Elder Uchtdorf: Progressive?

[JulieM]

25 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I think it's interesting, and more than a little sad, that you and Julie are so quick to pounce on someone who is actively working for more inclusiveness and belonging in the Church. 

Are you that attached to the idea that Elder Uchtdorf disagrees with the Church's doctrinal positions?

Like, really? Did you not read the part where he argued for more inclusiveness? In fact, even after reading it twice, I'm not sure what the author's personal beliefs are. He is pretty objective in pointing out Elder Uchtdorf's actual public positions. 

I mean, it's not like the guy won the Mormon History Association Best Book Award or anything.  

That’s surprising.  I’ll try to read it again.  But honestly, I did not like how he wrote and the format was confusing (again, that might be my computer).  I just like reading what someone actually has to say (Elder Uchtdorf).

I didn’t connect with these kind of statements though:

”Uchtdorf and Homosexuality
There have been some narratives floating around that Elder Uchtdorf represented a more moderate voice among a group of retrogrades.   It reflects a common trope: an inside reformer working “from within” to mitigate the effects of what see as a harmful system (akin to Arnold Silva, the FEMA head in the first season of House of Cards; Underwood calls him “the only man who could prevent a disaster [from] becoming a catastrophe”).

 

And, I think he only quoted Elder Uchtdorf once (maybe twice?) in his entire long blog post. 

Edited February 8, 2018 by JulieM

[kiwi57]

5 minutes ago, JulieM said:

That’s surprising.  I’ll try to read it again.  But honestly, I did not like how he wrote and the format was confusing (again, that might be my computer).  I just like reading what someone actually has to say (Elder Uchtdorf).

I didn’t connect with these kind of statements though:

”Uchtdorf and Homosexuality
There have been some narratives floating around that Elder Uchtdorf represented a more moderate voice among a group of retrogrades.   It reflects a common trope: an inside reformer working “from within” to mitigate the effects of what see as a harmful system (akin to Arnold Silva, the FEMA head in the first season of House of Cards; Underwood calls him “the only man who could prevent a disaster [from] becoming a catastrophe”).

I don't know what you mean when you say you didn't "connect" with that. Are you saying that you're not aware of any such narratives? Or only that they don't resonate with you? Or is it that you don't like the way the blogger portrays them?

[Calm]

Russell Stevenson is an excellent, thoughtful writer who, imo, is also very kind hearted from my interactions with him and from reading his responses to others.***  He probably could use an editor here and there, but I have never seen someone who couldn't.

I have not read his blog yet; if it is convoluted, etc (and I am reserving my opinion on that)...he must have had a bad day.  He is very well informed in everything I have seen him express his opinion on and takes research very seriously and he gets directly involved in helping others where he can.  I personally take anything he writes seriously myself.

***For example, I love his Martin Luther King Family Home Evening Lesson suggestion blog:

http://mormonhistoryguy.com/2017/01/16/family-home-evening-lesson-martin-luther-king-day/

Edited February 8, 2018 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

16 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

I'm glad you realise that. Because here's the thing: if you want to argue that Elder Uchtdorf's position is entirely unrelated to documents he signed, then you need to provide some evidence to that effect.

The default presumption is that a member of either of the Church's two top presiding quorums, and one who had a hand in crafting a number of the Church's key policies and statements over a period of years, would be on board with the Church's position as outlined in those policies and statements. When his own signature appears on all of the documents of that type that were signed, that ceases to be a default presumption, and becomes a proven fact.

All of the above is axiomatic. How anyone can seriously dispute it is beyond me. I feel like I've entered a rhetorical Twilight Zone.

I'm shaking my head in frustration.

 

Edited February 8, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

9 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

I don't know what you mean when you say you didn't "connect" with that. Are you saying that you're not aware of any such narratives? Or only that they don't resonate with you? Or is it that you don't like the way the blogger portrays them?

Him calling members retrogrades:

ret·ro·grade

ˈretrəˌɡrād/

noun

rare

plural noun: retrogrades

1. 1. 

   a degenerate person.

    

    

    

   And then, using the word “trope”, in the same quote above was offputting for me.

    

   The format was also very disjointed for me.

    

   I will give it another try though.

Edited February 8, 2018 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Russell Stevenson is an excellent, thoughtful writer who, imo, is also very kind hearted from my interactions with him and from reading his responses to others.***  He probably could use an editor here and there, but I have never seen someone who couldn't.

I have not read his blog yet; if it is convoluted, etc (and I am reserving my opinion on that)...he must have had a bad day.  He is very well informed in everything I have seen him express his opinion on and takes research very seriously and he gets directly involved in helping others where he can.  I personally take anything he writes seriously myself.

***For example, I love his Martin Luther King Family Home Evening Lesson suggestion blog:

http://mormonhistoryguy.com/2017/01/16/family-home-evening-lesson-martin-luther-king-day/

Please read the blog post in question. It makes perfect sense to me. I truly don't grasp the reasoning behind these attacks on it.

 

[Tacenda]

12 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Him calling members retrogrades:

ret·ro·grade

ˈretrəˌɡrād/

noun

rare

plural noun: retrogrades

1. 1. 

   a degenerate person.

    

    

    

   And then, using the word “trope”, in the same quote above was offputting for me.

    

   The format was also very disjointed for me.

    

   I will give it another try though.

To go along with Scott's comment of being in a Twilight Zone, I've felt like I've been reading them, he and Kiwi, as if they're being sarcastic in their comments. Weird!

[kllindley]

13 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Him calling members retrogrades:

ret·ro·grade

ˈretrəˌɡrād/

noun

rare

plural noun: retrogrades

1. 1. 

   a degenerate person.

    

    

    

   And then, using the word “trope”, in the same quote above was offputting for me.

    

   The format was also very disjointed for me.

    

   I will give it another try though.

I read that as calling the other apostles retrogrades. Which wasn't even his view, but citing a common narrative. He's not making that up. 

Webster's says

"Retrograde describes backwardness of one kind or another. If a country decided to go back to amputating the limbs of criminals, we might call that policy retrograde. A retrograde view of women might be one that sees them basically as housekeepers. Mars and Jupiter show retrograde (backward) motion at some stages of their orbits, though this is only because of the way we see them from the earth, not because of any real backward movement."

 

So, yes. It's an adjective that he is using as a noun. But in a very understandable way. 

Is "trope" now offensive? 

Again, Webster's: 

 

Definition of trope

1a : a word or expression used in a figurative sense : figure of speech

b : a common or overused theme or device : cliché 

• the usual horror movie tropes

[Calm]

Quote

And, I think he only quoted Elder Uchtdorf once (maybe twice?) in his entire long blog post. 

The point of his post was not solely Elder Uchtdorf's position, but also myth making.

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Please read the blog post in question. It makes perfect sense to me. I truly don't grasp the reasoning behind these attacks on it.

 

There were a few sentences I had to read a couple of times, but overall it I had no problem with it though it required concentration.  I certainly had no problem with following his argument.  It was involved, but I wouldn't say it was convoluted.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Him calling members retrogrades:

1.  

   And then, using the word “trope”, in the same quote above was offputting for me.

    

From the blog linked to above:

Quote

There have been some narratives floating around that Elder Uchtdorf represented a more moderate voice among a group of retrogrades

 

Definitely speaking about apostles/General Authorities, not members of any particular stripe.

Quote

It reflects a common trope

It (a plot of a lone wolf insider working towards change***) is, imo, a common trope ("a common or overused theme or device") in lots of stories, though there are many who write sincerely of Elder Uchtdorf's behavior in thoughtful ways with that opinion and don't just appeal to the idea as a given.

****http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InternalReformist

Edited February 8, 2018 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

There were a few sentences I had to read a couple of times, but overall it I had no problem with it though it required concentration.  I certainly had no problem with following his argument.  It was involved, but I wouldn't say it was convoluted.

Pretty much my impression as well. Thanks for weighing in.

Edited February 8, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

The point of his post was not solely Elder Uchtdorf's position, but also myth making.

It seemed the purpose that kiwi posted it (the 5 points that Elder Uchtdorf agreed with or believed) was to present Elder Uchtdorf’s position:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70185-elder-uchtdorf-progressive/?do=findComment&comment=1209794152

 

But do you think it was more general in its purpose?  

I am going to try to read it again.  I just found it offputting and disjointed.  The format was weird for me too.

I prefer to just read someone’s own words to know what they feel is important to express.  Elder Uchtdorf is very capable to do that and has had many opportunities if he wanted to say more.

Edited February 8, 2018 by JulieM

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

how it makes statements that Elder Uchtdorf himself hasn’t actually spoken....

 

Do you believe that "Elder Uchtdorf disagrees with the Church's doctrinal positions"?

What claims of Elder Uchtdorf's position did Russell make that are contrary in your opinion to Elder Uchtfdorf's personal opinions?

Quote

But do you think it was more general in its purpose?  

If you are asking if I believe Russell was blogging about more than just Elder Uchtdorf's personal beliefs about homosexuality, I would say definitely.  He was, imo, using the controversy around Elder Uchtdorf to springboard into a discussion about myth making, while also attempting to clarify for those who were confused or misled what Elder Uchtdorf has represented as his positions over the years, whether by talking about it or affixing his own signature to a statement.

Unless one believes that Elder Uchtdorf is willing to put conformity over integrity, I don't see how one can wave away the fact he has put his name on these documents.  And if one is willing to believe he is willing to mislead the world by doing so in order to stay in good graces to make change or simply because he doesn't want to offend his friends or for some other reason, I find the choice of him to be someone to admire to be lacking.  I suppose I might be able to admire someone in an immoral government working secretly to overthrow it because he would be jailed, exiled, or executed if his true feelings were discovered, but the LDS faith is a moral though fallible organization, imo, that does not require such methods to speak out against or to agitate for change.

Quote

It seemed the purpose that kiwi posted it (the 5 points that Elder Uchtdorf agreed with or believed) was to present Elder Uchtdorf’s position

The purpose of the quoted material may be to present Elder Uchtdorf's position, but that doesn't mean the entire blog has to be for that purpose and that purpose alone.  I think the blog was to serve at least two purposes, to discuss Elder Uchtdorf's position and to discuss myth making.  I read it pretty quickly, so it is possible there were more purposes to it.

Quote

The format was weird for me too.

This can make stuff difficult to read.  I often skip reading stuff where the formatting is screwed up or end up copy/pasting it into a word file where I can read it easily even if I have to fix formatting first.  I noticed in one of Russell's blogs that there were a lot of formatting spaces where there shouldn't be, but I didn't have any formatting issues with this particular blog.  I don't remember if Russell is great with programming/editing of websites, he may just being using a template where he has to do the minimal.  If you can explain where the formatting screwed up for you, I will pass it on to him to see if he can get it fixed.

Edited February 8, 2018 by Calm

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you believe that "Elder Uchtdorf disagrees with the Church's doctrinal positions"?

What claims of Elder Uchtdorf's position did Russell make that are contrary in your opinion to Elder Uchtfdorf's personal opinions?

I would just prefer to hear his own words.  He is fully able to speak for himself and has had opportunity.  Maybe he will speak out more on this in the future.  I’d accept that.

 

[Calm]

I added to my post, but will repeat my offer here in case you missed it.  If you can give me examples of how the formatting is screwed up, I will pass it on to Russell and hopefully he will be able to fix it.  He may just be using a template and be clueless how to improve formatting though.  I don't remember him discussing his computer design (or whatever you would call that) skills.

As to your desire to read what Elder Uchtdorf says for himself....

He has direct links in his blog to Elder Uchtdorf's words and documents he has personally signed.  While his signature may not get into nuances of his personal belief, I hold him to be a man of integrity who would not sign something he did not believe in, to make his friends happy, to avoid confrontation (what a wimp he would be if he did it for that reason), or for some other reason.  If those links do not provide the basic structure of Elder Uchtdorf's beliefs, he is not the honorable man I believe he is (in my world, you don't sign something you disagree with if you have honor).

Edited February 8, 2018 by Calm

[rockpond]

I’m curious... Are there participants here who believe that the apostles are in 100% agreement on all matters of doctrine and policy of the church?

[Tacenda]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

I added to my post, but will repeat my offer here in case you missed it.  If you can give me examples of how the formatting is screwed up, I will pass it on to Russell and hopefully he will be able to fix it.  He may just be using a template and be clueless how to improve formatting though.  I don't remember him discussing his computer design (or whatever you would call that) skills.

As to your desire to read what Elder Uchtdorf says for himself....

He has direct links in his blog to Elder Uchtdorf's words and documents he has personally signed.  While his signature may not get into nuances of his personal belief, I hold him to be a man of integrity who would not sign something he did not believe in, to make his friends happy, to avoid confrontation (what a wimp he would be if he did it for that reason), or for some other reason.  If those links do not provide the basic structure of Elder Uchtdorf's beliefs, he is not the honorable man I believe he is (in my world, you don't sign something you disagree with if you have honor).

He was a member of a presidency, how can he not have his signatures with theirs? Go against the prophet, how could he do that and not cause problems. I've been a member of a presidency several times and my signature had to be included with theirs on different forms in different church organizations. I'm sure my opinions have not always coincided with the rest of the presidency at different times.

I agree with JulieM, there is nothing personal coming from Elder Uchtdorf, and IMO not quite like Pres. Oaks' words when it comes to gays. In that way I do belief Elder Uchtdorf is more progressive, but I don't know if I'd choose that particular word, just using it because Kiwi used it in the opening post. Or maybe I will use that word, because I do believe Elder Uchtdorf is handling it in a more loving way...words matter. And our church leaders need to be careful in how they say things.

I feel like the church's policies or words have lead to many suicides. And for saying this, I'm sure I'm going to face some criticism, but so be it. 

Edited February 8, 2018 by Tacenda

[Gray]

Just now, Tacenda said:

He was a member of a presidency, how can he not have his signatures with theirs? Go against the prophet, how could he do that and not cause problems. I've been a member of a presidency several times and my signature had to be included with theirs on different forms in different church organizations. I'm sure my opinions have not always coincided with the rest of the presidency at different times.

I agree with JulieM, there is nothing personal coming from Elder Uchtdorf quite like Pres. Oaks' words when it comes to gays. In that way I do belief Elder Uchtdorf is more progressive, but I don't know if I'd choose that particular word, just using it because Kiwi used it in the opening post. Or maybe I will use that word, because I do believe Elder Uchtdorf is handling it in a more loving way...words matter. And our church leaders need to be careful in how they say things.

I feel like the church's policies or words have lead to many suicides. And for saying this, I'm sure I'm going to face some criticism, but so be it. 

Yes, I think that's a good point. All official FP documents have the rubber stamp signatures on them. That doesn't mean that everyone necessarily agrees with everything that's put out.

[Calm]

"He was a member of a presidency, how can he not have his signatures with theirs? Go against the prophet, how could he do that and not cause problems"

All he has to do is speak up and tell them he is not satisfied with the language prior to it being ready for signing.  Do you not think having called him into the Presidency, Pres. Monson would then ignore him?  Not involve him in the discussion on preparing public statements?

[ALarson]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

I’m curious... Are there participants here who believe that the apostles are in 100% agreement on all matters of doctrine and policy of the church?

I have served in enough leadership positions to know that rarely are a group of men (especially as many as 15 or more), 100% in agreement.....or 100% opposed.  What I do know is that most men will be willing to come to some sort of compromise or at least in the end, support the Bishop or Stake President or most especially, the Prophet.  In the church, it's very important to have a public appearance of unity for the members to see and many men will put their feelings aside (unless they are strongly opposed) for that message to be seen.

Now, we never did hear President Monson speak about this issue (that I can remember) and we did not hear him speak specifically about the policy of 2015.  As far as I know, Elder Uchtdorf (and many other Apostles as well) have not spoken about it to the members.   A lot of assumptions can be made and were made by the author of the blog post, IMO.

Were they in agreement enough to at least allow the rubber stamp to be applied with their name on it?  Yes (or at least they didn't oppose it enough to vote against it and had a desire to show a support of unity).   But, we have no idea if that would have taken place if Elder Uchtdorf had been the Prophet at the time (or others).  Of course, it may have still been put in effect, but we simply do not know his feelings on it because we have not heard them.  He would never speak out against the Prophet.  Of that, I'm sure.  But he has remained silent regarding the policy (as far as I know).  

I read the blog post over again this morning.  I don't disagree with his thoughts, but there's a lot of words such as "maybe", "if", and an "is it possible" type questioning (which is good of him to do, IMO).  Overall...it's ok....but, not convincing (at least for me) that "it clearly establishes" anything as claimed earlier by kiwi when he posted it.

Others will read it differently and I respect that too.

 

( I'm off of here for the day, so won't be able to respond to anyone until tomorrow.....just didn't want to appear rude if anyone wonders why I may not respond to them today  )

Edited February 8, 2018 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

I’m curious... Are there participants here who believe that the apostles are in 100% agreement on all matters of doctrine and policy of the church?

The calling of prophet, seer and revelator entails being receptive to the confirming witness of the Holy Spirit on matters that pertain to the Church generally. So while it has been stated before that there is robust discussion among the higher councils of the Church, I do believe it reasonable to suppose that, in the end, as guided by the Holy Ghost, they come to a perfect agreement on matters that pertain to the Church as a whole.

Alas, I am less confident as pertaining to leaders on a local level. I say this because all too often I have seen people who say they are members of a bishopric or in other positions of leadership express sentiments or views that are out of harmony with the doctrine and policy of the Church.

 

Edited February 8, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

52 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I have served in enough leadership positions to know that rarely are a group of men (especially as many as 15 or more), 100% in agreement.....or 100% opposed.  What I do know is that most men will be willing to come to some sort of compromise or at least in the end, support the Bishop or Stake President or most especially, the Prophet.  In the church, it's very important to have a public appearance of unity for the members to see and many men will put their feelings aside (unless they are strongly opposed) for that message to be seen.

Now, we never did hear President Monson speak about this issue (that I can remember) and we did not hear him speak specifically about the policy of 2015.  As far as I know, Elder Uchtdorf (and many other Apostles as well) have not spoken about it to the members.   A lot of assumptions can be made and were made by the author of the blog post, IMO.

Were they in agreement enough to at least allow the rubber stamp to be applied with their name on it?  Yes (or at least they didn't oppose it enough to vote against it and had a desire to show a support of unity).   But, we have no idea if that would have taken place if Elder Uchtdorf had been the Prophet at the time (or others).  Of course, it may have still been put in effect, but we simply do not know his feelings on it because we have not heard them.  He would never speak out against the Prophet.  Of that, I'm sure.  But he has remained silent regarding the policy (as far as I know).  

I read the blog post over again this morning.  I don't disagree with his thoughts, but there's a lot of words such as "maybe", "if", and an "is it possible" type questioning (which is good of him to do, IMO).  Overall...it's ok....but, not convincing (at least for me) that "it clearly establishes" anything as claimed earlier by kiwi when he posted it.

Others will read it differently and I respect that too.

This is really a great, honest, and more realistic view of how things really take place (probably in most any organization that is a hierarchy).  I’ve served in a couple of presidencies and hardly ever did we all agree 100 percent on most decisions.  But we respected each other enough to give and take and in the end, threw our support behind the president for the final decision (even if we still didn’t completely agree, we trusted her.)

I do wish that we would hear more from those involved in implementing the policy (or other related things to this issue). I do believe if any of the apostles had been very strongly against the policy, it would not have happened.  But were they all 100 percent strongly for it?  Most likely not, I would think there were a range of opinions and feelings about it.  

Edited February 8, 2018 by JulieM

[rongo]

17 minutes ago, JulieM said:

This is really a great, honest, and more realistic view of how things really take place (probably in most any organization that is a hierarchy).  I’ve served in a couple of presidencies and rarely did we all agree 100 per cent on most decisions.  But we respected each other enough to give and take and in the end, threw our support behind the president for the final decision.

I do wish that we would hear more from those involved in implementing the policy (or other related things to this issue). I do believe if any of the apostles had been very strongly opposed to the policy, it would not have happened.  But were they all 100 percent strongly in favor of it?  Most likely not, I would think there were a range of opinions and feelings about it.  

We had an intense bishopric training years ago where we were asked our views on an initiative from the stake presidency. There was strong opposition from many of the bishoprics, and our objections were respectfully discussed. We were told that the stake presidency had already decided to do it, and that it was going to be done, and that we needed to work on implementing it (the discussion was an after-the-fact formality). The initiative didn't work because the stake presidency didn't listen to our valid objections, and didn't really have the support of the bishoprics and members. But, at that meeting, one of the counselors mentioned being very disappointed in our lack of unity. I had never thought of this until then, but I said that there is a big difference between unity and unanimity --- and that the two are often conflated in the Church. Despite our disagreements, I pointed out, we were all unified, even though we were not unanimous in our agreement. I pointed out that this is also how things work among the apostles and seventies quorums and First Presidency, too, and I gave the example I witnessed myself of President Packer telling a stake of YSAs at BYU that he was going to recuse himself from speaking to us and turn the time over to Elder Maxwell, because of his fundamental disagreement with the concept of singles wards. This was said lovingly (and with some humor) and not with any contention, but it underscored that even they have issues on which they are not unanimous, but which they reach unity on (i.e., President Packer did not go against the overall Stimmung of the quorum on singles wards and stand in the way of them).

Edited February 8, 2018 by rongo

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The calling of prophet, seer and revelator entails being receptive to the confirming witness of the Holy Spirit on matters that pertain to the Church generally. So while it has been stated before that there is robust discussion among the higher councils of the Church, I do believe it reasonable to suppose that, in the end, as guided by the Holy Ghost, they come to a perfect agreement on matters that pertain to the Church as a whole.

Alas, I am less confident as pertaining to leaders on a local level. I say this because all too often I have seen people who say they are members of a bishopric or in other positions of leadership express sentiments or views that are out of harmony with the doctrine and policy of the Church.

 

...out of harmony with the doctrine and policy of the Church as you interpret it.

And yet, even when I disagreed with my Bishop, once a decision had been made (by him, or in council whether guided by the Spirit or not), I supported him, and the decision, 100%.  Ward members would not have known that there was ever a difference in opinion among our bishopric.

From all my experience with councils, quorums, and presidencies on a local level and all my reading about those quorums and presidencies at the highest level of the Church -- I see no evidence to suggest that they are different from the quorums and presidencies at the local level.