Elder Uchtdorf: Progressive?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour 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.

Elder Uchtdorf:

Quote

The search for truth has led millions of people to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. However, there are some who leave the Church they once loved.

One might ask, “If the gospel is so wonderful, why would anyone leave?”

Sometimes we assume it is because they have been offended or lazy or sinful. Actually, it is not that simple. In fact, there is not just one reason that applies to the variety of situations.

Some of our dear members struggle for years with the question whether they should separate themselves from the Church.

In this Church that honors personal agency so strongly, that was restored by a young man who asked questions and sought answers, we respect those who honestly search for truth. It may break our hearts when their journey takes them away from the Church we love and the truth we have found, but we honor their right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience, just as we claim that privilege for ourselves.

Some struggle with unanswered questions about things that have been done or said in the past. We openly acknowledge that in nearly 200 years of Church history—along with an uninterrupted line of inspired, honorable, and divine events—there have been some things said and done that could cause people to question.

Elder Bednar:

Quote

I made hundreds and hundreds of such visits. Each individual, each family, each home, and each answer was different. Over the years, however, I detected a common theme in many of the answers to my questions. Frequently responses like these were given:

<snip>

And then I would say something like this. “Let me make sure I understand what has happened to you. Because someone at church offended you, you have not been blessed by the ordinance of the sacrament. You have withdrawn yourself from the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost. Because someone at church offended you, you have cut yourself off from priesthood ordinances and the holy temple. You have discontinued your opportunity to serve others and to learn and grow. And you are leaving barriers that will impede the spiritual progress of your children, your children’s children, and the generations that will follow.” Many times people would think for a moment and then respond: “I have never thought about it that way.”

The bishop and I would then extend an invitation: “Dear friend, we are here today to counsel you that the time to stop being offended is now. Not only do we need you, but you need the blessings of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. Please come back—now.”

 

Edited February 6, 2018 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours 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 the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, there is not a "more inclusive church." There is only a single Church. There may be differing conceptions or opinions of that one church, but there is only one.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Elder Uchtdorf:

Elder Bednar:

 

And?

If anything, the Bednar quote might seem to be the more inclusive, as it contains a direct -- and urgent -- invitation to come back.

But, knowing the context, I don't see either talk as being more or less inclusive than the other.

 

Edited February 6, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

33 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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 think it's less ethereal than that. I think it's that some people , for whatever reason, like to pick isolated remarks made by Elder Uchtdorf to use, improperly, in my view, as brickbats to hurl at the Church of Jesus Christ or its leadership, past or present, and to rationalize their own ill will.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And?

If anything, the Bednar quote might seem to be the more inclusive, as it contains a direct -- and urgent -- invitation to come back.

But, knowing the context, I don't see either talk as being more or less inclusive than the other.

 

Both talks implore the listener to come back. Elder Bednar implies most of the people he's interacted with left because they took offense. Elder Uchtdorf says it's not that simple. The issues are hard. There is room for your differences here in the church etc. If you think the tone is matched in the two talks and there are no substantial differences, that's fine, but for those of us on the fringes, there is no comparison.

 

ETA: To be completely upfront, I'm not longer on the fringes and am all the way out. But when I was in the fringes I would cling to talks like Elder Uchtdorf's and cringe at Elder Bednar's. 

 

Second Edit:

Elder Uchtdorf's invitation:

Quote

To those who have separated themselves from the Church, I say, my dear friends, there is yet a place for you here.

Come and add your talents, gifts, and energies to ours. We will all become better as a result.

Some might ask, “But what about my doubts?”

It’s natural to have questions—the acorn of honest inquiry has often sprouted and matured into a great oak of understanding. There are few members of the Church who, at one time or another, have not wrestled with serious or sensitive questions. One of the purposes of the Church is to nurture and cultivate the seed of faith—even in the sometimes sandy soil of doubt and uncertainty. Faith is to hope for things which are not seen but which are true.7

Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters—my dear friends—please, first doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith.8 We must never allow doubt to hold us prisoner and keep us from the divine love, peace, and gifts that come through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Some might say, “I just don’t fit in with you people in the Church.”

If you could see into our hearts, you would probably find that you fit in better than you suppose. You might be surprised to find that we have yearnings and struggles and hopes similar to yours. Your background or upbringing might seem different from what you perceive in many Latter-day Saints, but that could be a blessing. Brothers and sisters, dear friends, we need your unique talents and perspectives. The diversity of persons and peoples all around the globe is a strength of this Church.

Some might say, “I don’t think I could live up to your standards.”

All the more reason to come! The Church is designed to nourish the imperfect, the struggling, and the exhausted. It is filled with people who desire with all their heart to keep the commandments, even if they haven’t mastered them yet.

Some might say, “I know a member of your Church who is a hypocrite. I could never join a church that had someone like him as a member.”

If you define hypocrite as someone who fails to live up perfectly to what he or she believes, then we are all hypocrites. None of us is quite as Christlike as we know we should be. But we earnestly desire to overcome our faults and the tendency to sin. With our heart and soul we yearn to become better with the help of the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

If these are your desires, then regardless of your circumstances, your personal history, or the strength of your testimony, there is room for you in this Church. Come, join with us!

 

 

Edited February 6, 2018 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Both talks implore the listener to come back. Elder Bednar implies most of the people he's interacted with left because they took offense. Elder Uchtdorf says it's not that simple. The issues are hard. There is room for your differences here in the church etc. If you think the tone is matched in the two talks and there are no substantial differences, that's fine, but for those of us on the fringes, there is no comparison.

 

 

Do you really think the two leaders differ on the question of whether "there is room for your differences here in the Church, etc."? If they do, I'm not seeing it in the comparison of these two quotes.

Quote

ETA: To be completely upfront, I'm not longer on the fringes and am all the way out. But when I was in the fringes I would cling to talks like Elder Uchtdorf's and cringe at Elder Bednar's. 

So, assuming arguendo that Elder Uchtdorf's approach is the more inclusive and inviting, it nevertheless failed in your case at least.

On the other hand, Elder Bednar's approach, which you say is the less inclusive and inviting, by his own account at least has succeeded in many cases to get people to return.

Funny, that.

 

Edited February 6, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 I think it's that some people , for whatever reason, like to pick isolated remarks made by Elder Uchtdorf to use, improperly, in my view, as brickbats to hurl at the Church of Jesus Christ or its leadership, past or present, and to rationalize their own ill will.

No, I believe it's just a spirit or feeling that emanates from Elder Uchtdorf when he speaks to the members.  All one has to do is watch how members respond to him and see the great love they have expressed for him and also how many felt about his release from the First Presidency.  This is not a criticism against any other particular leader (at least in my view), it's an honest assessment regarding how Elder Uchtdorf reaches out and is dearly loved in return.  It's a high compliment to him as to what an incredibly effective leader he is.

I'm not sure why you feel that if someone really feels a connection with one leader, it takes something away from the other leaders.  

Edited February 6, 2018 by ALarson

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

No, I believe it's just a spirit or feeling that emanates from Elder Uchtdorf when he speaks to the members.  All one has to do is watch how members respond to him and see the great love they have expressed for him and also how many felt about his release from the First Presidency.  This is not a criticism against any other particular leader (at least in my view), it's an honest assessment regarding how Elder Uchtdorf reaches out and is dearly loved in return.  It's a high compliment to him as to what an incredibly effective leader he is.

I'm not sure why you feel that if someone really feels a connection with one leader, it takes something away from the other leaders.  

I agree, and I haven't found what he's said offensive, like I have with other leaders, namely Pres. Oaks.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Do you really think the two leaders differ on the question of whether "there is room for your differences here in the Church, etc."? If they do, I'm not seeing it in the comparison of these two quotes.

I have no idea what's in their hearts. I can only hear what they say. One leader says, stop being so sensitive and choose not to be offended. The other says, hey I've been listening to you and I know its complicated. We want your uniqueness, we want your flaws, we want you. The approaches could not be more different. If you don't see it, there is no point in continuing the conversation. Just have to agree to disagree.

Quote

On the other hand, Elder Bednar's approach, which you say is the less inclusive and inviting, by his own account at least has succeeded in many cases to get people to return.

Can you point to where exactly in Elder Bednar's talk he said this succeeded in many cases? I must have glossed over it. Thanks!

Edited February 6, 2018 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, ALarson said:

No, I believe it's just a spirit or feeling that emanates from Elder Uchtdorf when he speaks to the members.  All one has to watch how members respond to him and see the great love they have expressed for him and also how many felt about his release from the First Presidency.  This is not a criticism against any other particular leader (at least in my view), it's an honest assessment regarding how Elder Uchtdorf reaches out and is dearly loved in return. 

 

I have been with Elder Uchtdorf when he has interacted with groups of Church members. Yes, he exudes warmth and love, and people respond very well to that.

But I have been with others of the Brethren as well -- Elder Holland, President Ballard, President Oaks, Elder Bednar, Elder Renlund, President Nelson,  President Monson, President Hinckley, the list could go on -- and I have witnessed the same sort of thing.

Quote

... and also how many felt about his release from the First Presidency.

He did not receive a "release from the First Presidency." According to routine procedure, the presidency of which he was a part was dissolved upon the death of President Monson, and a new First Presidency was subsequently formed. It is never foregone that one person or another will be called to serve as a counselor in any First Presidency. It is time for some to become educated to that fact.

And I would suggest that if people felt disgruntled that Elder Uchtdorf was not called as a counselor this time, it is in many instances due to what Kiwi has suggested in this thread, that they harbor the false notion that Elder Uchtdorf is a "progressive."

Quote

I'm not sure why you feel that if someone really feels a connection with one leader, it takes something away from the other leaders.  

Though not a question, this remark is akin to the "Are you still beating your wife?" kind of question.

Edited February 7, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I have no idea what's in their hearts. I can only hear what they say. One leader says, stop being so sensitive and choose not to be offended. The other says, hey I've been listening to you and I know its complicated. We want your uniqueness, we want your flaws, we want you. The approaches could not be more different. If you don't see it, there is no point in continuing the conversation. Just have to agree to disagree.

 

Where did he say, "We want your flaws"? Where did he imply that they shouldn't feel a need to make changes and improve their lives?
 

Quote

Can you point to where exactly in Elder Bednar's talk he said this succeeded in many cases? I must have glossed over it. Thanks!

 

He said this:
 

Quote

 

Many times people would think for a moment and then respond: “I have never thought about it that way.”

The bishop and I would then extend an invitation: “Dear friend, we are here today to counsel you that the time to stop being offended is now. Not only do we need you, but you need the blessings of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. Please come back—now.”

 

From this, I understood that he succeeded in getting them to have a change of heart, and from that I inferred that he was successful in getting them to come back. Perhaps I am mistaken in my inference.

[cinepro]

44 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Regarding the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, there is not a "more inclusive church." There is only a single Church. There may be differing conceptions or opinions of that one church, but there is only one.

 

Uh, I respectfully beg to differ.  Not only do I think you're wrong, but I think that's a dangerous and ultimately counterproductive idea.

There isn't one "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."  There are 15 million different "churches."  Because every member has a different idea of what the Church is.  The Church that I go to is very, very different than the Church that my father goes to.  He goes to a Church that rejects the theory of evolution, and believes in a Book of Mormon where the Book of Mormon peoples came to a continent devoid of inhabitants.  And that's different than the Church you go to, Scott.  On Sunday, when you look around, every person sitting in the pews is seeing a different Church.  They hear the talks differently, they draw on different experiences to understand the lessons.  They cling to different teachings, and reject others.  And they may be totally unaware of things that other members consider the most important things.

Growing up in the 1980s, I had a fantastic experience in the Church.  Great leaders and activities.  Good friends.  I couldn't ask for more.  My sister has a friend who lived in our stake, and I later found out he was molested by someone in their ward (and in the scouting program).  Did that friend grow up in the same Church as me?  No, they didn't.   The LDS Church they grew up in bears no relation to the one I grew up in, and when I found out they left the Church, do I blame them?  No.  I probably would have left that Church too.

A few years ago our family had a very traumatic experience that involved gross incompetence and insensitivity on the part of some ward and stake leaders.  It didn't do much to change my "Church", becuase I already knew they were incompetent, but it radically changed my wife's "Church", where before she had always assumed inspiration and divine guidance for the leaders (as she had been taught her whole life) and now she goes to a different Church, one where even Stake leaders are idiots sometimes and make huge errors in judgement.

Every time we learn something new about the Church or Church history, the Church changes.  The Church changed when I learned about Joseph Smith's reliance on Adam Clarke for the JST.  But it only changed for me.   My dad hasn't read that article, so it didn't change for him.  And when President Nelson sits on the stand at General Conference, he smiles as he looks out on a Church that believes Adam and Eve had no blood in their veins and that evolution is "unbelievable", while scores of members smile back at him, thankful to have a Prophet who is leading a Church that is totally open to the idea of organic evolution and pre-Adamites.

Realizing this is puts a weight on my shoulders, because I realize that when I go to Church, I'm not just there to participate in some objective entity known as "The Church."  No, instead I realize that the interactions that I have with other people are creating the Church for them, and they for me. And it gives me hope because I recognize that the Church will continue to change and evolve as the members and leaders change and evolve, and sometimes things that appear eternal and bedrock can change because if enough members and leaders agree that they're changing, then the Church changes.  I don't know for sure, but I suspect that is what is going to happen (or may already be happening) with the Church and homosexuality.  Regardless of what the Church leaders say, as more and more members tell themselves they go to a Church that feels a certain way about homosexuality, then bit by bit the Church will change.  The only way to stop it is to cut off the part that is changing by kicking that change out of the Church, but I suspect the change will be so big that it won't be a feasible option.

So while I recognize the seductiveness of the idea that there is one "LDS Church" that we are all participating in, I don't think that is a helpful way to look at how the Church actually operates and exists.

[ALarson]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I have been with Elder Uchtdorf when he has interacted with groups of Church members. Yes, he exudes warmth and love, and people respond very well to that.

But I have been with others of the Brethren as well -- Elder Holland, President Ballard, President Oaks, Elder Uchtdorf, Elder Renlund, President Monson, President Hinckley, the list could go on -- and I have witnessed the same sort of thing.

That's great.  Maybe just calm down a bit here....why so defensive?   (At least that's how you appear to be reacting.) 

This is just a discussion . I've simply expressed how I feel about Elder Uchtdorf and said nothing against any other leader.  We're all human with different reactions, feelings and different personalities.  Many connect with Elder Uchtdorf.  That's simply a fact.  He has a warmth and charm about him....a genuine love and compassion.  Members react to that and there is simply nothing wrong with stating that.

No one is saying that the other leaders aren't loved.

 

Edited February 6, 2018 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Uh, I respectfully beg to differ.  Not only do I think you're wrong, but I think that's a dangerous and ultimately counterproductive idea.

There isn't one "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."  There are 15 million different "churches." 

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.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That's great.  Maybe just calm down a bit here....why so defensive?   (At least that's how you appear to be reacting.) 

This is just a discussion . I've simply expressed how I feel about Elder Uchtdorf and said nothing against any other leader.  We're all human with different reactions, feelings and different personalities.  Many connect with Elder Uchtdorf.  That's simply a fact.  He has a warmth and charm about him....a genuine love and compassion.  Members react to that and there is simply nothing wrong with stating that.

No one is saying that the other leaders aren't loved.

 

Why do you assume the need to tell me to calm down? I've not been behaving irrationally or hysterically. If you think that, it is a misperception on your part.

[ttribe]

Why do certain defenders find it so threatening to discover that some who struggle find the disposition and words of one member of the Q12 to be more appealing than others?  Why the need to attack that perception?

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Regarding the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, there is not a "more inclusive church." There is only a single Church. There may be differing conceptions or opinions of that one church, but there is only one.

 

I didn't say there was more than one church, I said that Elder Uchtdorf represents a more inclusive church.

[Teancum]

24 minutes ago, 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.

 

Well clearly your truth is wrong and mine is correct.  

So how does one bridge this dilemma?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Where did he say, "We want your flaws"? Where did he imply that they shouldn't feel a need to make changes and improve their lives?

I could have been more clear, but I certainly didn't say or imply that Elder Uchtdorf thought we shouldn't improve...:

Quote

 

Some might say, “I don’t think I could live up to your standards.”

All the more reason to come! The Church is designed to nourish the imperfect, the struggling, and the exhausted. It is filled with people who desire with all their heart to keep the commandments, even if they haven’t mastered them yet.

 

Quote

He said this:
 

From this, I understood that he succeeded in getting them to have a change of heart, and from that I inferred that he was successful in getting them to come back. Perhaps I am mistaken in my inference.

So two leaps from what he said (change of heart, then coming back to church because of a change of heart). You'll notice he said no such thing in his actual talk...

Edited February 7, 2018 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Uh, I respectfully beg to differ.  Not only do I think you're wrong, but I think that's a dangerous and ultimately counterproductive idea.

There isn't one "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."  There are 15 million different "churches."  Because every member has a different idea of what the Church is.  The Church that I go to is very, very different than the Church that my father goes to.  He goes to a Church that rejects the theory of evolution, and believes in a Book of Mormon where the Book of Mormon peoples came to a continent devoid of inhabitants.  And that's different than the Church you go to, Scott.  On Sunday, when you look around, every person sitting in the pews is seeing a different Church.  They hear the talks differently, they draw on different experiences to understand the lessons.  They cling to different teachings, and reject others.  And they may be totally unaware of things that other members consider the most important things.

Growing up in the 1980s, I had a fantastic experience in the Church.  Great leaders and activities.  Good friends.  I couldn't ask for more.  My sister has a friend who lived in our stake, and I later found out he was molested by someone in their ward (and in the scouting program).  Did that friend grow up in the same Church as me?  No, they didn't.   The LDS Church they grew up in bears no relation to the one I grew up in, and when I found out they left the Church, do I blame them?  No.  I probably would have left that Church too.

A few years ago our family had a very traumatic experience that involved gross incompetence and insensitivity on the part of some ward and stake leaders.  It didn't do much to change my "Church", becuase I already knew they were incompetent, but it radically changed my wife's "Church", where before she had always assumed inspiration and divine guidance for the leaders (as she had been taught her whole life) and now she goes to a different Church, one where even Stake leaders are idiots sometimes and make huge errors in judgement.

Every time we learn something new about the Church or Church history, the Church changes.  The Church changed when I learned about Joseph Smith's reliance on Adam Clarke for the JST.  But it only changed for me.   My dad hasn't read that article, so it didn't change for him.  And when President Nelson sits on the stand at General Conference, he smiles as he looks out on a Church that believes Adam and Eve had no blood in their veins and that evolution is "unbelievable", while scores of members smile back at him, thankful to have a Prophet who is leading a Church that is totally open to the idea of organic evolution and pre-Adamites.

Realizing this is puts a weight on my shoulders, because I realize that when I go to Church, I'm not just there to participate in some objective entity known as "The Church."  No, instead I realize that the interactions that I have with other people are creating the Church for them, and they for me. And it gives me hope because I recognize that the Church will continue to change and evolve as the members and leaders change and evolve, and sometimes things that appear eternal and bedrock can change because if enough members and leaders agree that they're changing, then the Church changes.  I don't know for sure, but I suspect that is what is going to happen (or may already be happening) with the Church and homosexuality.  Regardless of what the Church leaders say, as more and more members tell themselves they go to a Church that feels a certain way about homosexuality, then bit by bit the Church will change.  The only way to stop it is to cut off the part that is changing by kicking that change out of the Church, but I suspect the change will be so big that it won't be a feasible option.

So while I recognize the seductiveness of the idea that there is one "LDS Church" that we are all participating in, I don't think that is a helpful way to look at how the Church actually operates and exists.

Wow...just wow. 

[Scott Lloyd]

53 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I could have been more clear, but I certainly didn't say or imply that Elder Uchtdorf thought we shouldn't improve...:

So two leaps from what he said (change of heart, then coming back to church because of a change of heart). You'll notice he said no such thing in his actual talk...

I don’t think it’s an unreasonable inference. Your mileage may vary. That’s life. 

What happened to “agree to disagree”?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Do you really think the two leaders differ on the question of whether "there is room for your differences here in the Church, etc."? If they do, I'm not seeing it in the comparison of these two quotes.

And since you think there is no significant difference between them, I'm wondering if you can point to a single general conference talk delivered by an apostle besides Elder Uchtdorf's that acknowledges people sometimes leave because they have thoughtfully struggled and come to the conclusion that the church is just not true? Just one other time in the last 150 years or so should do it...

Edited February 7, 2018 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Scott Lloyd]

56 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I could have been more clear, but I certainly didn't say or imply that Elder Uchtdorf thought we shouldn't improve...:

So maybe “we want your flaws” is not an accurate paraphrase then. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t think it’s an unreasonable inference. Your mileage may vary. That’s life. 

What happened to “agree to disagree”?

Had you said, "I infer from his account that he at least has succeeded in many cases to get people to return" rather than " by his own account at least has succeeded in many cases to get people to return." then sure. Agree to disagree. I don't think he implied any such thing but whatever.  Also would have helped if you left the snide personal remark off...

Edited February 7, 2018 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So maybe “we want your flaws” is not an accurate paraphrase then. 

No doubt I should have been clearer. Would have been better to say "we want you with your flaws (we all have them and we are working on them)." 

Edited February 7, 2018 by SeekingUnderstanding