Mormon Future - Cultural Assimilation or Retrenchment?

[pogi]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

When you're already 93 the probability he'll be around for more than two years is extremely low.

Not necessarily.  If you are basing it on overall US statistics, you are probably right.  But based on overall statistics, he has already beaten the odds at 93!  When predicting individual life expectancy, you can't base it on overall population statistics.  I worked as a hospice nurse for several years. Whenever I admitted a patient to hospice care, I had to assess life expectancy.  While I don't have access to his medical records or family history, he doesn't appear to have any heart disease (if anybody knows about good heart health, it is him!).  He is not obese.  He is not a smoker or a drinker.  No signs of mental illness. He is extremely active, both mentally and physically for his age.  In fact, just last year, my brother-in-law was hiking up Little Cottonwood canyon with his family and ran into President Nelson on the hiking trail, and got some pictures with him.  That is incredible for his age!  He is completely independent and requires no assistance with ADL's (activities of daily living) and requires no assistive devices.  I suspect that he keeps up-to-date with all his vaccines including pneumococcal and annual influenza (though that one is not very effective this year).  Very importantly, he has strong emotional and social support systems, and he has a purpose, a work, and a reason to feel valued.  These all can improve well-being and life expectancy.

Barring some freak accident or severe infection, I would expect to see President Nelson around for more than 2 years.  I would expect him to recover well from most acute infections or illnesses, despite his age.  Based on my rather superficial assessment, without access to his medical records, I wouldn't be surprised if he lived to 97 or 98.  I see no signs of chronic or progressive illness.  Who knows, centenarians are becoming more and more popular with each decade that passes.   

Edited January 4, 2018 by pogi

[pogi]

21 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Not really a "convert."

Depends on your definition.  According to this he was.  

Quote

3. He is a convert.

 

[kiwi57]

I think that the Church will continue to stand for truth and righteousness in areas where the wider culture has lost its way.

I think that will infuriate its critics, both within and without the Church.

I don't see that as a bad thing.

I also think that the Church will continue to show compassion in areas where political conservatives are looking for harshness. When that happens, rednecks will get angry, while those blown about by every wind of doctrine (and social trends) will try to see that as a sign that the Church is about to bend their way - which will only make them angrier when it doesn't.

In both of those directions - standing for truth and righteousness, and reaching out in compassion - the Church will be following the Gospel. This will not be understood by those who are primarily interested in social and political matters.

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think he's speaking to a general public perception when it comes to focus on the poor and needy, that typically is a more progressive cause. 

"Progressive" as in politically progressive, yes?

And even then, I think the author is trading on stereotypes, not facts.  See, e.g., this article in The Fiscal Times:

Quote

Conservatives give more money to charity than liberals. That's the conventional wisdom, anyway, and at least one new study backs that thinking up.

"How America Gives," published by The Chronicle of Philanthropy, uses IRS data to determine giving patterns across the country, broken out by income ranges across ZIP codes, counties, and states. Researchers looked at adjusted gross income to determine how much people gave, and the study tracked about 80 percent of all money donated to charity by taxpaying Americans in 2012, the latest year for which IRS data was available.

While most coverage of the report has focused on the finding that top-earners have been giving a smaller share of their income to charity than poorer Americans, The Chronicle study also highlights "giving patterns," broken out by state and compared against how each state voted in the 2012 presidential election, i.e., whether it went for Romney or Obama.

Overall, the states in which people gave the highest percentage of their adjusted gross incomes were also states that voted for Romney, while states in which people gave the lowest percentage of their adjusted gross income went for Obama. The top 17 states for rate of giving all went for Romney.

Or this article by Nicholas Kristof in the NY Times:

Quote

This holiday season is a time to examine who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, but I’m unhappy with my findings. The problem is this: We liberals are personally stingy.

Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

...

“When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks wrote, “I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”

...

When liberals see the data on giving, they tend to protest that conservatives look good only because they shower dollars on churches — that a fair amount of that money isn’t helping the poor, but simply constructing lavish spires.

It’s true that religion is the essential reason conservatives give more, and religious liberals are as generous as religious conservatives. Among the stingiest of the stingy are secular conservatives.

...

Conservatives also appear to be more generous than liberals in nonfinancial ways. People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often. If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent.

So, you’ve guessed it! This column is a transparent attempt this holiday season to shame liberals into being more charitable. Since I often scold Republicans for being callous in their policies toward the needy, it seems only fair to reproach Democrats for being cheap in their private donations. 

It is a lazy and inaccurate assumption to equate political "progressivism" with "focus on the poor and needy."  Implicit in this is a corollary claim that political "conservatism" does not have a "focus on the poor and needy."

The LDS Church manifestly does have a "focus on the poor and needy," and has had it since well before Pres. Monson became the prophet.

The author politicized the concept of "focus{ing} on the poor and needy."  Not only did he do so in a contested way, but he did so in a way that misdirects the reader as to the generalized efforts and motives of the LDS Church.

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't think its mutually exclusive to more liberally leaning people, in other words, someone can align with causes of the poor and needy and also identify as a conservative politically.   

I agree.  And yet the author politicized "focus on the poor and needy" by labeling it as a "progressive" cause.

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Can you explain what you mean by stating that many American Mormons are profoundly liberal on terms of doctrine and practice? 

We believe in living prophets and apostles.  An open canon.  Exclusive priesthood authority.  Work for the death.  Eternal marriages.  And so on.

All of these are, I think, pretty much foreign to doctrinally "conservative" Christians.

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think we know enough about the timing and evidence of the family proclamation to deduce that it was highly influenced by outside events, the same sex marriage debates in Hawaii, and that it was written in response to those events.  Recognizing all the influencing social factors I believe brings greater insight to the table.  

Okay.  I'll go along with that.

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree with your examples, and I've made this same observations on immigration and the LGBT issue in Utah.  You're right that many Mormons in conservative Utah have largely followed the conservative ideology of the Republican party on the immigration debates often putting them in conflict with the church's more moderate positions.  Similarly with those at odds with the church's policies on LGBT individuals.  Yet when it comes to political ideology, because individual church leaders have unique political opinions and are influenced by these positions, and because no opinions can be formed in a vacuum, its impossible for the LDS Church or any other institution to be immune to the forces of political ideology.  They may have seek to operate independently, but a completely uninfluenced independence is not even possible.  

I'm not speaking of immunity.  Perhaps we are saying the same thing, just in different ways (or in differing degrees).

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

As an student observer of history, I completely disagree with your assessment here.  The church has been reactive throughout history and continues to be today. 

In a very few ways, yes.  Otherwise, no.

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This is just the nature of how things work for organizations and people.  This ideal that you're speaking to that the church can operate outside of the regular forces at play is completely contradicted by actual evidence to the contrary. 

We seem to be misunderstanding each other.  I am not saying that the Church is "immune" or "operat{ing} outise of the regular forces at play."

The Edmunds-Tucker Act unequivocally influenced the Church's decisions regarding polygamy.

The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s influenced the Church's decisions regarding race and the priesthood.

The last 20 years of popular discussion about same-sex attraction has clearly influenced how the Church interacts with and addresses SSA, gay marriage, etc.

My point, though, is that on substantive issues, the Church's position has been determined by revelation.  OD-1.  OD-2.  The Proclamation.  The policy changes in November 2015.  All of these have been revelatory.

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I would be so bold as to say that everything that has ever happened throughout the history of the church has always happened within and in response to the context of the times, and I can't think of any exceptions to that reality.  And this is coming from a person that rarely speaks in absolutes, but I feel that confident in these observations that I'm willing to stick a couple absolutes into my statement.  

I would call it intelligently informed observations rather than speculation and guesswork.  

About the Proclamation?  Not really.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

37 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually the so-called "conservative" and "liberal" terminology is not even fit for political discussions.  The terms are incoherent and primarily emotionally loaded.  I know of no one who can adequately define either term.

Hmm.  What are your thoughts on these attempts to define these terms:

• Conservatism
• Liberalism
• Socialism
• Libertarianism

You probably have a point, though.  Several of these include in the definition "includes a broad spectrum of political philosphies..."  Such elastic, loose, confederated definitions can be problematic.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[hope_for_things]

35 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Pres. Nelson will continue with the dynamism of the modern LDS Church, but there will be no major changes in doctrine or policy.

Would you consider the canonization of the Proclamation on the Family to be a major change in policy or doctrine?  I would, but I'm wondering what others think. 

Otherwise, I think he might continue to double down on the 2015 LGBT policy, which wouldn't be a change per say, but it would be an unfortunate continuance of a recent retrenchment in my mind.  Hope I'm wrong, but who knows.  

[kiwi57]

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Would you consider the canonization of the Proclamation on the Family to be a major change in policy or doctrine?  I would, but I'm wondering what others think.

No. It's already definitive LDS doctrine.

Quote

Otherwise, I think he might continue to double down on the 2015 LGBT policy, which wouldn't be a change per say, but it would be an unfortunate continuance of a recent retrenchment in my mind.  Hope I'm wrong, but who knows.  

The 2015 policy is likewise a good thing that is abhorred by those who don't really have any useful alternatives to offer. Accepting, as we do, that changing the Law of Chastity and the definition of marriage to make non-compliers feel better is not an option, just what policy should the Church take towards children raised in openly and avowedly apostate households?

Edited January 4, 2018 by kiwi57

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Would you consider the canonization of the Proclamation on the Family to be a major change in policy or doctrine?  I would, but I'm wondering what others think. 

I would not.  Consider the Church's current teachings and practices.  Would anything change if the Proclamation were canonized?  Not that I can see.

I think some members will struggle a bit, in a "kick against the pricks" kind of way, if the Proclamation were canonized.  Right now they are pretty much at liberty to construe the Church's position as more social than doctrinal.  Canonization would, I think, change that a bit.

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Otherwise, I think he might continue to double down on the 2015 LGBT policy, which wouldn't be a change per say, but it would be an unfortunate continuance of a recent retrenchment in my mind.  Hope I'm wrong, but who knows.  

"Double down": "to become more tenacious, zealous, or resolute in a position or undertaking"

So it seems that "double down" = "not making any changes to the Church's substantive doctrines and practices."  Is that what you mean?

Thanks,

-Smac

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

He speculates that perhaps Nelson will move to canonize the Proclamation on the Family. 

I hope not. It's not scripture. It's a proclamation. It's nice and all, but it's just not scripture. In fact I would counter such a vote. It's too close to a creed.

Quote

Or will a President Nelson be more moderate now once he's in control, like President Benson was.  Only time will tell, what do you think?  

http://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2018/01/04/commentary-what-comes-next-for-mormonism-outreach-or-retrenchment/

I didn't know Nelson was a progressive. Will he retrench? Into what? I do think the Church will start to see some more change over the next few years. This is inevitable a the millennium continues to progress.

[hope_for_things]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It is a lazy and inaccurate assumption to equate political "progressivism" with "focus on the poor and needy."  Implicit in this is a corollary claim that political "conservatism" does not have a "focus on the poor and needy."

Its a common stereotype for a pet cause of the progressives, just like tax cuts is a common stereotype of conservatives, but certainly not exclusive to conservatives, as focus on the poor is not exclusive to progressives, but the author never argued that in the first place.  Feel free to disagree, but I don't see this as a big deal or worthy of umbrage.  

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The LDS Church manifestly does have a "focus on the poor and needy," and has had it since well before Pres. Monson became the prophet.

The author politicized the concept of "focus{ing} on the poor and needy."  Not only did he do so in a contested way, but he did so in a way that misdirects the reader as to the generalized efforts and motives of the LDS Church.

The emphasis was increased explicitly under President Monson's administration based on specific changes he made when it officially was made the 4th mission of the church.  Dr. Park did not claim that the church wasn't focused on the poor and needy in the past.  You're making a mischaracterization.  

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

We believe in living prophets and apostles.  An open canon.  Exclusive priesthood authority.  Work for the death.  Eternal marriages.  And so on.

All of these are, I think, pretty much foreign to doctrinally "conservative" Christians.

Ahh, you meant in comparison to other Christians.  I thought you meant in the context of Mormonism, which I would argue is very different, most Mormons raised in my generation(X), I believe are quite conservative when it comes to Mormon correlated doctrines.  

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

My point, though, is that on substantive issues, the Church's position has been determined by revelation.  OD-1.  OD-2.  The Proclamation.  The policy changes in November 2015.  All of these have been revelatory.

These examples as also very clearly tied to and I would argue in direct response to the political issues of their day.    

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

About the Proclamation?  Not really.  

Why not, earlier you agreed that the Hawaii SSM events influenced the Proclamation.  

 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I acknowledge that.  The problem, I think, is that these terms ("conservative," "liberal," "progressive") are being used for their political meanings, but are being deployed in a theological context.  Hence Mormons can be socipolitically "conservative," while also being doctrinally "liberal."

Thanks,

-Smac

This is a fair point as I'm not sure the author made the distinction very clear.  I wasn't confused by the usage when I read it personally, but greater clarity couldn't hurt.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually the so-called "conservative" and "liberal" terminology is not even fit for political discussions.  The terms are incoherent and primarily emotionally loaded.  I know of no one who can adequately define either term.

They are imperfect words that have baggage, but I don't think we should get too worked about the imprecise nature of these words.  As one boss once reminded me when I got a little too focused perfect accuracy, "sometimes close enough is good enough."  

[kiwi57]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Why not, earlier you agreed that the Hawaii SSM events influenced the Proclamation.  

Emma's disgust with cleaning up after tobacco-chewing brethren who kept missing the spittoons influenced Section 89 - in that, that was one of the factors that prompted Joseph to seek direction from the Lord on the topic. But Section 89 is no less revelatory for all that.

Just as the Proclamation is no less revelatory just because some external events prompted the brethren to start asking what the Church should do about it.

There are those who think that if they can point to some external stimulus for some Church statement, position or action, then they have somehow disproven the claim that there was anything inspired or revelatory about it. I seriously expect Latter-day Saints to know better than that.

[hope_for_things]

58 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

I think that the Church will continue to stand for truth and righteousness in areas where the wider culture has lost its way.

I think that will infuriate its critics, both within and without the Church.

I don't see that as a bad thing.

I also think that the Church will continue to show compassion in areas where political conservatives are looking for harshness. When that happens, rednecks will get angry, while those blown about by every wind of doctrine (and social trends) will try to see that as a sign that the Church is about to bend their way - which will only make them angrier when it doesn't.

In both of those directions - standing for truth and righteousness, and reaching out in compassion - the Church will be following the Gospel. This will not be understood by those who are primarily interested in social and political matters.

Not following you.  Rednecks getting angry, what are you talking about, are you referring to the white supremacists and those the church spoke out against a few months back?  

What about winds of doctrine?  Not sure how you determine what is a wind of doctrine and what isn't.  Is the 2015 LGBT policy a wind of doctrine?  What about the younger missionary age, or the proclamation on the family.  who get to decide what are "winds of doctrine".  

The problem many of us have with the changes the church makes or doesn't make is that we believe that some of these positions actually contradict core doctrinal principles.  Kind of makes things hard for those of us who don't automatically assume that every word coming out of church leaders is inspired.  

[kiwi57]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Not following you.  Rednecks getting angry, what are you talking about, are you referring to the white supremacists and those the church spoke out against a few months back?  

I suggest that rednecks will get angry when the Church supports the treatment of immigrants as human beings, rather than as enemy aliens. If the Church were to support another initiative similar to the "Utah Compromise," that would also make rednecks angry.

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

What about winds of doctrine?  Not sure how you determine what is a wind of doctrine and what isn't.  Is the 2015 LGBT policy a wind of doctrine?  What about the younger missionary age, or the proclamation on the family.  who get to decide what are "winds of doctrine".  

The apostle Paul (Ephesians 4) taught that one of the purposes of inspired leadership through apostles and prophets is to protect the Saints against being blown about by every wind of doctrine. Those winds come from alternative voices and other sources, not from the leaders of the Church.

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The problem many of us have with the changes the church makes or doesn't make is that we believe that some of these positions actually contradict core doctrinal principles.  Kind of makes things hard for those of us who don't automatically assume that every word coming out of church leaders is inspired.  

But it's not so hard for those of us who don't automatically assume that every word coming out of church leaders is uninspired unless it measures up to some arbitrary (and culturally constructed) yardstick.

[hope_for_things]

29 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

No. It's already definitive LDS doctrine.

I disagree.  According to this newsroom article it wouldn't qualify as doctrine.  And one of the brethren gave a talk a few years in GC, calling it doctrine and that word was redacted when they published the talk on LDS.org.  How would you explain that event?  Definitely not doctrine at this point in my opinion.  

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

30 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

The 2015 policy is likewise a good thing that is abhorred by those who don't really have any useful alternatives to offer. Accepting, as we do, that changing the Law of Chastity and the definition of marriage to make non-compliers feel better is not an option, just what policy should the Church take towards children raised in openly and avowedly apostate households?

I have plenty of better alternatives, alternatives has never been an issue.  I also believe these alternatives are compatible with the law of Chastity.  

They aren't apostates to me.  I believe designating them as apostates is in violation of many of the teachings of Jesus and that is part of why this policy is so pernicious.   What should the church do, "suffer the little children to come unto me."  Baptize them, feed them, treat them as equals, treat all homosexuals and LGBT individuals as equals and inherently good, and don't condemn them or ostracize them.  Teach sexual fidelity in marriage between two consenting adults.  Quit using binary terms for gender and quit the binary thinking all together.  All are alike unto God, all are the children of God, all are loved and of divine worth and are created in God's image.  Teach the beauty of the gospel instead of the fear of tribalism.  

[hope_for_things]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Double down": "to become more tenacious, zealous, or resolute in a position or undertaking"

So it seems that "double down" = "not making any changes to the Church's substantive doctrines and practices."  Is that what you mean?

I'm thinking more about doubling down on the idea that the 2015 policy was revelation and an emphasis on the more egregious elements of the policy that are so divisive.  The church has conflicting ideas about how to interact with LGBT members.  I believe there are very different perspectives among the brethren on how to handle this topic.  Hence the conflicting messages that continue to be sent, one month there is a more inclusive vibe sent, and the next month a more hurtful message.  I believe there is a battle being waged within the hierarchy, and I pray that love wins the battle.  

[hope_for_things]

38 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I didn't know Nelson was a progressive. Will he retrench? Into what? I do think the Church will start to see some more change over the next few years. This is inevitable a the millennium continues to progress.

I don't think he's progressive, the article doesn't either.  The article speculates that he may moderate from his more conservative history, aka the way President Benson seemed to moderate as church leader from his earlier very conservative nature.  

[kiwi57]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm thinking more about doubling down on the idea that the 2015 policy was revelation and an emphasis on the more egregious elements of the policy that are so divisive.  The church has conflicting ideas about how to interact with LGBT members.  I believe there are very different perspectives among the brethren on how to handle this topic.  Hence the conflicting messages that continue to be sent, one month there is a more inclusive vibe sent, and the next month a more hurtful message.  I believe there is a battle being waged within the hierarchy, and I pray that love wins the battle.  

As I wrote earlier:

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

In both of those directions - standing for truth and righteousness, and reaching out in compassion - the Church will be following the Gospel. This will not be understood by those who are primarily interested in social and political matters.

The Church does not have conflicting ideas. There is no "battle being waged within the hierarchy." The Utah Compromise was entirely compatible with the Gospel, and so is the November policy.

[hope_for_things]

25 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Emma's disgust with cleaning up after tobacco-chewing brethren who kept missing the spittoons influenced Section 89 - in that, that was one of the factors that prompted Joseph to seek direction from the Lord on the topic. But Section 89 is no less revelatory for all that.

Just as the Proclamation is no less revelatory just because some external events prompted the brethren to start asking what the Church should do about it.

There are those who think that if they can point to some external stimulus for some Church statement, position or action, then they have somehow disproven the claim that there was anything inspired or revelatory about it. I seriously expect Latter-day Saints to know better than that.

Depends how you define revelation.  There are very literal/fundamentalist perspectives about revelation and there are very naturalist perspectives about revelation and combinations between the two all along the spectrum.  

I believe inspiration is largely in the eyes of the beholder, and a subjective measurement.  I like the Alma 32 method to determine the fruits of these actions after the fact.   So far the fruits of the proclamation taste bad to me.  

[hope_for_things]

13 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

I suggest that rednecks will get angry when the Church supports the treatment of immigrants as human beings, rather than as enemy aliens. If the Church were to support another initiative similar to the "Utah Compromise," that would also make rednecks angry.

I have many family members against illegal immigration.  While I differ with them on the specifics of their political ideology, I definitely wouldn't call them rednecks.  I certainly wasn't a redneck when I had a more conservative view than I do today on that subject.  

14 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

The apostle Paul (Ephesians 4) taught that one of the purposes of inspired leadership through apostles and prophets is to protect the Saints against being blown about by every wind of doctrine. Those winds come from alternative voices and other sources, not from the leaders of the Church.

Interesting, because many of the followers of Jesus and the disciples were at odds with Paul during this time.  Do you think Paul accusing Peter and the disciples as being blown about by winds of doctrine at that time?  Paul certainly was an alternative voice on some issues during his lifetime, as was Jesus and many other prophets who spoke out against their predominant church hierarchy during their life.  Who decides what is a wind of doctrine?  Its an interesting question...

17 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

But it's not so hard for those of us who don't automatically assume that every word coming out of church leaders is uninspired unless it measures up to some arbitrary (and culturally constructed) yardstick.

Where's this culturally constructed yardstick?  Is there a web site where I can get a list of items somewhere that I can follow?  I'd love a quick and easy resource so I know exactly what to support and what to call uninspired. 

[Calm]

"Quit using binary terms for gender and quit the binary thinking all togethe"

Does this include dropping the terms heterosexual and homosexual as they are pretty binary.

[CV75]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

What does the future hold for Mormonism with an anticipated President Nelson led church?  I enjoyed reading Ben Park's article and thought I'd share.  He speculates that perhaps Nelson will move to canonize the Proclamation on the Family.  Or will a President Nelson be more moderate now once he's in control, like President Benson was.  Only time will tell, what do you think?  

http://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2018/01/04/commentary-what-comes-next-for-mormonism-outreach-or-retrenchment/

I see neither assimilation nor retrenchment, but continued progress. Of course, progress can be framed as either, but I see the Church becoming better known.

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

The Church does not have conflicting ideas. There is no "battle being waged within the hierarchy." The Utah Compromise was entirely compatible with the Gospel, and so is the November policy.

You have to have eyes to see and ears to hear I guess.  Some people can be in the middle of a battle and not even know it.  

[Calm]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

You have to have eyes to see and ears to hear I guess.  Some people can be in the middle of a battle and not even know it.  

And some prefer creating conflict where there is none.