate but because everyone agrees that it's most important to accept the leader.

I agree with you, which is why I've said before that I'm fine with it as long as the church acknowledges that unanimity in the quorum means that everyone agrees it is important to sustain the leader, NOT necessarily that they all agree that an action is best or even God's will. This approach undercuts the Nelson talk I quoted earlier where he said we can have confidence in the unanimity of councils in the church protecting us from the errant idea or frailty of a leader. In your scenario a frail leader who may be suffering from decreased mental faculty would still be sustained because he is the leader. There's no safety in that.