Elder Uchtdorf: Progressive?

[Hamba Tuhan]

32 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Unless you call the 2000 year old teachings of Christ progressive.

Well, not if one is using the term with its politically laden meaning.

But yes, certainly, if one instead means that which leads people forward.

[JLHPROF]

31 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

 Don't judge, love everyone, be inclusive.  These are simple concepts that for some reason we seem to really struggle with.

Because those are the introductory basics.  Once we are truly Christlike we can do all these things without sacrificing a single correct principle.

The same scriptures that tell us God loves all his children also say that he cannot look on sin with the least degree of allowance and that no unclean thing can be in his presence.

Once we figure out how both can be true and cease falling too far towards either mercy or justice we will be that much more Christlike.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Agreed.  He is not progressive.  Unless you call the 2000 year old teachings of Christ progressive. Uchtodorf strikes me a man who has read and tries to follow Christ's teachings as they are laid out in the new testament.  It is really quite simple, once you strip away the politics, judgmentalism, and legalize that seems to permanent modern Christianity:  Don't judge, love everyone, be inclusive.  These are simple concepts that for some reason we seem to really struggle with.

If by this you mean to imply that Elder Uchtdorf strips away all that gives Mormonism its uniqueness and instead subscribes to what might be viewed as a generic conception of Christianity as reflected in the New Testament, discounting all other volumes of scripture, I think you would have a tough time getting him to agree to that characterization.

Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding you.

Edited February 6, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[strappinglad]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And you need to not use the term infers when you mean implies

I was going to suggest that I came to that conclusion by logic and reasoning. Where I live it has been -20 for a couple of weeks with a foot of snow so I have been in-furs every day( wolf that is ) .

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

I was going to suggest that I came to that conclusion by logic and reasoning. Where I live it has been -20 for a couple of weeks with a foot of snow so I have been in-furs every day( wolf that is ) .

In that case, never mind. Carry on.

And stay warm!

 

[kiwi57]

5 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Agreed.  He is not progressive.  Unless you call the 2000 year old teachings of Christ progressive. Uchtodorf strikes me a man who has read and tries to follow Christ's teachings as they are laid out in the new testament.  It is really quite simple, once you strip away the politics, judgmentalism, and legalize that seems to permanent modern Christianity:  Don't judge, love everyone, be inclusive.  These are simple concepts that for some reason we seem to really struggle with.

Yes, Elder Uchtdorf teaches these things. Right along with upholding the distinctive truth claims of the Church, testifying to the possession of unique and essential Priesthood keys, and the necessity of making and keeping sacred Priesthood-administered covenants.

He sees no conflict between the first set and the second; for the very good and sufficient reason that there is none.

Please remember that the very same Jesus who told the woman taken in adultery "Neither do I condemn thee," immediately completed that thought by saying, "Go and sin no more."

[Scott Lloyd]

13 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Agreed.  He is not progressive.  Unless you call the 2000 year old teachings of Christ progressive. Uchtodorf strikes me a man who has read and tries to follow Christ's teachings as they are laid out in the new testament.  It is really quite simple, once you strip away the politics, judgmentalism, and legalize that seems to permanent modern Christianity:  Don't judge, love everyone, be inclusive.  These are simple concepts that for some reason we seem to really struggle with.

 

12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If by this you mean to imply that Elder Uchtdorf strips away all that gives Mormonism its uniqueness and instead subscribes to what might be viewed as a generic conception of Christianity as reflected in the New Testament, discounting all other volumes of scripture, I think you would have a tough time getting him to agree to that characterization.

Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding you.

 

8 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Yes, Elder Uchtdorf teaches these things. Right along with upholding the distinctive truth claims of the Church, testifying to the possession of unique and essential Priesthood keys, and the necessity of making and keeping sacred Priesthood-administered covenants.

He sees no conflict between the first set and the second; for the very good and sufficient reason that there is none.

Please remember that the very same Jesus who told the woman taken in adultery "Neither do I condemn thee," immediately completed that thought by saying, "Go and sin no more."

To those who harbor the notion that Elder Uchtdorf subscribeds to a stripped-down, generic version of Christianity that excludes all things distinctively Mormon, I invite you to consider this general conference talk by Elder Uchtdorf called "the Fruits of the First Vision". Some excerpts:

 

Quote

 

During the hymns of the congregation and even during talks and testimonies given by our members, I often looked at this depiction of a most sacred moment in world history. In my mind’s eye I saw Joseph receiving knowledge, witness, and divine instructions as he became a blessed instrument in the hand of our Heavenly Father.

I felt a special spirit while looking at the beautiful scene in this window picture of a believing young boy in a sacred grove who made a courageous decision to earnestly pray to our Heavenly Father, who listened and responded lovingly to him.

 

Quote

By the universal power of the Holy Ghost, I felt in my heart and in my mind that it was true, that Joseph Smith saw God and Jesus Christ and heard Their voices. The Spirit of God comforted my soul at this young age with an assurance of the reality of this sacred moment that resulted in the beginning of a worldwide movement destined to “roll forth, until it has filled the whole earth” (D&C 65:2). I believed Joseph Smith’s testimony of that glorious experience in the Sacred Grove then, and I know it now. God has spoken to mankind again!

Quote

God has spoken to Joseph Smith for the purpose of blessing all of God’s children with His mercy and love, even in times of uncertainties and insecurities, of wars and rumors of wars, of natural and personal disasters. The Savior said, “Behold, mine arm of mercy is extended towards you, and whosoever will come, him will I receive” (3 Ne. 9:14). And all who accept this invitation will be “encircled about with the matchless bounty of his love” (Alma 26:15).

Quote

I am grateful that early in my life I was blessed with a simple faith that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, that he saw God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, in a vision. He translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God. That testimony has been confirmed to me over and over again.

Here is something from a more recent address by President Uchtdorf:

 

Quote

 

Sometimes we think of the Restoration of the gospel as something that is complete, already behind us—Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, he received priesthood keys, the Church was organized. In reality, the Restoration is an ongoing process; we are living in it right now. It includes “all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal,” and the “many great and important things” that “He will yet reveal.”² Brethren, the exciting developments of today are part of that long-foretold period of preparation that will culminate in the glorious Second Coming of our Savior, Jesus Christ.

This is one of the most remarkable periods of the world’s history! Ancient prophets yearned to see our day.

When our time in mortality is complete, what experiences will we be able to share about our own contribution to this significant period of our lives and to the furthering of the Lord’s work? Will we be able to say that we rolled up our sleeves and labored with all our heart, might, mind, and strength? Or will we have to admit that our role was mostly that of an observer?

I suppose there are a variety of reasons why it is easy to become a bit sleepy with regard to building the kingdom of God. Let me mention three major ones. As I do, I invite you to ponder if any might apply. If you see room for improvement, I ask you to consider what could be done to change for the better.

 

 

Edited February 6, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Benjamin McGuire]

I think that this notion of being progressive is relative.

Was President Hugh B. Brown progressive? He was the most vocal proponent of lifting the priesthood ban in the late 1960s. He was opposed primarily by Elders Joseph Fielding Smith and Harold B. Lee. So while we wouldn't consider President Brown progressive in the context of society as a whole, he was progressive in some ways when compared to Elder Smith and Elder Lee. And when Joseph Fielding Smith became President of the Church, he did not call Elder Brown back to the First Presidency. I think that by comparison, we could say that President Brown was a progressive voice in the Church. I think in the same way, people view Elder Uchtdorf as a progressive voice in the past First Presidency (which had some progressive trends I think, which we could identify if we wanted to). But this does not mean that Elder Uchtdorf is a progressive by any stretch of the imagination outside of that comparison (he wouldn't be progressive by any sort of modern societal view).

I think that it is ignorant to think that the Apostles all share the same sort of world view. This may not create factions so to speak, but it certainly means that there isn't unanimity on every issues. These sorts of disagreement were quite visible in the past, in often public disputes (consider the whole Talmage, Smith, Roberts issue). I think that the loss of the visibility of these disagreements has been helpful in some ways, but also not particularly helpful to the general membership in understanding that diversity in viewpoints is healthy for the Church, and makes a unanimous coming together all that much more significant.

[clarkgoble]

I was listening to Ben Park's Meaning of Life interview this week. (Meaning of Life is basically a breakoff from Bloggingheads TV with a focus on science, philosophy and religion and how all three intersect) I thought he raised a particularly good point that those talking about Uchtdorf as a progressive really are emphasizing rhetoric. I think in their press conference Nelson and Oaks were attempting to be just as inclusive as Uchtdorf, but they just didn't speak in terms of the rhetoric that made progressives feel spoken to. (Without regurgitative the other thread - this is why I felt the press conference a failure. It was rhetoric not content.) 

Now as I've said before there's no content I'm aware of one can point to where Uchtdorf sounds particularly religiously progressive. If anything his association with the policies of Monson indicates all the evidence lies in the other direction. Yet the reaction to Uchtdorf really suggests that merely changing the words we use can have a huge effect on how people perceive things. That is this is ultimately not really an issue of religious content as much as it is religious language style.

[rockpond]

21 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

I'm sure he's just as inclusive as President Nelson, President Oaks, and the late President Packer.

I agree with you about the "so-called" part. But please note that Elder Uchtdorf tells us that if we are following the Lord's way, we are going to be at odds with the world. Those on the fringes of the Church who identify as "progressive" seem to expect us to go along with the world.

Elder Uchtdorf tells us that we should be listening to the Saviour's voice, and that His is the only voice that matters. He also says that we should rely upon the prophets and apostles to guide us. The "progressives" seem to expect us to listen to their alternative voices.

I don't see him as aligning with them in any meaningful way.

No, I think if you study Elder Uchtdorf's teachings in comparison with Presidents Nelson, Oaks, or Packer it is apparently that Uchtdorf represents (at least publicly) are more inclusive church.

Regarding your comment that those on the "fringes of the Church" who identify as "progressive" expecting us to go along with the world... I've mentioned this to you before but you have failed to understand progressive Mormons if this is what you think.

[Scott Lloyd]

31 minutes ago, rockpond said:

No, I think if you study Elder Uchtdorf's teachings in comparison with Presidents Nelson, Oaks, or Packer it is apparently that Uchtdorf represents (at least publicly) are more inclusive church.

Regarding your comment that those on the "fringes of the Church" who identify as "progressive" expecting us to go along with the world... I've mentioned this to you before but you have failed to understand progressive Mormons if this is what you think.

If he has failed to understand them, then I have too, because that's how I see them.

 

[kiwi57]

55 minutes ago, rockpond said:

No, I think if you study Elder Uchtdorf's teachings in comparison with Presidents Nelson, Oaks, or Packer it is apparently that Uchtdorf represents (at least publicly) are more inclusive church.

That's not apparent to me.

 

[cinepro]

 

Quote

On 2/5/2018 at 1:57 AM, kiwi57 said:

In recent years, it has become fashionable among those who think they know more than everyone else to carve up the brethren into "factions."

 

The recent Arrington bio definitely supported the idea that on certain issues, the brethren do see things differently, and there can be a "tension" as bureaucratic maneuvers are brought into play to influence the direction of the Church as they see accordingly. 

Whether he is part of a faction or acting alone, Uchtdorf has, for better or worse, said some things that make it appear he is more aware and compassionate of those who don't fit into certain molds.  While there is no doubt all the Apostles have strong testimonies regarding the doctrines and teachings of the Church, it appears obvious that Elder Uchtdorf sees the world, and the Church members, a little differently than, say, Elder Bednar.

If it would make you feel better about the Church to pretend this isn't the case, then just let us know. 

But there's probably a lot more to it than just some things Elder Ucthdorf has said.  As I pointed out shortly after he was called back to the Q12, he seems to be unique in that, for perhaps the first time in my life, we have a leader that people seem to really want to follow, not because they're being told every week that it's what they need to do, but because he really connects with them.  That's a pretty neat thing to have in a Church.

Edited February 6, 2018 by cinepro

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, cinepro said:

While there is no doubt all the Apostles have strong testimonies regarding the doctrines and teachings of the Church, it appears obvious that Elder Uchtdorf sees the world, and the Church members, a little differently than, say, Elder Bednar.

It is all very well to claim this (and I don't disagree with you in that I believe of those intimately involved in the work of the Church likely see it differently because they bring their heart, soul, and mind to their work...and those are unique), the claim is an empty shell unless you put up actual content and not just opinions to demonstrate this different perception.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

No, I think if you study Elder Uchtdorf's teachings in comparison with Presidents Nelson, Oaks, or Packer it is apparently that Uchtdorf represents (at least publicly) are more inclusive church.

I confess that I not only disagree with that but think the opposite, depending upon what you mean by inclusive.

Who do you think Elder Oaks or Elder Nelson want to exclude that Elder Uchtdorf wants to include? Now rhetorically, as I said, I think Elder Uchtdorf is much better at reaching some of those who feel excluded by using the words they want to hear. I think Elder Oaks and Elder Nelson's heart is in the right place but aren't saying it quite right. As I said earlier though that seems primarily an issue of rhetoric rather than content. 

19 minutes ago, cinepro said:

If it would make you feel better about the Church to pretend this isn't the case, then just let us know. 

In the past there was evidence for tension and evidence for the differences. Say Elder Oak's comment about Elder Packer as a grizzly bear showing tension between the two over academics Packer saw as apostate. Likewise in the late 90's when Elder Oaks talked about homosexuality as not a choice that was a talk with content we could point to which was in tension with what Packer in the same era was saying.

What have people to say about Uchtdorf that doesn't reduce to style? Nothing that I've seen.

I'm not saying there might not be something to these perceptions of Uchtdorf but without evidence it seems like pure projection based upon liking the way he speaks better. The closest thing to real content I've found is apparently he once had lunch with someone who was a feminist activist. But that's not really much evidence.

Edited February 6, 2018 by clarkgoble
fixed typo

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

No, I think if you study Elder Uchtdorf's teachings in comparison with Presidents Nelson, Oaks, or Packer it is apparently that Uchtdorf represents (at least publicly) are more inclusive church.

Please put up the comparison so no more effort is wasted on just a bunch of different people's personal opinions which may or may not be particularly informed.

CFR  please.

[Jeanne]

15 hours ago, strappinglad said:

I was going to suggest that I came to that conclusion by logic and reasoning. Where I live it has been -20 for a couple of weeks with a foot of snow so I have been in-furs every day( wolf that is ) .

Gotta love this..!

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If he has failed to understand them, then I have too, because that's how I see them.

 

I realize that.

[rockpond]

23 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I confess that I not only disagree with that but think the opposite, depending upon what you mean by inclusive.

Who do you think Elder Oaks or Elder Nelson want to exclude that Elder Uchtdorf wants to include? Now rhetorically, as I said, I think Elder Uchtdorf is much better at reaching some of those who feel excluded by using the words they want to hear. I think Elder Oaks and Elder Nelson's heart is in the right place but aren't saying it quite right. As I said earlier though that seems primarily an issue of rhetoric rather than content. 

I agree... they all want to include everyone.  And, yes, Elder Uchtdorf is better at reaching those who feel excluded.  That's why I said that he represents a more inclusive church.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If he has failed to understand them, then I have too, because that's how I see them.

 

I think you two are really the same people...who is the sock puppet here??

[rockpond]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

Please put up the comparison so no more effort is wasted on just a bunch of different people's personal opinions which may or may not be particularly informed.

CFR  please.

I think we could go back and forth forever if we cherry-pick quotes.  This is not something that can be proven one way or the other.  But, I'd offer for consideration a comparison between President Nelson's "Divine Love" and his January 2016 YSA devotional with Elder Uchtdorf's "Come Join with Us" and "The Merciful Obtain Mercy".

And yes, I know, I am cherry-picking talks from the two of them.  It's not fair.  That's why I would prefer to leave it as my impression of them and let others have their own impressions.  But you asked me - so there you go.

[cinepro]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is all very well to claim this (and I don't disagree with you in that I believe of those intimately involved in the work of the Church likely see it differently because they bring their heart, soul, and mind to their work...and those are unique), the claim is an empty shell unless you put up actual content and not just opinions to demonstrate this different perception.

 

I'm fine with it being an empty shell.  If other people can't see it, it really doesn't matter.

[clarkgoble]

36 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I agree... they all want to include everyone.  And, yes, Elder Uchtdorf is better at reaching those who feel excluded.  That's why I said that he represents a more inclusive church.

Ah OK. I misunderstood what you were saying. My bad. It's the difference between trying to be inclusive and being inclusive. I think one positive that gets neglected a lot is that there really is a ton more we can do with just slight shifts in rhetoric. As I think Elder Uchtdorf shows. (I suspect that'd go a long ways towards how the young feel disaffected by religion as well)

[ALarson]

27 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think we could go back and forth forever if we cherry-pick quotes.  This is not something that can be proven one way or the other.  But, I'd offer for consideration a comparison between President Nelson's "Divine Love" and his January 2016 YSA devotional with Elder Uchtdorf's "Come Join with Us" and "The Merciful Obtain Mercy".

And yes, I know, I am cherry-picking talks from the two of them.  It's not fair.  That's why I would prefer to leave it as my impression of them and let others have their own impressions. 

I agree.  I think it's more of a sense or just a feeling one gets when he's speaking vs. maybe when some of the other leaders speak.  It's not even always the words that are spoken, but just an impression.

I compare it to how things are even down on a ward level.  There are leaders who are more approachable or leaders who the youth feel more comfortable talking to if they have a problem.  I think that's just normal and nothing against the other leaders or even that they aren't loved.

[Jeanne]

47 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I agree... they all want to include everyone.  And, yes, Elder Uchtdorf is better at reaching those who feel excluded.  That's why I said that he represents a more inclusive church.

There is always a voice that speaks to all people and it is a talent..personality or otherwise..Uchtdorf has this.  It is not that he is really any different than other apostles..except he is real in the way he speaks..and with empathy/understanding of so many.  This, I think is where other apostles need to challenge themselves..to be speak a truth of their own feelings..then let the spirit speak to them to discern if it is right.  Maybe God has something to teach them..but they need to try..not stick to the same old..same old...this church needs to grow..if not by numbers..then by the very core of Jesus's teachings.