Elder Uchtdorf: Progressive?

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Just observations on what you say; not who you are.  But, hey, you know how to use the report button if you want to turn me in for "nannying."  Perhaps the mods will make you happy and throw me off the board.

Or, you could self-regulate.

 

[kllindley]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm sorry, could you refer me to the talk again? Lost in thread pages.  

I also am going to respond to your question a few pages ago on my specific list of things the Brethren have/haven't done. I'm just trying to fit in what I can when I can.  

Here is the post with the links and the relevant quotes:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70185-elder-uchtdorf-progressive/?do=findComment&comment=1209795316

[kiwi57]

3 hours 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?

No-one, anywhere, is infallible. Not the President of the Church. Not the 12. Not the 70.

And especially not some random anonymous opinion-sharers on some message board somewhere.

As soon as someone starts talking about the fallibility of Church leaders as if that justifies preaching their own version of the Gospel for others to listen to, we know that they have missed the point. The Lord's anointed servants aren't meant to be infallible guides, they are meant to be authorised ones. We are supposed to follow their direction, not because they can never be wrong, but because the Lord empowers us as we do so.

And whenever the Lord chooses to reveal new truth to His children on the earth, He always does so through His authorised servants, and no-one else.

This is accepted, normative, orthodox - and true - LDS doctrine.

[ttribe]

16 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Ah. So it was more of a personal jab at Scott based on your past history than a substantive contribution to the discussion. That makes more sense.  

I guess that depends on whether you think that it is "substantive" to comment on what methods are used to defend the Church.

[ttribe]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Or, you could self-regulate.

 

  Something about pots and kettles usually goes here.

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I haven't observed that.

But, I have observed your pattern of frequently insinuating that those with whom you disagree are "apostates".

I wasn't "insinuating" anything about "those with whom" I "disagree."

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

While you and I so often differ theologically, I recognize that we are both active, faithful members of the church.  It's a beautiful thing that there is room of both of us in Mormonism's tent.

Well, I hope you won't go bolting out of the tent if someone you don't like is called to be an apostle. Or when it finally dawns on you that the Church is not going to move in the direction you think it should.

[kiwi57]

3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I guess that depends on whether you think that it is "substantive" to comment on what methods are used to defend the Church.

Is "what methods are used to defend the Church" the topic of this thread?

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, kiwi57 said:

Is "what methods are used to defend the Church" the topic of this thread?

I knew you wouldn't be able to resist...

To answer your question - Where better to comment than in the real-time debate?

[kiwi57]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

I knew you wouldn't be able to resist...

Ah. So you were trolling. Got it.

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

To answer your question - Where better to comment than in the real-time debate?

Then you won't mind us commenting about the methods used to attack the Church either, right?

[rockpond]

35 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Picking up from my question yesterday, what does the D&C say that you think the current leadership is not doing? That question was intended to be treated as a CFR for some information such as a specific required order for sustaining, setting apart, and obtaining common consent spelled out (I can't find it).

I had posted the quotes and references prior to you asking that question.  The short answer is that the apostles ordained a new president of the church before he received a sustaining vote by those over whom he would preside.

[rockpond]

33 minutes ago, kllindley said:

 

So, do either of you two care to engage with President Hinckley's comments in two separate talks? 

It seems to me that you don't believe him. I have no problem with that. I deeply respect differing beliefs. But what he said it's pretty clear. He doesn't seem to be describing a process of rubber-stamping in the name of unity or voting while disagreeing. 

Not sure what you are asking.  Do you interpret President Hinckley's comment to mean that they apostles can't err?

[rongo]

24 minutes ago, kllindley said:

So, do either of you two care to engage with President Hinckley's comments in two separate talks? 

It seems to me that you don't believe him. I have no problem with that. I deeply respect differing beliefs. But what he said it's pretty clear. He doesn't seem to be describing a process of rubber-stamping in the name of unity or voting while disagreeing. 

I am in total agreement with President Hinckley's first quote, without reservation or caveat:

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.

That is what I have been describing. Counselors/councilors are fee to speak their minds, but it is the presiding authority's role to make the decision, and then the counselors/councilors sustain it. Even if they disagree with some of it, when they sustain it, "his decision becomes their decision, regardless of their previous ideas." 

I don't think that privately disagreeing with a decision (that one has sustained) is a lack of unity. It is how things often work in the real world, with "the decision becoming their decision." Even if their own thoughts differ, if they sustain the decision and support it, then they are unified and aligned with their leader. 

I also agree that presiding officers are not "likely to go ahead without the assurances that his counselors feel good." But, notice that he said likely. He did not say that it would never or does never happen. I also agree that if a lack of harmony or unity presents itself, usually "there follows an absence of action." 

I also not that he qualified it as "seldom, if ever, in error." I fully agree with him that the checks and balances of the council system present the best and most likely way to God's will.

You are correct that I don't agree with him fully on parts of the second quote. I don't have a problem with "No decision emanates from the deliberations of the First Presidency and the Twelve without total unanimity among all concerned," since I believe I contributed to unanimity in my anecdote where I privately disagreed but publicly (as in the vote and beyond) supported and sustained the decision. That is unanimous from a voting standpoint.

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.

Where I differ is in "But before a final decision is reached, there comes a unanimity of mind and voice." Voice is no problem (see above), but mind is not always achieved (cf. my anecdote about President Packer and singles wards). 

I think what President Hinckley is getting at is "serious discord or personal enmity." In the examples of disagreement I have witnessed, and which happen to this day among the Brethren, I fully agree with him and trust that there is no "serious discord or personal enmity." It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable, and it is possible to disagree and yet support the council's decision. That doesn't even fall under discord at all. 

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

I wasn't "insinuating" anything about "those with whom" I "disagree."

Well, I hope you won't go bolting out of the tent if someone you don't like is called to be an apostle. Or when it finally dawns on you that the Church is not going to move in the direction you think it should.

Clearly I'm not bolting out of the tent when someone I don't like is called.  I thought that may have been obvious.

I hope that the church will move in the direction that the Lord wants.

[kllindley]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Not sure what you are asking.  Do you interpret President Hinckley's comment to mean that they apostles can't err?

Nope. It was in answer to your previous comment about unaminity of voice and thought. 

President Hinckley's quote is "seldom, if ever, in error." I read that as quite clearly President Hinckley acknowledging the possibility that the Council of the Twelve could make a decision in error, but that he is not aware of any actual occurrence. Why else add "if ever" unless you think he trying to be deceitful?

[ttribe]

26 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Ah. So you were trolling. Got it.

Then you won't mind us commenting about the methods used to attack the Church either, right?

Not trolling; just know your propensities.

As to commenting on methods on both sides, if you'd paid close attention over the years, you'd know I do exactly that.  You just get all bent out of shape when I say such things to you...kind of like your complaining about the mods targeting you, but conveniently forgetting all of the critics they've completely banned from this site for lesser infractions than you've committed.

[kllindley]

12 minutes ago, rongo said:

Where I differ is in "But before a final decision is reached, there comes a unanimity of mind and voice." Voice is no problem (see above), but mind is not always achieved (cf. my anecdote about President Packer and singles wards). 

I acknowledge your anecdote and am not dismissing it. I guess I'm just more comfortable taking President Hinckley at his word. I can only work with the light and knowledge I have access to. 

I don't mean that as any sort of slight against another indiviual's faith if they don't believe his personal witness. But can you understand that just because I do doesn't mean I believe in body snatching or divine mind control. I'm just trusting what a prophet says. 

[rockpond]

29 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Nope. It was in answer to your previous comment about unaminity of voice and thought. 

President Hinckley's quote is "seldom, if ever, in error." I read that as quite clearly President Hinckley acknowledging the possibility that the Council of the Twelve could make a decision in error, but that he is not aware of any actual occurrence. Why else add "if ever" unless you think he trying to be deceitful?

Oh my.  No, I don't think he was trying to be deceitful.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Right, but functionally, there is no difference between a man who cannot do otherwise and one who can, but definitely won't because he's perfect.  

It goes round and round, of course. "No, no, he really could, in theory, but he won't. He just won't. Not ever."

It's not that he's perfect. It's that he has integrity, skill and talent in a position for which he is particularly well-suited and for which the Lord has tutored and molded him.

Compare it to my driving home tonight. It's quite possible that I will be in a traffic accident, and that if I am, it will be my fault. But it's highly improbable that I will be, this because I have several decades of driving experience, I have a propensity to obey all traffic regulations and to drive defensively, and I know the route extremely well. Thus, I am fallible, but in this thing in particular, I am highly unlikely to fall.

 

Edited February 13, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[rongo]

On 2/9/2018 at 4:27 PM, kllindley said:

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

A *very* good question, and I'm not going to come close to doing it justice, but here's what I think and believe:

I don't think it's a question of "revelations God wants canonized, but that the 15 are just too stubborn and hard-hearted to submit." I believe:

a) the keys of the kingdom reside with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

b) God won't force or compel, and the Church can ebb and flow, just like in the scriptures (especially the Book of Mormon). It won't be taken away or left for another people.

c) We are operating under our potential. For many years, the Brethren have taken a very corporate approach to revelation and church governance. This includes "counseling with councils," which is in vogue as a catch phrase and is held out as our model par excellence for receiving revelation.

d) Part of this is a slavish obsession with public relations. Press conferences, interviews, and "Face to Face" events are heavily canned, scripted, and controlled. Media events, including press conferences and Q&As use telemprompters and prepared questions and answers. Gospel topics essays are outsourced out to academics and published anonymously, in an attempt to have something to point to to head off claims that no information is available, but also to give the Church "cover" if later developments are embarrassing (the Brethren's names are not attached to them).

There are major doctrines, topics, and issues that we need revelation on. I don't think the Brethren are asking or seeking for revelation on it, electing instead to work through carefully-worded articles and press releases, essays that straddle the fence and avoid taking a stand, etc. The "safe" route. But revelation from God on things like the following would be wonderful, timely, and important:

---- pre-earth identity as it relates to gender and sexual orientation

---- revealed definitive "why" for the priesthood ban

---- revealed explanation for the Book of Abraham

---- revealed explanation for Joseph Smith's polygamy

---- the super proliferation of anxiety and depression-related disorders, or mental health in general

And others. 

Revelation from God would be infinitely more valuable and effective than commissioned essays and reports from people like Paul Reeve and Richard Wilkins, anonymous academics, and unofficial apologists (like me). But, we don't even have an answer like David O. McKay in the 40s and 50s of "I've asked, and God hasn't given an answer to that." Does anyone think that God has been asked for revelation on these and other issues? I think, more than even in 1922, Elder B. H. Roberts' warning to the Brethren is relevant today:

These questions are put by me . . . to bring to the consciousness of myself and my brethren that we face grave difficulties in all these matters, and that if there is any way by which we may ‘find wisdom, and great treasures of knowledge, even hidden treasures’—-for I am sure that neither an appeal to the books written by men, nor even to the books of scripture now in our possession, will solve our present difficulties—then a most earnest appeal should be made to that source of wisdom and knowledge, and with a faith and persistence that will admit of no denial.

To me, that is one of the primary blessings and roles of prophets, seers, and revelators --- to seek for revelation, using the keys of revelation. We are more in need today than in 1922 for revelation and light and knowledge on key doctrines and issues. They seem to seek to be more managerial today, begging off that "general authorities are not authorities in general." But why aren't they --- particularly in areas like Joseph Smith polygamy, the Book of Abraham, the priesthood ban, doctrine about the pre-existence, intelligence, and spirit, etc.? They have managerial and committee meetings and travel to stake and mission conferences on many weekends, but they certainly have the means and the time to become experts on these important doctrinal and church topics. When they do Q&As or face concerned people, they don't do a very good job, and get irritated and short and then insist that that isn't their department. 

Revelation doesn't come at our whim, when and how we want it. I just want the Brethren to ask,  and I don't seen any evidence that they are. I believe that the keys of revelation are there, but that it is according to our diligence and heed, just like with the Liahona. 

[kllindley]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Oh my.  No, I don't think he was trying to be deceitful.

Right. You have stated that you aren't questioning their honesty or integrity. But you also won't ever go beyond the one liners to actually engage with their own words.

Rock, you're usually willing to discuss. What do you think he means when he says: "But before a final decision is reached, there comes a unanimity of mind and voice."

[rongo]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's not that he's perfect. It's that he has integrity, skill and talent in a position for which he is particularly well-suited and skilled and for which the Lord has tutored and molded him.

Compare it to my driving home tonight. It's quite possible that I will be in a traffic accident, and that if I am, it will be my fault. But it's highly improbable that I will be, this because I have several decades of driving experience, I have a propensity to obey all traffic regulations and to drive defensively, and I know the route extremely well. Thus, I am fallible, but in this thing in particular, I am highly unlikely to fall.

We are in complete agreement that they are worthy of our trust. That's a pretty good analogy.

I also have several decades of driving experience (not as many as you, judging from your children's ages), but even I sometimes miss someone in my blindspot and almost cause an accident (avoided through no skill of my own). 

The Brethren have cultivated an image of complete harmony in thought as well as unity of action that I don't think is the full story. I'm not calling them deceitful or dishonest, but I think they deem it in the best interests of confidence-building among the Saints to not be as frank as formerly about disagreements. I don't think the Church suffers a bit if this is the case, and it is the same here "on the ground" in our local areas. 

[Exiled]

32 minutes ago, rongo said:

We are in complete agreement that they are worthy of our trust. That's a pretty good analogy.

I also have several decades of driving experience (not as many as you, judging from your children's ages), but even I sometimes miss someone in my blindspot and almost cause an accident (avoided through no skill of my own). 

The Brethren have cultivated an image of complete harmony in thought as well as unity of action that I don't think is the full story. I'm not calling them deceitful or dishonest, but I think they deem it in the best interests of confidence-building among the Saints to not be as frank as formerly about disagreements. I don't think the Church suffers a bit if this is the case, and it is the same here "on the ground" in our local areas. 

There are disagreements, obviously.  There are factions and politics among the leadership.  Failing to admit such is simply silly.  It is also obvious that the leadership puts up a unity facade, like other businesses do.  However, getting unity, even if feigned, helps an organization meet its goals (whether good or bad).  In my mission, President Hinckley visited and said that they disagree from time to time, but once the decision is made, the goal was to all work toward attaining the desired outcome as if they were unified in the first place.  

[kllindley]

55 minutes ago, rongo said:

A *very* good question, and I'm not going to come close to doing it justice, but here's what I think and believe:

I don't think it's a question of "revelations God wants canonized, but that the 15 are just too stubborn and hard-hearted to submit." I believe:

a) the keys of the kingdom reside with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

b) God won't force or compel, and the Church can ebb and flow, just like in the scriptures (especially the Book of Mormon). It won't be taken away or left for another people.

c) We are operating under our potential. For many years, the Brethren have taken a very corporate approach to revelation and church governance. This includes "counseling with councils," which is in vogue as a catch phrase and is held out as our model par excellence for receiving revelation.

d) Part of this is a slavish obsession with public relations. Press conferences, interviews, and "Face to Face" events are heavily canned, scripted, and controlled. Media events, including press conferences and Q&As use telemprompters and prepared questions and answers. Gospel topics essays are outsourced out to academics and published anonymously, in an attempt to have something to point to to head off claims that no information is available, but also to give the Church "cover" if later developments are embarrassing (the Brethren's names are not attached to them).

There are major doctrines, topics, and issues that we need revelation on. I don't think the Brethren are asking or seeking for revelation on it, electing instead to work through carefully-worded articles and press releases, essays that straddle the fence and avoid taking a stand, etc. The "safe" route. But revelation from God on things like the following would be wonderful, timely, and important:

---- pre-earth identity as it relates to gender and sexual orientation

---- revealed definitive "why" for the priesthood ban

---- revealed explanation for the Book of Abraham

---- revealed explanation for Joseph Smith's polygamy

---- the super proliferation of anxiety and depression-related disorders, or mental health in general

And others. 

Revelation from God would be infinitely more valuable and effective than commissioned essays and reports from people like Paul Reeve and Richard Wilkins, anonymous academics, and unofficial apologists (like me). But, we don't even have an answer like David O. McKay in the 40s and 50s of "I've asked, and God hasn't given an answer to that." Does anyone think that God has been asked for revelation on these and other issues? I think, more than even in 1922, Elder B. H. Roberts' warning to the Brethren is relevant today:

 

 

To me, that is one of the primary blessings and roles of prophets, seers, and revelators --- to seek for revelation, using the keys of revelation. We are more in need today than in 1922 for revelation and light and knowledge on key doctrines and issues. They seem to seek to be more managerial today, begging off that "general authorities are not authorities in general." But why aren't they --- particularly in areas like Joseph Smith polygamy, the Book of Abraham, the priesthood ban, doctrine about the pre-existence, intelligence, and spirit, etc.? They have managerial and committee meetings and travel to stake and mission conferences on many weekends, but they certainly have the means and the time to become experts on these important doctrinal and church topics. When they do Q&As or face concerned people, they don't do a very good job, and get irritated and short and then insist that that isn't their department. 

Revelation doesn't come at our whim, when and how we want it. I just want the Brethren to ask,  and I don't seen any evidence that they are. I believe that the keys of revelation are there, but that it is according to our diligence and heed, just like with the Liahona. 

Thanks for answering. It helps me understand where you are coming from. 

[kllindley]

5 minutes ago, Exiled said:

There are disagreements, obviously.  There are factions and politics among the leadership.  Failing to admit such is simply silly. 

I'm okay with being judged silly. I've been called worse. 

[Exiled]

Just now, kllindley said:

I'm okay with being judged silly. I've been called worse. 

From my perspective as an inactive (maybe apostate???? ) who grew up surrounded by the hierarchy, who knows some of the stories that paint the leadership as incredibly normal and human, who has seen personally the spill over of some of the past dust ups, I think it is naive to think that they don't get into heated debates and that there aren't factions today.  There certainly were when I was a child and frequented their homes, had dinner with them, and heard the stories about this and that.