Elder Uchtdorf: Progressive?

[kiwi57]

In recent years, it has become fashionable among those who think they know more than everyone else to carve up the brethren into "factions." At one time, some were confidently pontificating about the "Oaks Faction" and the "Packer Faction" as if there was any evidence for these groupings beyond their own imaginations. More recently, some of those who regard themselves as "progressive" (and who suppose this to be a good thing) have decided (evidently without his permission) to recruit Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf into their circle. Indeed, not long ago, one fringe-Mormon blogger even wrote a little play in which he imagined a confrontation between then-President Uchtdorf and then-Elder Oaks over something Elder Oaks said in a Conference talk; this imaginary confrontation ended in President Uchtdorf beating Elder Oaks up.

Tonight, being Monday in that part of the world that is the most advanced, we had Family Home Evening, and my son gave the lesson. Which is to say, he found a video of Elder Uchtdorf's address at the YSA devotional and played a portion of it. For some reason, while watching it, I was struck by how unsurprisingly "conservative" it was.

Anyone who wishes to do so can read the entire transcript, and watch the talk, here.

Some of the stand-out passages for me are:

"I agree that you don’t have to go far in today’s culture to hear contradictory voices that discourage or even ridicule belief in God generally, and in our religion specifically."

"'If ye were of the world,' Jesus told His disciples, 'the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.'"

"You might as well accept the likelihood that once you make the commitment to follow the Savior, the residents of the great and spacious building will disapprove—quite vocally, at times. They may even attempt to bully and shame you."

"My dear young friends, my dear brothers and sisters, you can’t have it both ways. You cannot receive the incomprehensible blessings of discipleship while at the same time maintaining your membership records in the Babylon First Ward."

I seem to hear echoes of Elder Neal A. Maxwell in that one. And this:

"One day all of God’s children will know what is right—including those who now mock the truth. They will bow the knee and confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Redeemer, the Savior of the world. They will know that He died for them.

"On that day it will be clear that His is the only voice that ever really mattered."

That passage sounds rather a lot like the late, lamented (and widely abused) Boyd K. Packer.

So what do others think? Does the claim that Elder Uchtdorf is some kind of "progressive" really stack up?

Edited February 5, 2018 by kiwi57

[Rajah Manchou]

In recent years, it has become fashionable to make everything about conservatives vs progressives.

I don't think any of it stacks up.

[JLHPROF]

I don't think he's a progressive.   I think his personal approach to the gospel emphasizes love, grace, and faith.  That naturally feels more inclusive than the approach taken by other brethren who perhaps preach a little more brimstone or as one article put it take a more legalistic approach on occasion. 

Not a progressive/conservative issue at all.

[Storm Rider]

The babblings of the n'er-do-wells.  On a more positive note some people are so desperate to gain support for what they view as the "cause de jour" that they begin to identify those that give any hint of support for their chosen philosophy and cast everyone else as part of the evil empire that has the temerity to state anything remotely contrary to their opinion.  Their problem is they hope about something that is nothing more than a figment of their imagination.  There has always been grace and repentance in the gospel of Jesus Christ.  There is no middle ground where there is no sin and we get to do whatever we want - following after the dictates of our own mortal passions - and the afterlife is all unicorns, rose colored glasses and joy.  The judgment is pushed aside because after all, God loves them and would never do anything to make them liable or responsible for sin.  That part of, "If ye love me keep my commandments" has been put aside if we only get to love the ones we want.  

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

In recent years, it has become fashionable among those who think they know more than everyone else to carve up the brethren into "factions." At one time, some were confidently pontificating about the "Oaks Faction" and the "Packer Faction" as if there was any evidence for these groupings beyond their own imaginations. More recently, some of those who regard themselves as "progressive" (and who suppose this to be a good thing) have decided (evidently without his permission) to recruit Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf into their circle. Indeed, not long ago, one fringe-Mormon blogger even wrote a little play in which he imagined a confrontation between then-President Uchtdorf and then-Elder Oaks over something Elder Oaks said in a Conference talk; this imaginary confrontation ended in President Uchtdorf beating Elder Oaks up.

Tonight, being Monday in that part of the world that is the most advanced, we had Family Home Evening, and my son gave the lesson. Which is to say, he found a video of Elder Uchtdorf's address at the YSA devotional and played a portion of it. For some reason, while watching it, I was struck by how unsurprisingly "conservative" it was.

Anyone who wishes to do so can read the entire transcript, and watch the talk, here.

Some of the stand-out passages for me are:

"I agree that you don’t have to go far in today’s culture to hear contradictory voices that discourage or even ridicule belief in God generally, and in our religion specifically."

"'If ye were of the world,' Jesus told His disciples, 'the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.'"

"You might as well accept the likelihood that once you make the commitment to follow the Savior, the residents of the great and spacious building will disapprove—quite vocally, at times. They may even attempt to bully and shame you."

"My dear young friends, my dear brothers and sisters, you can’t have it both ways. You cannot receive the incomprehensible blessings of discipleship while at the same time maintaining your membership records in the Babylon First Ward."

I seem to hear echoes of Elder Neal A. Maxwell in that one. And this:

"One day all of God’s children will know what is right—including those who now mock the truth. They will bow the knee and confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Redeemer, the Savior of the world. They will know that He died for them.

"On that day it will be clear that His is the only voice that ever really mattered."

That passage sounds rather a lot like the late, lamented (and widely abused) Boyd K. Packer.

So what do others think? Does the claim that Elder Uchtdorf is some kind of "progressive" really stack up?

He brought up Grace like I'd never heard it expressed before in General Conference. He brought up that some leaders have made mistakes in the past. And many more that I can't think of offhand right now. I'll come back to it.

Maybe there are other leaders that have done this but Pres. Uchtdorf is in the present. Can you name others, I'd be interested to know of them. I'm sure the early church leaders spoke of Grace more, and mistakes made also. It's just that in this time period we have Pres. Uchtdorf. 

[The Nehor]

38 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

He brought up Grace like I'd never heard it expressed before in General Conference. He brought up that some leaders have made mistakes in the past. And many more that I can't think of offhand right now. I'll come back to it.

Maybe there are other leaders that have done this but Pres. Uchtdorf is in the present. Can you name others, I'd be interested to know of them. I'm sure the early church leaders spoke of Grace more, and mistakes made also. It's just that in this time period we have Pres. Uchtdorf. 

It is Elder Uchtdorf. Remember that he was forcibly demoted for his heretical views.

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

It is Elder Uchtdorf. Remember that he was forcibly demoted for his heretical views.

Forgot!

[strappinglad]

Brother Uchtdorf would be the more ' inclusive' 'big umbrella ' title , no?

[rockpond]

I agree with @JLHPROF... inclusive is a much better description of Elder Uchtdorf than progressive.

Also, none of the quotes you provided are contrary to what I see as the so-called progressive movement in the church.

[Jeanne]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I agree with @JLHPROF... inclusive is a much better description of Elder Uchtdorf than progressive.

Also, none of the quotes you provided are contrary to what I see as the so-called progressive movement in the church.

From the outside looking in..this is how I see Uchtdorf also.  More inclusive...but to me, that is such progress.

[kiwi57]

4 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Brother Uchtdorf would be the more ' inclusive' 'big umbrella ' title , no?

In what way?

More inclusive than whom, for example?

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I agree with @JLHPROF... inclusive is a much better description of Elder Uchtdorf than progressive.

I'm sure he's just as inclusive as President Nelson, President Oaks, and the late President Packer.

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Also, none of the quotes you provided are contrary to what I see as the so-called progressive movement in the church.

I agree with you about the "so-called" part. But please note that Elder Uchtdorf tells us that if we are following the Lord's way, we are going to be at odds with the world. Those on the fringes of the Church who identify as "progressive" seem to expect us to go along with the world.

Elder Uchtdorf tells us that we should be listening to the Saviour's voice, and that His is the only voice that matters. He also says that we should rely upon the prophets and apostles to guide us. The "progressives" seem to expect us to listen to their alternative voices.

I don't see him as aligning with them in any meaningful way.

[kiwi57]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

He brought up Grace like I'd never heard it expressed before in General Conference. He brought up that some leaders have made mistakes in the past. And many more that I can't think of offhand right now. I'll come back to it.

Maybe there are other leaders that have done this but Pres. Uchtdorf is in the present. Can you name others, I'd be interested to know of them. I'm sure the early church leaders spoke of Grace more, and mistakes made also. It's just that in this time period we have Pres. Uchtdorf. 

Do you understand what Grace is? It is a gift that none of us deserves. A gift without which salvation is simply impossible. Reminding us of our total reliance upon the Lord doesn't sound terribly "progressive" to me.

[strappinglad]

29 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

In what way?

More inclusive than whom, for example?

Brother is a title for all men, Elder separates a bit, President now infers an elite position. That said, I suppose I need to find that ' sarcasm ' emoji.

[Teancum]

12 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

In recent years, it has become fashionable among those who think they know more than everyone else to carve up the brethren into "factions." At one time, some were confidently pontificating about the "Oaks Faction" and the "Packer Faction" as if there was any evidence for these groupings beyond their own imaginations. More recently, some of those who regard themselves as "progressive" (and who suppose this to be a good thing) have decided (evidently without his permission) to recruit Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf into their circle. Indeed, not long ago, one fringe-Mormon blogger even wrote a little play in which he imagined a confrontation between then-President Uchtdorf and then-Elder Oaks over something Elder Oaks said in a Conference talk; this imaginary confrontation ended in President Uchtdorf beating Elder Oaks up.

Tonight, being Monday in that part of the world that is the most advanced, we had Family Home Evening, and my son gave the lesson. Which is to say, he found a video of Elder Uchtdorf's address at the YSA devotional and played a portion of it. For some reason, while watching it, I was struck by how unsurprisingly "conservative" it was.

Anyone who wishes to do so can read the entire transcript, and watch the talk, here.

Some of the stand-out passages for me are:

"I agree that you don’t have to go far in today’s culture to hear contradictory voices that discourage or even ridicule belief in God generally, and in our religion specifically."

"'If ye were of the world,' Jesus told His disciples, 'the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.'"

"You might as well accept the likelihood that once you make the commitment to follow the Savior, the residents of the great and spacious building will disapprove—quite vocally, at times. They may even attempt to bully and shame you."

"My dear young friends, my dear brothers and sisters, you can’t have it both ways. You cannot receive the incomprehensible blessings of discipleship while at the same time maintaining your membership records in the Babylon First Ward."

I seem to hear echoes of Elder Neal A. Maxwell in that one. And this:

"One day all of God’s children will know what is right—including those who now mock the truth. They will bow the knee and confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Redeemer, the Savior of the world. They will know that He died for them.

"On that day it will be clear that His is the only voice that ever really mattered."

That passage sounds rather a lot like the late, lamented (and widely abused) Boyd K. Packer.

So what do others think? Does the claim that Elder Uchtdorf is some kind of "progressive" really stack up?

Personally I don't get into the game of factions, who is progressive, who is conservative.  The LDS leaders can hammer that out between them. I really do not care.

Though I have to chuckle with your opening line.... 

"it has become fashionable among those who think they know more than everyone else to carve up the brethren into "factions."

So apparently you know more than anyone else since you seek to disparage others who have a different opinion than you do.  But in reality you know nothing more than they do.

Nice to see you staying true to form.

 

 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

Do you understand what Grace is? It is a gift that none of us deserves. A gift without which salvation is simply impossible. Reminding us of our total reliance upon the Lord doesn't sound terribly "progressive" to me.

But the LDS Church used to hate the idea of grace. Just read what McConkie used to say about it.

[Alaris]

I've heard whisperings about there being some secret shenanigans with Elder Oaks, though I've always attributed such whisperings to the byproduct of too many bored Mormons in one state.

I've never heard Elder Oaks or Elder Uchtdorf or any of the apostles or prophets say anything I would classify as progressive. Years ago, I had heard rumors of Elder Packer being too strict - whatever that means - but his final conference talk demonstrated someone who has a beautiful understanding of and testimony of the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Personally I don't get into the game of factions, who is progressive, who is conservative.  The LDS leaders can hammer that out between them. I really do not care.

Though I have to chuckle with your opening line.... 

"it has become fashionable among those who think they know more than everyone else to carve up the brethren into "factions."

So apparently you know more than anyone else

Did I say that?

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

since you seek to disparage others who have a different opinion than you do.

Do I?

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

But in reality you know nothing more than they do.

Good thing I didn't claim to, then.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Nice to see you staying true to form.

Anything substantive to contribute, T?

[kiwi57]

2 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Brother is a title for all men, Elder separates a bit, President now infers an elite position. That said, I suppose I need to find that ' sarcasm ' emoji.

Ah, thank you. Sorry, I didn't get what you were talking about at first.

I suspect that any of the brethren would be happy to be referred to as "Brother."

[Scott Lloyd]

15 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

In recent years, it has become fashionable among those who think they know more than everyone else to carve up the brethren into "factions." At one time, some were confidently pontificating about the "Oaks Faction" and the "Packer Faction" as if there was any evidence for these groupings beyond their own imaginations. More recently, some of those who regard themselves as "progressive" (and who suppose this to be a good thing) have decided (evidently without his permission) to recruit Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf into their circle. Indeed, not long ago, one fringe-Mormon blogger even wrote a little play in which he imagined a confrontation between then-President Uchtdorf and then-Elder Oaks over something Elder Oaks said in a Conference talk; this imaginary confrontation ended in President Uchtdorf beating Elder Oaks up.

Tonight, being Monday in that part of the world that is the most advanced, we had Family Home Evening, and my son gave the lesson. Which is to say, he found a video of Elder Uchtdorf's address at the YSA devotional and played a portion of it. For some reason, while watching it, I was struck by how unsurprisingly "conservative" it was.

Anyone who wishes to do so can read the entire transcript, and watch the talk, here.

Some of the stand-out passages for me are:

"I agree that you don’t have to go far in today’s culture to hear contradictory voices that discourage or even ridicule belief in God generally, and in our religion specifically."

"'If ye were of the world,' Jesus told His disciples, 'the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.'"

"You might as well accept the likelihood that once you make the commitment to follow the Savior, the residents of the great and spacious building will disapprove—quite vocally, at times. They may even attempt to bully and shame you."

"My dear young friends, my dear brothers and sisters, you can’t have it both ways. You cannot receive the incomprehensible blessings of discipleship while at the same time maintaining your membership records in the Babylon First Ward."

I seem to hear echoes of Elder Neal A. Maxwell in that one. And this:

"One day all of God’s children will know what is right—including those who now mock the truth. They will bow the knee and confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Redeemer, the Savior of the world. They will know that He died for them.

"On that day it will be clear that His is the only voice that ever really mattered."

That passage sounds rather a lot like the late, lamented (and widely abused) Boyd K. Packer.

So what do others think? Does the claim that Elder Uchtdorf is some kind of "progressive" really stack up?

This talk struck me keenly when he first gave it. I’ve found it frustrating that it has been so widely ignored by those who would press Elder Uchtdorf into service to further their ideological causes. 

[Teancum]

11 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Did I say that?

Do I?

Good thing I didn't claim to, then.

Anything substantive to contribute, T?

Your post implies you know better than others since you disparage others views.  You seem unable to self reflect on this.

 

Glad to see you are true to form.  

 

Nice to know for me it is really a non issue. I just laugh at your nonsense.  

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Brother is a title for all men, Elder separates a bit, President now infers an elite position. That said, I suppose I need to find that ' sarcasm ' emoji.

And you need to not use the term infers when you mean implies. 

Edited February 6, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

But the LDS Church used to hate the idea of grace. Just read what McConkie used to say about it.

Do you mean this?:
 

Quote

 

3. What is the grace of God? It is his mercy, his love, and his condescension—all manifest for the benefit and blessing of his children, all operating to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

We rejoice in the heavenly condescension that enabled Mary to become “the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh” (1 Nephi 11:18).

We bask in the eternal love that sent the Only Begotten into the world “that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).

We are profoundly grateful for that mercy which endureth forever and through which salvation is offered to erring mortals.

4. Does salvation come by grace, or grace alone, by grace without works? It surely does, without any question in all its parts, types, kinds, and degrees.

We are saved by grace, without works; it is a gift of God. How else could it come?

In his goodness and grace the great God ordained and established the plan of salvation. No works on our part were required.

In his goodness and grace he created this earth and all that is on it, with man as the crowning creature of his creating—without which creation his spirit children could not obtain immortality and eternal life. No works on our part were required.

In his goodness and grace he provided for the Fall of man, thus bringing mortality and death and a probationary estate into being—without all of which there would be no immortality and eternal life. And again no works on our part were required.

In his goodness and grace—and this above all—he gave his Only Begotten Son to ransom man and all life from the temporal and spiritual death brought into the world by the Fall of Adam.

He sent his Son to redeem mankind, to atone for the sins of the world, “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39). And again all this comes to us as a free gift and without works.

There is nothing any man could do to create himself. This was the work of the Lord God.

Nor did we have any part in the Fall of man, without which there could be no salvation. The Lord provided the way, and Adam and Eve put the system into operation.

And finally, there neither has been, nor is, nor ever can be any way nor means by which man alone can, or any power he possesses, redeem himself.

We cannot resurrect ourselves anymore than we can create ourselves. We cannot create a heavenly abode for the Saints, nor make provision for the continuation of the family unit in eternity, nor bring salvation and exaltation into being. All these things are ordained and established by that God who is the Father of us all. And they all came into being and are made available to us, as free gifts, without works, because of the infinite goodness and grace of Him whose children we are.

Truly, there is no way to overstate the goodness and grandeurs and glories of the grace of God which bringeth salvation. Such wondrous love, such unending mercy, such infinite compassion and condescension—all these can come only from the Eternal God who lives in eternal life and who desires all of his children to live as he lives and be inheritors of eternal life.

 

I'm not getting from this that " the LDS Church used to hate the idea of grace."  Can you point it out?

LInk: https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie_think-ye-salvation-grace/

 

Edited February 6, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Brother is a title for all men, Elder separates a bit, President now infers an elite position.

But then you're still separating, just by gender this time, and we all know that being a man is already an elite position...

[sunstoned]

13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't think he's a progressive.   I think his personal approach to the gospel emphasizes love, grace, and faith.  That naturally feels more inclusive than the approach taken by other brethren who perhaps preach a little more brimstone or as one article put it take a more legalistic approach on occasion. 

Not a progressive/conservative issue at all.

Agreed.  He is not progressive.  Unless you call the 2000 year old teachings of Christ progressive. Uchtodorf strikes me a man who has read and tries to follow Christ's teachings as they are laid out in the new testament.  It is really quite simple, once you strip away the politics, judgmentalism, and legalize that seems to permanent modern Christianity:  Don't judge, love everyone, be inclusive.  These are simple concepts that for some reason we seem to really struggle with.