Elder Uchtdorf: Progressive?

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 hours ago, cinepro said:

I suspect that most people in positions to counsel with stake and mission presidents already have a strong belief in their inspiration and are inclined to support them even if they don't have a "revelation" that the decision is correct.

That has not been my experience. Robust and open discussion and disagreement typify our current ward council and certainly were hallmarks of the two bishoprics in which I've been a counsellor. This is, of course, not to say that quick consensus is uncommon. If I, for example, suggest that the ward activity in June be held the second weekend, and that really is a good weekend, everyone just agrees. The more serious and thorny the issue, however, the more likely that there will be disagreement. The need for revelation to achieve unity actually presumes disagreement.

You also seem to be suggesting that those who preside enter council meetings with solutions for which they are merely seeking ratification. Again, that goes against my personal experience and certainly runs counter to how we are trained to counsel together. A far more typical scenario would be someone raising a matter of concern and the one presiding then seeking input from all involved on how we might best proceed in addressing the matter, followed by robust discussion, and so forth.

5 hours ago, Exiled said:

 Isn't this really a way to promote uniformity with the leader rather than change, if change is called for? 

Please see my second paragraph above. I realise it's possible that in certain quarters of the Church, people persist in ignoring the clear principles we've been taught for as long as I've been engaged in Church leadership, but it has been my experience that even when Church leaders in council settings hold a personal preference (and often they admit that they have no idea what to do!), their input is absolutely equal to all other input. The goal is genuinely to create an environment where revelation can point the way forward.

Quote

When the leader states that he wants to go a certain direction, in a culture that prizes agreement, who is going to defy him? 

No offence intended, but this strikes me as an outsider's view. Considering a bishopric as an example, what exactly do you think a bishop's counsellors are called and trained to do?

I've shared this anecdote on this forum before, but perhaps it bears repeating. Eight years ago, I was called in by my stake president, who proposed a significant change that directly involved me. My initial reaction, which I shared with him somewhat passionately, was that his proposal was wrong, but because I believe in the privilege of seeking and obtaining revelation, I told him that I would spend the next week engaged in study, fasting and prayer regarding this matter.

We met again the following Sunday. I remained unconvinced. He remained committed to the proposed change as originally outlined. Impasse. I mentioned that I would be taking the Young Men in our ward to the temple on the upcoming Saturday and would again seek guidance. He encouraged me to do so and then set up an appointment for me to return and discuss.

I was prayerful as we took the long journey to the temple Friday evening and again the next morning, but as soon as we were in the baptistery, I found myself engaged in and focussed on the work. At one point, in the midst of baptising one of the boys, however, the recorder ran out of names, and we had about a five-minute pause till more arrived. This young man and I just stood in the warm comfort of the font, and as we waited, I received a very clear impression: the stake president's proposal will result in this boy in the font with you being lost.

I felt a bit dizzy from the experience, but it made me even more determined. The following morning, I was back in the stake president's office. I shared with him my experience, which he respected, and then I suggested to him a 'compromise' proposal that had come to me as we'd travelled back from the temple the previous day. He then explained to me, at length, how practically unworkable my proposal was. He suggested we meet again in a fortnight and that we both use that time to continue seeking guidance. I readily agreed.

I did a seminary run each morning then, and I would use the 50-minute wait in the car to read my scriptures. Three days before I was due to meet with my stake president again, I read a verse in 3 Nephi that absolutely overwhelmed me. I read it again and again. This, I said to myself, was the answer: a ringing endorsement of the proposal I had made. I there and then determined that I would share it with my stake president when we met.

The meeting came, and after I had prayed, the stake president thanked me for giving him such a good opportunity to seek for and obtain revelation. He said that the answer he had received only days earlier had been clear and unmistakable. He then asked me to open my Book of Mormon to 3 Nephi ... and the very same verse that I had read the previous Thursday. Beautiful! We read the verse together, and he endorsed my proposal.

My bishop, aware of the wrestling that we two were having (not with each other but with the Lord), had asked me to come to his home after I met with the stake president. I did so, happy that all was resolved. When I arrived, and before I could tell him what had happened, he told me that he'd been led a verse in the Book of Mormon that he felt I should share with the stake president. It was, of course, the exact same one we had read out together earlier that morning. I then explained what had happened and that the way forward was now clear to all involved.

This is how perfect unity in the Church is achieved. Counselling together is not 'defiance', as you call it. Those who understand and value the process of seeking for and obtaining revelation absolutely do not see it in that way. My stake president didn't. Remember, he actually thanked me (and implicitly my willingness to disagree) for giving him a sacred opportunity to receive revelation.

The goal is not to be the person who is right; the goal is to find out what the Lord wants. I realise that not everyone in the Church gets this, but this is certainly not owing to a lack of either training or modelling, as evidenced by what my current stake president shared with us in stake conference yesterday morning.

Edited February 11, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[kllindley]

16 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

No offence intended, but this strikes me as an outsider's view.

On 2/9/2018 at 1:32 PM, Gray said:

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

I think it's clear that the major difference here is the degree to which people here accept the possibility of actual divine influence. I understand that for a person who doesn't believe in a personal God, the idea of inspired unaminity would be unrealistic. 

For those who have experienced robust disagreement that is guided by the Spirit to be complete unaminity, it is much easier to take the Brethren's statements at face value. Maybe we're just delusional about our experiences. But can you at least respect that they are consistent and real to us? 

[Exiled]

41 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

That has not been my experience. Robust and open discussion and disagreement typify our current ward council and certainly were hallmarks of the two bishoprics in which I've been a counsellor. This is, of course, not to say that quick consensus is uncommon. If I, for example, suggest that the ward activity in June be held the second weekend, and that really is a good weekend, everyone just agrees. The more serious and thorny the issue, however, the more likely that there will be disagreement. The need for revelation to achieve unity actually presumes disagreement.

You also seem to be suggesting that those who preside enter council meetings with solutions for which they are merely seeking ratification. Again, that goes against my personal experience and certainly runs counter to how we are trained to counsel together. A far more typical scenario would be someone raising a matter of concern and the one presiding then seeking input from all involved on how we might best proceed in addressing the matter, followed by robust discussion, and so forth.

Please see my second paragraph above. I realise it's possible that in certain quarters of the Church, people persist in ignoring the clear principles we've been taught for as long as I've been engaged in Church leadership, but it has been my experience that even when Church leaders in council settings hold a personal preference (and often they admit that they have no idea what to do!), their input is absolutely equal to all other input. The goal is genuinely to create an environment where revelation can point the way forward.

No offence intended, but this strikes me as an outsider's view. Considering a bishopric as an example, what exactly do you think a bishop's counsellors are called and trained to do?

I've shared this anecdote on this forum before, but perhaps it bears repeating. Eight years ago, I was called in by my stake president, who proposed a significant change that directly involved me. My initial reaction, which I shared with him somewhat passionately, was that his proposal was wrong, but because I believe in the privilege of seeking and obtaining revelation, I told him that I would spend the next week engaged in study, fasting and prayer regarding this matter.

We met again the following Sunday. I remained unconvinced. He remained committed to the proposed change as originally outlined. Impasse. I mentioned that I would be taking the Young Men in our ward to the temple on the upcoming Saturday and would again seek guidance. He encouraged me to do so and then set up an appointment for me to return and discuss.

I was prayerful as we took the long journey to the temple Friday evening and again the next morning, but as soon as we were in the baptistery, I found myself engaged in and focussed on the work. At one point, in the midst of baptising one of the boys, however, the recorder ran out of names, and we had about a five-minute pause till more arrived. This young man and I just stood in the warm comfort of the font, and as we waited, I received a very clear impression: the stake president's proposal will result in this boy in the font with you being lost.

I felt a bit dizzy from the experience, but it made me even more determined. The following morning, I was back in the stake president's office. I shared with him my experience, which he respected, and then I suggested to him a 'compromise' proposal that had come to me as we'd travelled back from the temple the previous day. He then explained to me, at length, how practically unworkable my proposal was. He suggested we meet again in a fortnight and that we both use that time to continue seeking guidance. I readily agreed.

I did a seminary run each morning then, and I would use the 50-minute wait in the car to read my scriptures. Three days before I was due to meet with my stake president again, I read a verse in 3 Nephi that absolutely overwhelmed me. I read it again and again. This, I said to myself, was the answer: a ringing endorsement of the proposal I had made. I there and then determined that I would share it with my stake president when we met.

The meeting came, and after I had prayed, the stake president thanked me for giving him such a good opportunity to seek for and obtain revelation. He said that the answer he had received only days earlier had been clear and unmistakable. He then asked me to open my Book of Mormon to 3 Nephi ... and the very same verse that I had read the previous Thursday. Beautiful! We read the verse together, and he endorsed my proposal.

My bishop, aware of the wrestling that we two were having (not with each other but with the Lord), had asked me to come to his home after I met with the stake president. I did so, happy that all was resolved. When I arrived, and before I could tell him what had happened, he told me that he'd been led a verse in the Book of Mormon that he felt I should share with the stake president. It was, of course, the exact same one we had read out together earlier that morning. I then explained what had happened and that the way forward was now clear to all involved.

This is how perfect unity in the Church is achieved. Counselling together is not 'defiance', as you call it. Those who understand and value the process of seeking for and obtaining revelation absolutely do not see it in that way. My stake president didn't. Remember, he actually thanked me (and implicitly my willingness to disagree) for giving him a sacred opportunity to receive revelation.

The goal is not to be the person who is right; the goal is to find out what the Lord wants. I realise that not everyone in the Church gets this, but this is certainly not owing to a lack of either training or modelling, as evidenced by what my current stake president shared with us in stake conference yesterday morning.

So what was the proposal by the stake president and your counter-proposal?

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 minutes ago, Exiled said:

So what was the proposal by the stake president and your counter-proposal?

I don't know how to answer that question without risking the anonymity of all involved. Is there an issue I can possibly address without having to go into specifics?

[Exiled]

23 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I don't know how to answer that question without risking the anonymity of all involved. Is there an issue I can possibly address without having to go into specifics?

Well, how do I know this wasn't just some run of the mill decision like whether or not the stake young men were going on trek or doing a service project instead? My former bishop admitted to me that some callings are just position filling, random calls, that many could do, and some are bigger where he actually felt inspired. How do you know if what you experienced was simply a run of the mill situation from the stake president's viewpoint even though you thought it miraculous? Perhaps you aren't used to disagreeing with authority, as that is not part of the church program, and your disagreement became huge in your mind? Without knowing what it was, how am I supposed to judge this properly? 

Come on, show an outsider a little love 

Edited February 12, 2018 by Exiled

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

Perhaps you aren't used to disagreeing with authority, as that is not part of the church program ...

Mate, have you actually read any of the Church materials on how to properly counsel, whether in a Church council or in a family. I'd kindly suggest that you lack some familiarity with what the Church's program is.

Quote

Without knowing what it was, how am I supposed to judge this properly? 

I strongly suspect that I could give you minute details, and you still wouldn't believe me. Sorry.

Edited February 12, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Exiled]

22 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Mate, have you actually read any of the Church materials on how to properly counsel, whether in a Church council or in a family. I'd kindly suggest that you lack some familiarity with what the Church's program is.

I strongly suspect that I could give you minute details, and you still wouldn't believe me. Sorry.

Of course. I just had a fantastic spiritual experience too .... I can't tell you about it, but it supports my point precisely ... it would probably change your life ... but you probably wouldn't understand it .... in any event it is too sacred to tell. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

Of course. I just had a fantastic spiritual experience too .... I can't tell you about it, but it supports my point precisely ... it would probably change your life ... but you probably wouldn't understand it .... in any event it is too sacred to tell. 

Are you intentionally trying to validate my suspicion?

[sunstoned]

On 2/6/2018 at 4:15 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Ah, a variation on the "my truth" vs. "your truth" nonsense.

I didn't read further because I fundamentally reject this notion. As Ben Shapiro has said, there's no such thing as "my truth." There is only THE truth and opinion.

 

So, no open to hearing different ideas?  

Edited February 12, 2018 by sunstoned

[Exiled]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Are you intentionally trying to validate my suspicion?

Validate your suspicion of what? My last post was kind of out of frustration with the too sacred to tell thing that I suspect gets abused. However, how would one know when there is abuse or not?

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Validate your suspicion of what? My last post was kind of out of frustration with the too sacred to tell thing that I suspect gets abused. However, how would one know when there is abuse or not?

He didn't say it was too sacred to tell, he said it would violate confidentiality...he should not be sharing specifics details of people's struggles.

Edited February 12, 2018 by Calm

[Exiled]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

He didn't say it was too sacred to tell, he said it would violate confidentiality...he should not be sharing specifics details of people's struggles.

Ok.

[Hamba Tuhan]

10 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Validate your suspicion of what?

From my previous post: 'I strongly suspect that I could give you minute details, and you still wouldn't believe me'.

Quote

My last post was kind of out of frustration with the too sacred to tell thing that I suspect gets abused.

Where exactly did I suggest anything from my experience was 'too sacred to tell'? In my opinion, I gave you all the 'sacred' details. And then I told you, honestly, that my concern with sharing more was with maintaining anonymity. I speak frankly about other people in this forum all the time. I owe it to them that I don't share enough details that I can be possibly be identified. Sorry. 

By the way, I'm fine if you don't believe anything I write. My goal in writing is to share, not to convince. I don't believe heaps of things I read in this forum ... unless I've experienced similar things for myself.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

So, no open to hearing different ideas?  

Non sequitur.

Different ideas are different ideas, not different truths. Truth exists independent of any one person’s Ideas, opinions, etc. One can approach truth through his own ideas, but people don’t come up with conflicting “truth”. Either one party  is wrong or they both are, but they can’t conflict and be right simultaneously. 

Oprah’s “my truth” and “your truth” notion is smarmy, liberal, new-age, Orwellian double-speak. 

Edited February 12, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

On 2/10/2018 at 6:36 PM, rockpond said:

Don’t worry, I won’t. 

But I see your position as being the opposite end of the spectrum... just as extreme and incorrect.

My position is no more nor less than that of the apostles and prophets as a divinely called and anointed body. I cast my lot with them. 

[Exiled]

54 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

From my previous post: 'I strongly suspect that I could give you minute details, and you still wouldn't believe me'.

Where exactly did I suggest anything from my experience was 'too sacred to tell'? In my opinion, I gave you all the 'sacred' details. And then I told you, honestly, that my concern with sharing more was with maintaining anonymity. I speak frankly about other people in this forum all the time. I owe it to them that I don't share enough details that I can be possibly be identified. Sorry. 

By the way, I'm fine if you don't believe anything I write. My goal in writing is to share, not to convince. I don't believe heaps of things I read in this forum ... unless I've experienced similar things for myself.

I was hoping you could give me a few more details about your disagreement with the Stake Pres. so I could see what led you to believe what happened.  If you can't then that's fine. Perhaps I wouldn't have believed it as you suspect, but maybe I would as I used to believe in such things.

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 hours ago, Exiled said:

I was hoping you could give me a few more details about your disagreement with the Stake Pres. so I could see what led you to believe what happened. 

What do you mean 'what led you to believe what happened'? I thought my account was pretty straightforward. I know what happened. You don't have to place the same value on it as I do, but what I shared is not something I 'believe'.

[rongo]

On 2/9/2018 at 4:24 PM, 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. 

 

On 2/9/2018 at 7:01 PM, 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.

Oh, I completely disagree that the bishop was wrong to proceed without my 100% agreement. And, I don’t feel like I was ill-used, not listened to, etc. I was absolutely given a full hearing, and I also heard and understood the bishop’s good points and reasons. And, I fully sustain the decision, even though I still to this day think it should have been a different one (disfellowshipment instead of formal probation). How can this be? Because the process involves giving input and then the key-holder making an authorized, binding decision with that input (but not slavishly dictated by that input).

I think it’s perfectly fine to accept my sustaining of the decision without full agreement with it. In a disciplinary council, the key-holder’s decision (bishop/branch president or stake president) is the decision that matters. The counselors and high councilors give input and arguments, but that is simply valuable helps in going to the Lord with a decision. Granted, if a participant is extremely uncomfortable or disturbed with a direction or decision, it would be a good thing for the presiding officer to not brush it off and to address it. In my experience, it is most common (but not always) for all participants (including the subject of the council) to fully agree with the decision. But, it also happens that participants disagree with the decision, but sustain it, as in my case. It was the bishop’s ultimate decision, and he also had a good case and good points for his decision.

I have learned, in over ten years of being involved in these things (twice as a counselor, twice as a bishop, and attending stake councils in our stake as the bishop), not to have expected outcomes going in. God’s hand is manifest in them, and there are twists and turns in the deliberation and then praying that cause me to marvel. I have gone in thinking I was sure of what the outcome is going to be, and then what emerges as God’s will, perceived by the participants, is not what I expected (in both directions, both more harsh and more lenient). Disciplinary councils are a special experience, and a real testimony builder.

What’s interesting to me is the expectation of infallibility on the part of some regarding them. It seems to me that some people (as evidenced here) believe that the validity and efficacy of them rest solely on whether or not all those who give input come to fully believe the same things about the decision --- and that accepting/sustaining the decision without agreeing fully with it is “deeply disturbing” or “wrong.” God does not body snatch people and override their feelings, thoughts, judgments, agency, etc. A big part of learning to be a Zion people is to attain unity and sustaining in spite of these things, but they don’t magically disappear or become overwritten by God. The beauty is that we still retain our identities and the core of who we are, even as we sustain and support each other and decisions of leaders. 

I don’t believe that Zion being of “one heart and one mind” (Moses 7:8) means that we never disagree with each other or leader decisions, either. Not even in the Millennium (there will be, after all, other churches as well, and not everyone will be LDS). It has to do with being able to truly sustain things, even when we disagree. I don’t believe Zion involves remote controlling, body snatching, or overriding.

[rongo]

On 2/10/2018 at 10:34 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

That you have at times been unable to achieve unity with local leaders with whom you have served and silent acquiescence was the best you could muster is no justification for projecting that behavior onto the prophets and apostles. 

That's interesting. Aren't you the one who went bonkers at the thought of a bishop asking ward members not to use electronics at church? Even to the point of saying you would have written above him and the stake president, if necessary?

Aren't you the one who also had spittle flying regarding the Boston stake president who shortened the block without Salt Lake approval?

Maybe "achieving unity with local leaders" isn't a moral absolute at all times and in all places, is it Scott?

I'm not saying these extreme examples or common, but they do illustrate that there are real situations in our local areas where good people can in good conscience disagree with local leaders, and not be in a state of disunity with them. 

[kllindley]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don’t believe Zion involves remote controlling, body snatching, or overriding.

Add this to the agree bot, clone, and mindless done trope. 

Why do you think it is that so many people here resort to these extreme strawman positions? Do you really believe that Hamba or I are advocating anything like this? 

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Add this to the agree bot, clone, and mindless done trope. 

Why do you think it is that so many people here resort to these extreme strawman positions? Do you really believe that Hamba or I are advocating anything like this? 

Do I really believe that? I don't know. You two are the ones insisting that if the Spirit is present and everyone is receptive, they will always be in full agreement in their views and not have any disagreement, however slight.

The "tropes" have a basis in truth sometimes. There's a reason why they are "tropes" that get bandied about. They aren't made up out of whole cloth.

[kllindley]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

That's interesting. Aren't you the one who went bonkers at the thought of a bishop asking ward members not to use electronics at church? Even to the point of saying you would have written above him and the stake president, if necessary?

Aren't you the one who also had spittle flying regarding the Boston stake president who shortened the block without Salt Lake approval?

Maybe "achieving unity with local leaders" isn't a moral absolute at all times and in all places, is it Scott?

I'm not saying these extreme examples or common, but they do illustrate that there are real situations in our local areas where good people can in good conscience disagree with local leaders, and not be in a state of disunity with them. 

I'm not Scott, but I'd say that there is a big difference between agreeing with a Leader's decisions and coming to a decision as a council. 

I think you may be right about the pattern bring different when there are specific responsibilities that fall to a holder of priesthood keys. It seems that there are some decisions that he makes after input, that we would then do well to sustain even if we disagree. I will admit that I am not sure about how that role plays out in disciplinary situations. 

It is my understanding that there are a number of decisions that are to be made by a presidency or council. Based on the instruction and witnesses of the Brethren, I don't think it's unrealistic to believe that those decisions are made only when the Spirit has led to unanimity.

 

[rockpond]

19 minutes ago, rongo said:

...

What’s interesting to me is the expectation of infallibility on the part of some regarding them. It seems to me that some people (as evidenced here) believe that the validity and efficacy of them rest solely on whether or not all those who give input come to fully believe the same things about the decision --- and that accepting/sustaining the decision without agreeing fully with it is “deeply disturbing” or “wrong.” God does not body snatch people and override their feelings, thoughts, judgments, agency, etc. A big part of learning to be a Zion people is to attain unity and sustaining in spite of these things, but they don’t magically disappear or become overwritten by God. The beauty is that we still retain our identities and the core of who we are, even as we sustain and support each other and decisions of leaders. 

...

Love this.  Thank you.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, kllindley said:

... I don't think it's unrealistic to believe that those decisions are made only when the Spirit has led to unanimity.

 

I think it might depend on how we are understanding the word unanimity (and that might be a source of confusion here on the thread).

Are we talking about unanimity of thought or unanimity of purpose.

Coming out of a bishopric meeting or a ward council after having made a decision/plan, I expect that we have achieved a unanimity of purpose in how we will move forward with the decision/plan.

But, having all agreed to a decision or plan, even doing so under the direction of the Spirit and guidance of revelation, doesn't erase the all of the differing thoughts that those in the council may have or have had in the process.  We simply set them aside in the interest of sustaining.

[kllindley]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

You two are the ones insisting that if the Spirit is present and everyone is receptive, they will always be in full agreement in their views and not have any disagreement, however slight.

I appreciate your willingness to actually engage. I think this comment really helps me understand, at least your disagreement. I would not say that I believe that the Spirit brings council participants' views into full agreement. I think there remains a lot of room for differences of perspective and nuance in position beyond the official position. I just believe that before a major decision is made and official statements released and signed, that there is unaminity on that position. At least, that's what the Brethren say. I'm not talking compete hive mind about everything conceivable. But I can't believe that some of the Brethren signed their names to the Family Proclamation while crossing their fingers because they don't really believe it.