Elder Uchtdorf: Progressive?

[kllindley]

22 minutes ago, Gray said:

A vote can be unanimous and some who voted can still have reservations or disagreement.

Of course. I don't see how that applies to this conversation. I didn't say anything about voting. 

[Gray]

2 hours ago, kllindley said:

Of course. I don't see how that applies to this conversation. I didn't say anything about voting. 

How do you think they make their decisions?

[kiwi57]

16 hours ago, JulieM said:

Who are “these men” when it come to the 2015 policy?

All of them, of course.

16 hours ago, JulieM said:

 As far as I know, only one has spoken about it (from what I remember).  Who other that Pres. Nelson spoke about it?

Who has contradicted or corrected what President Nelson said?

Arguments from silence - heavily relied upon in this thread - are uniformly weak. But there is one that is formally valid, namely: Qui tacet consentire, "Silence gives consent." If fifteen men agree on something, and then one of them says something about the process which none of the other participants denies, then the default position is that the one who spoke said nothing with which the others materially disagree.

[kiwi57]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

Correct.  Just as the First Presidency was ordained last month without a sustaining vote as required by the D&C.

So what does all of that indicate to us?

Who is "us?" First of all, it indicates to me that the Church is not Switzerland, and is not governed by referendum.

Secondly, it indicates to me that we will have the opportunity to sustain the new First Presidency at the next conference, and that will fully satisfy the provisions of Doctrine and Covenants 20 and 26. Which we will do, thus surrendering any standing, if we ever had any, to complain about the fact that the action was taken before we voted upon it.

(And there will again be a few noisy attention-seekers who think it good manners to yell in a church meeting instead of following the proper procedure for signalling their opposition; but that's just by the way.)

I'm aware that there is a thread over at The Sty in which it is claimed that this procedure - followed in the case of every new First Presidency in my lifetime, and they are not a few - somehow renders the new First Presidency "illegitimate." (And I thought, pots and kettles - where the pot is black and the kettle is untarnished silver.) But this is the most arrant nonsense. The thirteen men who came together to reorganise the First Presidency did so, having in their possession all of the Priesthood keys available to the Lord's children here on the earth, and therefore, all the authority necessary to do what they did.

 

[kllindley]

30 minutes ago, Gray said:

How do you think they make their decisions?

Exactly the way they have explained. As has been quoted and referenced extensively in this thread.

[kiwi57]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

We didn’t follow our own scripture and seek a sustaining vote on the policy.

Correction: we didn't follow the interpretation some prefer of the scriptures in question.

I don't believe it's the interpretation most Church members subscribe to, therefore it simply isn't correct to say that "we didn't follow our own scripture." Not even at the ward level are sustaining votes sought for every administrative decision. How long would Sacrament meetings be if every decision taken by ward councils or other bodies had to be sustained before they could be acted upon?

"It is proposed that the chapel cleaning roster be amended as follows.... All in favour...."

"It is proposed that the Elders' Quorum hold a service project on Saturday the 9th at Sister Pinkham's home. All in favour...."

"It is proposed that Sister Brown be paired with Sister Jones for Visiting Teaching. All in favour...."

"It is proposed that Sister Brown and Sister Jones visit the following sisters.... All in favour...."

To anticipate your objection: yes, I know you weren't talking about those kinds of decisions. But if you are going to insist upon a woodenly literal reading of "all things," then those are also "things," aren't they?

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

The Prophet wrote a letter to the church after the policy was published and he didn’t bother to mention that new revelation had been received to direct the policy.  

Weeks later Pres. Nelson announced to a YSA gathering that it was a revelation.  

And not one person who was in a position to know anything about that has said anything different. The only people who've objected to that are those who don't like the policy.

Funny, that.

[Gray]

14 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Exactly the way they have explained. As has been quoted and referenced extensively in this thread.

They make their position known by voting. Votes have to be unanimous. You can vote for something while privately disagreeing with it.

[kllindley]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

They make their position known by voting. Votes have to be unanimous. You can vote for something while privately disagreeing with it.

And they explicitely state that they don't do that. That they work until they all actually do agree. That's fine if you don't believe them. If you don't want to actually deal with their own accounts of decision making, I'm not going to try to make you. 

[Gray]

2 minutes ago, kllindley said:

And they explicitely state that they don't do that. That they work until they all actually do agree. That's fine if you don't believe them. If you don't want to actually deal with their own accounts of decision making, I'm not going to try to make you. 

Sorry, I don't find your interpretation to be realistic. What can I say?

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

Sorry, I don't find your interpretation to be realistic. What can I say?

I'm not kllindley, but I don't find your objection to be reasonable. What can I say?

 

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm not kllindley, but I don't find your objection to be reasonable. What can I say?

 

I can't say that I'm shocked to hear that!

[Scott Lloyd]

17 hours ago, JulieM said:

I was specifically referring to statements about what took place with the 2015 policy.

What statements do you have from those you named (about the process for writing the policiy or any other revelations), anything?

What evidence do you have that they departed from standard procedure in this instance?

[Bobbieaware]

32 minutes ago, Gray said:

Sorry, I don't find your interpretation to be realistic. What can I say?

It’s a well-know fact that this is the way the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve have worked together for a very long time. There is even an account where one lone holdout apostle wouldn’t agree to allow a prominent excommunicated member to be rebaptised, but even though the other 14 did most earnestly agree to allow the rebaptism to take place it never happened. There has to be total unanimity among the presiding prophets, seers and revelators of the Church or nothing is going to happen. Items under consideration not unanimously agreed upon are put aside for possible later consideration.

Edited February 9, 2018 by Bobbieaware

[rockpond]

51 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Correction: we didn't follow the interpretation some prefer of the scriptures in question.

I don't believe it's the interpretation most Church members subscribe to, therefore it simply isn't correct to say that "we didn't follow our own scripture." Not even at the ward level are sustaining votes sought for every administrative decision. How long would Sacrament meetings be if every decision taken by ward councils or other bodies had to be sustained before they could be acted upon?

"It is proposed that the chapel cleaning roster be amended as follows.... All in favour...."

"It is proposed that the Elders' Quorum hold a service project on Saturday the 9th at Sister Pinkham's home. All in favour...."

"It is proposed that Sister Brown be paired with Sister Jones for Visiting Teaching. All in favour...."

"It is proposed that Sister Brown and Sister Jones visit the following sisters.... All in favour...."

To anticipate your objection: yes, I know you weren't talking about those kinds of decisions. But if you are going to insist upon a woodenly literal reading of "all things," then those are also "things," aren't they?

And not one person who was in a position to know anything about that has said anything different. The only people who've objected to that are those who don't like the policy.

Funny, that.

And none of those decisions are binding upon the body of the church.

I didn't write the D&C.  I just study it.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

And none of those decisions are binding upon the body of the church.

I didn't write the D&C.  I just study it.

And I'm afraid it has made you something comparable to the sola scriptura dogmatists of sectarianism. In the restored Church of Jesus Christ we believe continual revelation through living prophets tempers slavish adherence to text.

Edited February 9, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And I'm afraid it has made you something comparable to the sola scriptura dogmatists of sectarianism. In the restored Church of Jesus Christ we believe continual revelation through living prophets tempers slavish adherence to text.

"... we believe continual revelation through living prophets tempers slavish adherence to text."

I could not agree more.  Now, where is the revelation that told us we could stop using the law of common consent (which was a revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith)?

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

They make their position known by voting. Votes have to be unanimous. You can vote for something while privately disagreeing with it.

I'm a little troubled by the insistence by some of the TBMs in this thread (I'm one, too) that the Brethren are unanimous in their feelings at all times. I think you have been treated unfairly in this regard, because you aren't arguing that they haven't been unanimous in their voting, but rather, that "you can vote for something while privately disagreeing with it." The pushback you have gotten over this surprises me, because it isn't a controversial point, and there are many examples. I gave one earlier: President Packer was on record multiple times (once in my hearing) stating that he disagreed with the concept of singles wards --- but, he didn't oppose their creation or existence. I lot of things in Church governance (including in the upper levels of the Church) operate this way.

Another example I've shared before: I once voted as a counselor in a disciplinary council for disfellowshipment, but the bishop's decision was formal probation. I still disagree with this decision to this day, but I sustained the bishop's decision and haven't been critical of it. Votes in the Q12 are this same way: consensus is reached, but they do not become the Borg --- and, sometimes assenting "votes" are nothing more than refusal to stand in the way of the council's decision. This constitutes sustaining the decision.

[rockpond]

32 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm a little troubled by the insistence by some of the TBMs in this thread (I'm one, too) that the Brethren are unanimous in their feelings at all times. I think you have been treated unfairly in this regard, because you aren't arguing that they haven't been unanimous in their voting, but rather, that "you can vote for something while privately disagreeing with it." The pushback you have gotten over this surprises me, because it isn't a controversial point, and there are many examples. I gave one earlier: President Packer was on record multiple times (once in my hearing) stating that he disagreed with the concept of singles wards --- but, he didn't oppose their creation or existence. I lot of things in Church governance (including in the upper levels of the Church) operate this way.

Another example I've shared before: I once voted as a counselor in a disciplinary council for disfellowshipment, but the bishop's decision was formal probation. I still disagree with this decision to this day, but I sustained the bishop's decision and haven't been critical of it. Votes in the Q12 are this same way: consensus is reached, but they do not become the Borg --- and, sometimes assenting "votes" are nothing more than refusal to stand in the way of the council's decision. This constitutes sustaining the decision.

Great explanation.

[Jeanne]

41 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm a little troubled by the insistence by some of the TBMs in this thread (I'm one, too) that the Brethren are unanimous in their feelings at all times. I think you have been treated unfairly in this regard, because you aren't arguing that they haven't been unanimous in their voting, but rather, that "you can vote for something while privately disagreeing with it." The pushback you have gotten over this surprises me, because it isn't a controversial point, and there are many examples. I gave one earlier: President Packer was on record multiple times (once in my hearing) stating that he disagreed with the concept of singles wards --- but, he didn't oppose their creation or existence. I lot of things in Church governance (including in the upper levels of the Church) operate this way.

Another example I've shared before: I once voted as a counselor in a disciplinary council for disfellowshipment, but the bishop's decision was formal probation. I still disagree with this decision to this day, but I sustained the bishop's decision and haven't been critical of it. Votes in the Q12 are this same way: consensus is reached, but they do not become the Borg --- and, sometimes assenting "votes" are nothing more than refusal to stand in the way of the council's decision. This constitutes sustaining the decision.

Individuals united if not in thought..in purpose.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

"... we believe continual revelation through living prophets tempers slavish adherence to text."

I could not agree more.  Now, where is the revelation that told us we could stop using the law of common consent (which was a revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith)?

You say you "could not agree more." Then you go right back to your slavish adherence to text ("where is the revelation that told us...") Who told you that every revelation or instance thereof received by the apostles and prophets must be written down and submitted to you for your approval?

By the way, I don't concede that the Church of Jesus Christ has stopped using the law of common consent, though it may not apply the law in a way that suits you.

I have to think this is how Snuffer and Waterman got started. The Church wasn't doing things the way they thought should be done, so they started to make a public fuss about it.

 

Edited February 9, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You say you "could not agree more." Then you go right back to your slavish adherence to text ("where is the revelation that told us...") Who told you that every revelation or instance thereof received by the apostles and prophets must be written down and submitted to you for your approval?

By the way, I don't concede that the Church of Jesus Christ has stopped using the law of common consent, though it may not apply the law in a way that suits you.

 

“Slavish adherence to text...”

The text being the revelations themselves. Revelations that were actually published as such and canonized.

A new prophet was ordained last month without having received a sustaining vote by the body of the church.  And you “don’t concede that the Church of Jesus Christ has stopped using the law of common consent”.  Interesting conclusion.

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You say you "could not agree more." Then you go right back to your slavish adherence to text ("where is the revelation that told us...") Who told you that every revelation or instance thereof received by the apostles and prophets must be written down and submitted to you for your approval?

I don't think anyone is arguing that every single revelation should be written down, and/or presented to the Church.

But shouldn't at least some be? At least some of the time? Even if it's very rarely or only once in a blue moon? 

Or, should we just expect forevermore that revelations are to be announced (without ever calling them revelations) through letters to priesthood leaders, sometimes to be read in church, but mostly just FYI policy updates?

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I'm a little troubled by the insistence by some of the TBMs in this thread (I'm one, too) that the Brethren are unanimous in their feelings at all times.

If you think this is what I have been claiming, you've misunderstood me. I believe there is vigorous disagreement. I guess I just have this crazy belief in revelation and all an irrational tendency to trust all of the witnesses that have been given about how they come to decisions. 

BTW, I think your Bishop was wrong to proceed until you were settled with the decision. 

[kllindley]

35 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't think anyone is arguing that every single revelation should be written down, and/or presented to the Church.

But shouldn't at least some be? At least some of the time? Even if it's very rarely or only once in a blue moon? 

Or, should we just expect forevermore that revelations are to be announced (without ever calling them revelations) through letters to priesthood leaders, sometimes to be read in church, but mostly just FYI policy updates?

So which revelations do you believe God wants canonized, but that the 15 are just too hard-hearted and stubborn to submit?

[strappinglad]

In keeping with some of the types of sections in the D& C , I suppose that every mission call issued over the last 100 + years could be a revelation and as such be placed into a collection of revelations and updated weekly. They all could be canonized yearly and stored in the mountain vaults. seems like overkill but hey, follow the rules. That said, it probably wouldn't hurt to have an update every decade or so to the D&C in which REALLY earth-shattering revelations are inserted and canonized.