Elder Uchtdorf: Progressive?

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

 

 

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.

I'm just curious about what point in God's eternal plan you think we ever do achieve perfect agreement. In your narrative, were the people of the city of Enoch, for example, quarreling over this or that right up to the point when the city was taken up into heaven? Christ prayed in His intercessory prayer that His followers would be one, even as He and His Father are one and that His followers would be one in Them. I wonder what that means to you exactly. Will we still have reservations about one thing or another that the Father or the Son say or do, even after we have been glorified and perfected? Do you believe the Father and the Son Themselves disagree from time to time?

Quote

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 recognize and accept the teaching that even in the Millennium there will be other churches on the earth. I'm not certain how this will play out. Will this continue right on through the entire thousand years? I picture the Millennium as being the period for the final and perfect fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy about the stone cut out of the mountain without hands. That is, during that thousand years, when only the righteous are left on the earth after the wicked have been destroyed, when Satan has been bound, when Christ reigns personally on the earth, the stone will complete the process of rolling forth and breaking down all other kingdoms, consuming all competing or contradictory ideologies until all are subject to Christ and His law. So the way I picture it, though there will be other churches on the earth in the beginning of the Millennium, that will hardly be the case in the end. At any rate, I don't know of any Church teaching that binds me to believe that it will.

Quote

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

I think kllindley has dealt appropriately with this absurd straw man.

 

Edited February 12, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Exiled]

6 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

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'.

I don"t think I can answer this unless you disclose what the disagreement was about and you do not want to do that.  Let me ask you this:  When is it o.k. to challenge authority in the church from your perspective?  In your story, your challenged the Stake Pres. because you obviously felt his inspiration was wrong and your inspiration was correct.  I thought that church authority meant that one cannot challenge what a higher up says the Lord wants a lower level man or woman to do.  Kate Kelly challenged the brethren on priesthood, asking that they simply ask God if the time was right to change it like they did with the other ban that was lifted in 1978.  They refused (probably because they didn't want to set a precedent of having members ask for changes) and Kate was excommunicated.  Obviously, your challenge was less and maybe the Stake President didn't think it was such a huge deal.  Or maybe he was fine with a little push-back?  Or maybe he was unsure of his inspiration?  Like my former Bishop said sometimes he would simply fill a position and sometimes he was resolute that inspiration had happened.  This is why I was wondering what the subject of your disagreement was because I wanted to know what category it fell under.  However, you don't want to share this and that is fine.  Incidentally, do you think it is fine to refuse a calling?  My mother thought it was a sin to do so and I don't think she would ever question a leader's calling or changes that affected her.  I always disagreed with my mother's view and was interested in knowing more from you since you protested the Stake President's changes and won.  This is why I wanted to know what it was.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours 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?

That really chafes you, doesn't it? It must really bother you that using electronic versions of the scriptures is growing more pervasive from the general level of Church leadership on down to the trenches. Did you see my post the other day where I reported that each and every individual in my high priests group that day was using a mobile device, that there wasn't a single paper copy of the scriptures to be found in the entire room? More and more, people in the Church are availing themselves of this blessing of technology, and those who take it as an occasion for annoyance are going to be obliged to tolerate it sooner or later if not already.

Quote

 

Even to the point of saying you would have written above him and the stake president, if necessary?

 

Maybe I did write that. Your memory apparently is clearer than mine. I just hope earnestly it never comes to that for me. It hasn't yet.

Quote

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

What I did was to marvel at the rapidity (less than a day) with which this unauthorized and presumptuous initiative was shut down after it came to light. Does it disappoint you that it was? Was "Salt Lake" wrong to do so?
 

Quote

 

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 grant that local level Church leadership can be and often is flawed in the way it endeavors to administer the Kingdom. I've never said otherwise. The ideal in "counseling with our councils" has been eloquently expressed here by Hamba and others. The ideal (as taught and exemplified by the prophets and apostles) is what we should be striving for. Heaven help us if we should ever cease to do so.

Edited February 12, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[kllindley]

11 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I don"t think I can answer this unless you disclose what the disagreement was about and you do not want to do that.  Let me ask you this:  When is it o.k. to challenge authority in the church from your perspective?  In your story, your challenged the Stake Pres. because you obviously felt his inspiration was wrong and your inspiration was correct.  I thought that church authority meant that one cannot challenge what a higher up says the Lord wants a lower level man or woman to do.  Kate Kelly challenged the brethren on priesthood, asking that they simply ask God if the time was right to change it like they did with the other ban that was lifted in 1978.  They refused (probably because they didn't want to set a precedent of having members ask for changes) and Kate was excommunicated.  Obviously, your challenge was less and maybe the Stake President didn't think it was such a huge deal.  Or maybe he was fine with a little push-back?  Or maybe he was unsure of his inspiration?  Like my former Bishop said sometimes he would simply fill a position and sometimes he was resolute that inspiration had happened.  This is why I was wondering what the subject of your disagreement was because I wanted to know what category it fell under.  However, you don't want to share this and that is fine.  Incidentally, do you think it is fine to refuse a calling?  My mother thought it was a sin to do so and I don't think she would ever question a leader's calling or changes that affected her.  I always disagreed with my mother's view and was interested in knowing more from you since you protested the Stake President's changes and won.  This is why I wanted to know what it was.

I hope I'm not out of line for speaking to this, and I am absolutely not attempting to answer for Hamba.  I think that there is a distinct difference between the experience he is describing and the Kate Kelly situation.  My understanding is that Hamba was in a position of stewardship over the decision to be made.  I am not clear if he was in the Stake Young Men's Presidency, or the High Council, or what, but this wasn't just some member disagreeing with the Stake President.  (For the record, I do believe that it is okay to disagree with the Stake President, or Bishop, and that there is a proper way to address those disagreements while still sustaining and honoring the leader.)  I think we are talking about a much more narrow set of circumstances when a body (presidency or council) is assigned with making a united decision.  

Regarding a calling, I am personally not sure about refusing a calling.  I think the situation and context matters.  To "refuse" a calling is, in my opinion, different from "declining" a calling or informing the leader that, after considerable prayer, I still did not feel comfortable with the calling.  I think it's perfectly okay to give a leader more information about circumstances that may impact my ability to fulfill a calling (like not being able to get work off for a Mutual calling.)  In these cases, I think I would probably offer to accept the calling, but be clear upfront about my reservations.  

[Exiled]

6 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I hope I'm not out of line for speaking to this, and I am absolutely not attempting to answer for Hamba.  I think that there is a distinct difference between the experience he is describing and the Kate Kelly situation.  My understanding is that Hamba was in a position of stewardship over the decision to be made.  I am not clear if he was in the Stake Young Men's Presidency, or the High Council, or what, but this wasn't just some member disagreeing with the Stake President.  (For the record, I do believe that it is okay to disagree with the Stake President, or Bishop, and that there is a proper way to address those disagreements while still sustaining and honoring the leader.)  I think we are talking about a much more narrow set of circumstances when a body (presidency or council) is assigned with making a united decision.  

Regarding a calling, I am personally not sure about refusing a calling.  I think the situation and context matters.  To "refuse" a calling is, in my opinion, different from "declining" a calling or informing the leader that, after considerable prayer, I still did not feel comfortable with the calling.  I think it's perfectly okay to give a leader more information about circumstances that may impact my ability to fulfill a calling (like not being able to get work off for a Mutual calling.)  In these cases, I think I would probably offer to accept the calling, but be clear upfront about my reservations.  

I agree that Kate Kelly was on the end of the scale and Hamba's disagreement was something different. Also, I thought once the Stake Presidency makes a decision, they assume it is inspired? Is questioning their inspired decisions encouraged if you feel inspired to do something different?

[kllindley]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

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.

You know, I'm comfortable with both models. I think that there are times to set aside personal feelings and sustain a priesthood leader's decision.  I also think that there are decisions that should be made with complete unanimity of both thought and purpose. (By "complete" I don't mean regarding every single aspect of the topic, but all of the official points)

I think President Hinckley described both models, issuing caution about the first more than the second:  

Quote

In presidency meetings, each counselor is free to speak his mind on all issues that come before the presidency. However, it is the prerogative of the president to make the decision, and it is the duty of the counselors to back him in that decision. His decision then becomes their decision, regardless of their previous ideas. 

. . . . 

No president in any organization in the Church is likely to go ahead without the assurance that his counselors feel good about the proposed program. A man or woman thinking alone, working alone, arriving at his or her own conclusions, can take action which might prove to be wrong. But when three kneel together in prayer, discuss every aspect of the problem which is before them, and under the impressions of the Spirit reach a united conclusion, then we may have the assurance that the decision is in harmony with the will of the Lord.

. . .

I can assure all members of this church that in the First Presidency we follow such a procedure. Even the President of the Church, who is Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and whose right and responsibility it is to make judgment and direct the course of the Church, invariably consults with his counselors to determine their feelings. If there is a lack of unity, there follows an absence of action. Two counselors, working with a president, preserve a wonderful system of checks and balances. They become a safeguard that is seldom, if ever, in error and affords great strength of leadership.

And Also 

Quote

But any major questions of policy, procedures, programs, or doctrine are considered deliberately and prayerfully by the First Presidency and the Twelve together. These two quorums, the Quorum of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, meeting together, with every man having total freedom to express himself, consider every major question.

And now I quote again from the word of the Lord: “And every decision made by either of these quorums must be by the unanimous voice of the same; that is, every member in each quorum must be agreed to its decisions, in order to make their decisions of the same power or validity one with the other” (D&C 107:27).

No decision emanates from the deliberations of the First Presidency and the Twelve without total unanimity among all concerned. At the outset in considering matters, there may be differences of opinion. These are to be expected. These men come from different backgrounds. They are men who think for themselves. But before a final decision is reached, there comes a unanimity of mind and voice.

. . . .

I add by way of personal testimony that during the twenty years I served as a member of the Council of the Twelve and during the nearly thirteen years that I have served in the First Presidency, there has never been a major action taken where this procedure was not observed. I have seen differences of opinion presented in these deliberations. Out of this very process of men speaking their minds has come a sifting and winnowing of ideas and concepts. But I have never observed serious discord or personal enmity among my Brethren. I have, rather, observed a beautiful and remarkable thing—the coming together, under the directing influence of the Holy Spirit and under the power of revelation, of divergent views until there is total harmony and full agreement. Only then is implementation made. That, I testify, represents the spirit of revelation manifested again and again in directing this the Lord’s work.

I know of no other governing body of any kind of which this might be said.

(Bold mine)

Edited February 12, 2018 by kllindley
Added to first quote

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I grant that local level Church leadership can be and often is flawed in the way it endeavors to administer the Kingdom. I've never said otherwise. The ideal has been eloquently expressed here by Hamba and others. The ideal (as taught and exemplified by the prophets and apostles) is what we should be striving for. Heaven help us if we should ever cease to do so.

So, local leadership can and is often flawed in how it administers but at some point above the local level those flaws cease to exist?  Is that just in the Quorum of the 12 and First Presidency?  What about the Presidency of the 70?  Presiding Bishopric?  Where's the inflection point?

Perhaps it is just a scale... the more local a leader you are the more likely it is that your administration is flawed but as we move up the hierarchy the likelihood of flawed administration decreases to the point that by the time we reach the Quorum of the Twelve there are no more flaws?

[kllindley]

5 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I agree that Kate Kelly was on the end of the scale and Hamba's disagreement was something different. Also, I thought once the Stake Presidency makes a decision, they assume it is inspired? Is questioning their inspired decisions encouraged if you feel inspired to do something different?

This is where stewardship matters.  Who is to assume it is inspired?  It matters a great deal who we are talking about and their relationship to the issue.  A random member?  A counselor? And what is the issue? 

I absolutely do not assume that every decision made by the Stake Presidency is inspired.  I think may minor decisions are suggested and "rubber-stamped" because there is no immediate opposition.  My belief that God leads the Church at all levels, does not require that every single decision be directly inspired.  I have questioned and disregarded certain advice from a Stake President about my personal life.  I wouldn't have a bit of problem telling that to any member of our Stake Presidency if asked, but I don't see any need to vocally express my opposition. 

But that was a situation where I chose not to implement a program personally because I disagreed with it.  In my calling in the Elder's Quorum Presidency, I am much less likely to question direction from the Stake (even though I have still done it).  My stewardship over my own life is paramount.  My stewardship over the Melchizedek Priesthood in the Stake is limited to counselling with my Elder's Quorum President about how to lead our quorum and then sustaining his leadership.   

[Exiled]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So, local leadership can and is often flawed in how it administers but at some point above the local level those flaws cease to exist?  Is that just in the Quorum of the 12 and First Presidency?  What about the Presidency of the 70?  Presiding Bishopric?  Where's the inflection point?

Perhaps it is just a scale... the more local a leader you are the more likely it is that your administration is flawed but as we move up the hierarchy the likelihood of flawed administration decreases to the point that by the time we reach the Quorum of the Twelve there are no more flaws?

My guess is that if you dig deep enough, you will find that the Q15 leadership is flawed like the local leaders.  Probably everyone who knows them privately acknowledges this, except maybe Scott.  I think Scott wants to have the air of infallibility with the Q15 yet maintain that they are fallible because infallibility is tough to maintain.  They are fallible but as Stem once said, no one seems to be able to point to a mistake they make.

[Exiled]

4 minutes ago, kllindley said:

This is where stewardship matters.  Who is to assume it is inspired?  It matters a great deal who we are talking about and their relationship to the issue.  A random member?  A counselor? And what is the issue? 

I absolutely do not assume that every decision made by the Stake Presidency is inspired.  I think may minor decisions are suggested and "rubber-stamped" because there is no immediate opposition.  My belief that God leads the Church at all levels, does not require that every single decision be directly inspired.  I have questioned and disregarded certain advice from a Stake President about my personal life.  I wouldn't have a bit of problem telling that to any member of our Stake Presidency if asked, but I don't see any need to vocally express my opposition. 

But that was a situation where I chose not to implement a program personally because I disagreed with it.  In my calling in the Elder's Quorum Presidency, I am much less likely to question direction from the Stake (even though I have still done it).  My stewardship over my own life is paramount.  My stewardship over the Melchizedek Priesthood in the Stake is limited to counselling with my Elder's Quorum President about how to lead our quorum and then sustaining his leadership.   

I think questioning authority is healthy.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Exiled said:

My guess is that if you dig deep enough, you will find that the Q15 leadership is flawed like the local leaders.  Probably everyone who knows them privately acknowledges this, except maybe Scott.  I think Scott wants to have the air of infallibility with the Q15 yet maintain that they are fallible because infallibility is tough to maintain.  They are fallible but as Stem once said, no one seems to be able to point to a mistake they make.

Yep.  I think prevailing opinion within the church is all leaders are fallible in theory but the apostles are infallible in practice (meaning we won't/can't/shouldn't ever identify any errors they may have made).

[Scott Lloyd]

49 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So, local leadership can and is often flawed in how it administers but at some point above the local level those flaws cease to exist?  Is that just in the Quorum of the 12 and First Presidency?  What about the Presidency of the 70?  Presiding Bishopric?  Where's the inflection point?

Perhaps it is just a scale... the more local a leader you are the more likely it is that your administration is flawed but as we move up the hierarchy the likelihood of flawed administration decreases to the point that by the time we reach the Quorum of the Twelve there are no more flaws?

I believe that through many years of experience and the associated divine tutoring, the prophets and apostles are adept at what President Ballard has called "the Lord's system" of administration, (i.e. "counseling with our councils"), more so than the typical bishop or stake president. This skill, in part, is what qualifies them for the position to which they are called and makes them worthy of our trust.

Edited February 12, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

27 minutes ago, Exiled said:

My guess is that if you dig deep enough, you will find that the Q15 leadership is flawed like the local leaders.  Probably everyone who knows them privately acknowledges this, except maybe Scott.  I think Scott wants to have the air of infallibility with the Q15 yet maintain that they are fallible because infallibility is tough to maintain. 

That they are individually fallible yet are able to function so well as a body in administering the Savior's Church is what makes them remarkable -- and great in my eyes.

Quote

They are fallible but as Stem once said, no one seems to be able to point to a mistake they make.

People like Stem and rockpond desperately need to find fault with them, because they disagree so stridently with the Church leaders on certain matters.

Edited February 12, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Exiled]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That they are individually fallible yet are able to function so well as a body in administering the Savior's Church is what makes them remarkable -- and great in my eyes.

Let me guess ... this is from a quote from Lorenzo Snow?  Found it "I can fellowship the President of the Church, if he does not know everything I know. . . . I saw the . . . imperfections in [Joseph Smith]. . . . I thanked God that he would put upon a man who had those imperfections the power and authority he placed upon him . . . for I knew that I myself had weakness[es], and I thought there was a chance for me. . . . I thanked God that I saw these imperfections."
(As cited by Neal A. Maxwell, "Out of Obscurity," Ensign, Nov. 1984, p. 10; also Conference Report, Oct. 1984.)

So, have you ever declined to take a church calling?  Have you ever disagreed with what a local leader did and voiced your concerns?  If so, would you share?

Also, have you ever witnessed mistakes being made by the Q15?  If so, could you name some?  I know I have as a few were in my ward and stake growing up.

[ttribe]

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

People like Stem and rockpond desperately need to find fault with them, because they disagree so stridently with the Church leaders on certain matters.

Why do you do this? This is such a blatant poisoning of the well and is completely unnecessary to defend your position.  It just comes off as petty.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Why do you do this? This is such a blatant poisoning of the well and is completely unnecessary to defend your position.  It just comes off as petty.

It is no different qualitatively than what they did to me by insinuating, contrary to reality, that I treat the apostles and prophets as though they were infallible. Yet you didn't get after them for "petty" "poisoning of the well."

Interesting, that.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Let me guess ... this is from a quote from Lorenzo Snow?  Found it "I can fellowship the President of the Church, if he does not know everything I know. . . . I saw the . . . imperfections in [Joseph Smith]. . . . I thanked God that he would put upon a man who had those imperfections the power and authority he placed upon him . . . for I knew that I myself had weakness[es], and I thought there was a chance for me. . . . I thanked God that I saw these imperfections."
(As cited by Neal A. Maxwell, "Out of Obscurity," Ensign, Nov. 1984, p. 10; also Conference Report, Oct. 1984.)

So, have you ever declined to take a church calling?  Have you ever disagreed with what a local leader did and voiced your concerns?  If so, would you share?

Also, have you ever witnessed mistakes being made by the Q15?  If so, could you name some?  I know I have as a few were in my ward and stake growing up.

Assuming arguendo that I  had, I would never say so here, because there are so many here who are so hostile in their attitude and outlook, I frankly don't trust them enough to share such personal feelings with them.

And no, I didn't have that Lorenzo Snow quote in mind when I made my post, though I acknowledge that it is a good one.

 

Edited February 12, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It is no different qualitatively than what they did to me by insinuating, contrary to reality, that I treat the apostles and prophets as though they were infallible. Yet you didn't get after them for "petty" "poisoning of the well."

Interesting, that.

 

Yours I saw.  Theirs I didn't. Less interesting. 

[kllindley]

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Yours I saw.  Theirs I didn't. Less interesting. 

Actually, even more interesting to me. You didn't see those posts or didn't see them as petty poisoning the well?

[rockpond]

47 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

People like Stem and rockpond desperately need to find fault with them, because they disagree so stridently with the Church leaders on certain matters.

This is false... I would prefer never to find fault with them.  Unfortunately, that is not the church that the Lord established.

[rockpond]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It is no different qualitatively than what they did to me by insinuating, contrary to reality, that I treat the apostles and prophets as though they were infallible. Yet you didn't get after them for "petty" "poisoning of the well."

Interesting, that.

 

I'm confused.  Haven't you taken the position here that the Quorum of the 12 and the First Presidency cannot err because they won't move forward on anything until inspiration brings them all into accord?  What have I misunderstood?  Sincerely.

[Exiled]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm confused.  Haven't you taken the position here that the Quorum of the 12 and the First Presidency cannot err because they won't move forward on anything until inspiration brings them all into accord?  What have I misunderstood?  Sincerely.

I wonder if Scott signed something with the DN regarding the church?  Maybe he contractually cannot admit actual fallibility even though he can entertain it as a theoretical concept, as in he is unaware of any mistakes, although mistakes are possible, and mistakes have been made in the past, just not by anyone he knows?

[Jeanne]

4 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I wonder if Scott signed something with the DN regarding the church?  Maybe he contractually cannot admit actual fallibility even though he can entertain it as a theoretical concept, as in he is unaware of any mistakes, although mistakes are possible, and mistakes have been made in the past, just not by anyone he knows?

Well..I hope not.  I would like to think that a place of employment doesn't steal your mind and let you think for yourself?????

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I wonder if Scott signed something with the DN regarding the church?  Maybe he contractually cannot admit actual fallibility even though he can entertain it as a theoretical concept, as in he is unaware of any mistakes, although mistakes are possible, and mistakes have been made in the past, just not by anyone he knows?

Nah... I think the position that Scott has staked out here is fairly consistent with mainstream thought in the church.  (I think it's wrong.  But I do think it aligns with the majority of members.)

Edited February 12, 2018 by rockpond

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

Also, have you ever witnessed mistakes being made by the Q15?  If so, could you name some?  I know I have as a few were in my ward and stake growing up.

I've noticed that this appears to be a common trope among some actively proselytizing apostates these days. It's almost like it comes out of some kind of playbook.

When a believing Latter-day Saint acknowledges that the leaders are fallible, challenge him or her to name examples of errors or character flaws in Church leaders. It is important to get them doing this, because that will get them to question the moral authority of those leaders, which is a key part of our strategy. If they refuse to play the game, accuse them of treating the leaders as if they were practically infallible.

Personally, I don't fall for it.