Elder Uchtdorf: Progressive?

[Calm]

42 minutes ago, kllindley said:

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. 

Also if something is signed as a witness, this is significantly different than just saying nothing when another of the group states something.

I don't assume just because one apostle says something, they all agree even if nothing is said.  However, I do take documents that have been signed to be as significant as something written or spoken singularly.  I don't see the dynamics as the same sort of politics as business or political committees where people can get pushed out of power so they ally with even enemies to stay secure or it becomes all about balancing favors.  The 15 don't need to survive by such manipulations, so why would they include such behaviour as it makes life more complicated and difficult, rather than easy.

Edited February 10, 2018 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

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

And those of us who've experienced the unifying power of revelation find your interpretation tortured and ill-informed. I think in both cases we're projecting, but in our case, it allows us to take these men at their word. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 hours ago, rongo said:

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.

 

2 hours ago, kllindley said:

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

As do I! I actually find it deeply disturbing that a bishop would be OK with making a decision that a counsellor had expressed disagreement with. This runs counter to everything I've ever learnt or experienced in the Church, and I think it robs everyone involved of one of the sweetest privileges that belongs to the Saints.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

 

As do I! I actually find it deeply disturbing that a bishop would be OK with making a decision that a counsellor had expressed disagreement with. This runs counter to everything I've ever learnt or experienced in the Church, and I think it robs everyone involved of one of the sweetest privileges that belongs to the Saints.

Deeply disturbing?

Maybe it is a good thing that so much of what happens within the top councils of the church is kept secret. 

You might also want to avoid certain biographies of past church leaders. 

[kiwi57]

6 hours ago, rockpond said:

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

Where the apostles are, there is the Church.

If the body ever chose not to follow the apostles, then the body would be apostate, and the apostles would bear off the kingdom on their shoulders, as they have the right, authority and responsibility to do.

When in April we sustain this action retroactively - as we have in every case since at least the death of David O. McKay - will you then accept that the decision is and was binding upon the Church?

6 hours ago, rockpond said:

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

Studying the Doctrine and Covenants is good. Wresting it - not so much.

[Gray]

6 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

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.

Unanimous votes does not mean everyone agrees all the time. Sorry.

[Gray]

6 hours 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.

Thank you Rongo, I appreciate it.

[Gray]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

And those of us who've experienced the unifying power of revelation find your interpretation tortured and ill-informed. I think in both cases we're projecting, but in our case, it allows us to take these men at their word. 

I don't think those who interpret them as you do are taking them at their  word either - they're choosing a rather unrealistic interpretation of their word.

[kiwi57]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

I don't think those who interpret them as you do are taking them at their  word either - they're choosing a rather unrealistic interpretation of their word.

Be that as it may, you don't have carte blanche to assume that any apostle is privately opposed to some Church action (statement, policy, proclamation) merely on the grounds that he hasn't taken the trouble to make it the topic of a Conference talk. The default presumption is and remains that each one of them is entirely on board with all of the statements and policies you wish they had opposed; and if the signature of one of them appears on the formal, written communication of those policies and/or statements, then it is proven that that apostle is on board with them.

[JulieM]

20 minutes ago, Gray said:

I don't think those who interpret them as you do are taking them at their  word either - they're choosing a rather unrealistic interpretation of their word.

The problem is, there is no “their” or “them” really anymore.  The Prophet was silent about the 2015 policy and so were 13 others. We heard from ONE.  I’m sure he was honest about HIS experience from his perspective.  But nothing from our living Prophet at the time about an important revelation?

Edited February 10, 2018 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, JulieM said:

The problem is, there is no “their” or “them” really anymore.  The Prophet was silent about the 2015 policy and so were 13 others. We heard from ONE.  I’m sure he was honest about HIS experience from his perspective.  But nothing from our living Prophet at the time about an important revelation?

Undoubtedly they saw no need to do so. The president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles had spoken in their behalf.

Can you find even one indication from any of them that he spoke presumptuously or inaccurately?

[Hamba Tuhan]

52 minutes ago, Gray said:

I don't think those who interpret them as you do are taking them at their  word either - they're choosing a rather unrealistic interpretation of their word.

I understand it's unrealistic to you. That the process of seeking and obtaining revelation isn't a real part of your lived experience goes far in explaining your approach to the gospel as demonstrated by your contributions to this forum.

Your unwillingness to even intellectually entertain the possibility of a different lived experience is likewise revealing.

Edited February 10, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

Where the apostles are, there is the Church.

If the body ever chose not to follow the apostles, then the body would be apostate, and the apostles would bear off the kingdom on their shoulders, as they have the right, authority and responsibility to do.

When in April we sustain this action retroactively - as we have in every case since at least the death of David O. McKay - will you then accept that the decision is and was binding upon the Church?

Studying the Doctrine and Covenants is good. Wresting it - not so much.

Wresting it?  You haven’t shown that I’ve distorted the meaning.

And, yes, we’ll retroactively sustain our new prophet but it doesn’t and won’t mean that we didn’t long ago abandon common consent.

[kiwi57]

14 minutes ago, JulieM said:

The problem is, there is no “their” or “them” really anymore.  The Prophet was silent about the 2015 policy and so were 13 others. We heard from ONE.  I’m sure he was honest about HIS experience from his perspective.  But nothing from our living Prophet at the time about an important revelation?

Dear me.

I wrote the below already, but you somehow appear to have missed it. Here it is again:

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.

BTW, just how "important" is the November policy anyway? How many actual (as opposed to hypothetical) children does it really impact? If a same sex couple know the Church's position on SSM but choose to cohabit anyway, how likely is it, really, that they'd want to raise their children as believing Latter-day Saints?

[JulieM]

30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Undoubtedly they saw no need to do so.

You don’t know that.  There could be many reasons why they’ve remained silent (including the then Prophet never speaking about the policy/revelation.)

 

[kiwi57]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Wresting it?  You haven’t shown that I’ve distorted the meaning.

And, yes, we’ll retroactively sustain our new prophet but it doesn’t and won’t mean that we didn’t long ago abandon common consent.

Nor will it mean that we did.

That claim is contrary to the position of the Church.

Every single time we exercise our common consent to sustain a new apostle, we are, by that fact and in that moment, sustaining him to hold all Priesthood keys presently entrusted to men on the earth. We are also prospectively sustaining him to become the President of the Church, should he live long enough to become the longest-serving apostle. Therefore, when the Quorum of the Twelve act to reconstitute the First Presidency after the death of the President, they are only doing what we have already granted them the authority to do - by common consent.

I think we need to end this as a rather unproductive derail of the thread. Elder Uchtdorf sustains the new First Presidency, so he does not sympathise with this particular bit of "progressive" thought, either.

Edited February 10, 2018 by kiwi57

[kiwi57]

3 minutes ago, JulieM said:

You don’t know that.  There could be many reasons why they’ve remained silent (including the then Prophet never speaking about the policy/revelation.)

 

"Could" is not evidence for anything. Possibilities are only possibilities until they are supported by evidence.

[JulieM]

22 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

"Could" is not evidence for anything. Possibilities are only possibilities until they are supported by evidence.

No, the truth is we really don’t know because they were silent about the policy (other than Pres. Nelson).  Or do you have statements from any of the others about the policy?

Edited February 10, 2018 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

54 minutes ago, JulieM said:

You don’t know that.  There could be many reasons why they’ve remained silent (including the then Prophet never speaking about the policy/revelation.)

 

Until you or someone else is forthcoming with solid evidence to the contrary, it is as kiwi has expressed it: silence is most reasonably interpreted as nothing other than assent. 

[Scott Lloyd]

36 minutes ago, JulieM said:

No, the truth is we really don’t know because they were silent about the policy (other than Pres. Nelson).  Or do you have statements from any of the others about the policy?

You are the one who in effect is accusing them of cowardice or lacking integrity. As the accuser, you bear the burden of proof. I’m going to assume at this point you have nothing and your accusation is therefore vacuous. 

[JulieM]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You are the one who in effect is accusing them of cowardice or lacking Integrity.

CFR

Please quote where I stated that.

Edited February 10, 2018 by JulieM

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

CFR

Please quote where I stated that.

How about this:

Quote

There could be many reasons why they’ve remained silent (including the then Prophet never speaking about the policy/revelation.)

Any reason other than that they agree with what was said and see no reason to add or correct it, would either be dishonest or pusillanimous.

Or maybe both.

[kiwi57]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

No, the truth is we really don’t know because they were silent about the policy (other than Pres. Nelson).  Or do you have statements from any of the others about the policy?

For some strange reason, you keep missing this, despite(?) the fact that it directly addresses your argument.

So here it is again, again:

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.

You should know, Julie, that I can keep right on copying and pasting that for as long as you keep shying away from it and refusing to engage it.

You have not a single shred of evidence that any of the Twelve dissents from the November policy, from the Proclamation on the Family, from the reconstituting of the First Presidency, or anything else. Your attempt to shove the burden of proof back onto us suggests to me that you know this. It is fatal to your argument.

Time to drop it, I think.

[JulieM]

5 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

How about this:

Any reason other than that they agree with what was said and see no reason to add or correct it, would either be dishonest or pusillanimous.

Or maybe both.

Wrong.  I have said nothing that “is accusing them of cowardice or lacking Integrity.”

I’ve simply pointed out that only one of them have spoken about the policy and I’m sure he’s been truthful about his perspective.  But we still only have this single one.

You and others are the ones here who keep applying meaning to why the others who were there have so far been silent about it, not I.

But unless you (or someone else) can provide any statements, it is the truth there are none.   I don’t know why they haven’t spoken publicly about it and I have definitely not accused anyone of “cowardice” or “lacking integrity” (I for sure don’t think that).  It’s wrong of anyone to apply reasons for their silence, IMO.

Edited February 10, 2018 by JulieM

[JulieM]

16 hours 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.

Perfectly stated.