Elder Uchtdorf: Progressive?

[kllindley]

21 minutes ago, rockpond said:

...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.

I want to make sure I understand you correctly. When you say you've seen no evidence that local and general Presidencies and councils function differently, have you had the experience of a Bishop stating that he felt inspired that someone in the ward council was not fully settled and therefore tabled an item of business? Because that to me is pretty substantial evidence that they function differently. 

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I want to make sure I understand you correctly. When you say you've seen no evidence that local and general Presidencies and councils function differently, have you had the experience of a Bishop stating that he felt inspired that someone in the ward council was not fully settled and therefore tabled an item of business? Because that to me is pretty substantial evidence that they function differently. 

Did my bishop ever say those specific words?  No.  Did he table items of business because we weren't feeling any strong direction on them?  Yes.

How would that be evidence that they function differently?

[kllindley]

7 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 believe they are in 100% agreement with all official policies and material. I agree with Calm that if there are signing statements that they don't believe in, that lack of integrity is far more troublesome than a lack (or presence) of unaminity. I don't believe that any of the 15 disagree with For the Strength of Youth or God Loveth His Children. 

[kllindley]

Just now, rockpond said:

Did my bishop ever say those specific words?  No.  Did he table items of business because we weren't feeling any strong direction on them?  Yes.

How would that be evidence that they function differently?

The Brethren have been very clear that decisions are not made until a unanimous consensus is reached. Elder Ballard stated that none of them were "shrinking violets."  I tend to take people at their word rather than assume that they are lying about the process they use to make decisions. 

I have seen no evidence to suggest that some of the Brethren compromise their integrity by conceeding in order to maintain an illusion of unity. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

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

No, I mean out of harmony with the policy and doctrine as they have been authoritatively and unequivocally expressed.

Those who express opposition to the November 2015 policy, for example, are out of harmony with the Church. Those who look forward to a day when homosexual behavior will be approved in the Church and when same-sex "marriages" are sealed in the temples have views that are out of harmony with the teachings of the Church.

 

Quote

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.

I don't know what you consider evidence, but, except for anomalous occurrences such as the apostasy of George P. Lee or Amasa Lyman, you will look in vain for instances when an apostle or First Presidency member will speak in opposition to the established doctrine, policy or teaching of the Church.

Anyway, you asked and I answered. I don't think you expected anyone would say they believe the Brethren are in 100 percent agreement with the doctrines and policies of the Church, but you have my answer. I see no reason for a protracted argument about it.

 

Edited February 9, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

34 minutes ago, kllindley said:

The Brethren have been very clear that decisions are not made until a unanimous consensus is reached. Elder Ballard stated that none of them were "shrinking violets."  I tend to take people at their word rather than assume that they are lying about the process they use to make decisions. 

I have seen no evidence to suggest that some of the Brethren compromise their integrity by conceeding in order to maintain an illusion of unity. 

I doubt they'd ever reach a consensus on anything without some of them going along for the sake of unity at any giving time.

[kllindley]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

I doubt they'd ever reach a consensus on anything without some of them going along for the sake of unity at any giving time.

Edited: It's clear we disagree about their level of integrity and honesty. I don't think there's much more to discuss. 

[Gray]

1 minute ago, kllindley said:

Edited: It's clear we disagree about their level of integrity and honesty. I don't think there's much more to discuss. 

I'm not talking about integrity or dishonesty. I'm talking about absolutely normal group dynamics and human interaction. This happens in every meeting, religious or secular. Pretty sure the brethren aren't agree-bots programmed to have the same opinions about everything.

[Exiled]

35 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No, I mean out of harmony with the policy and doctrine as they have been authoritatively and unequivocally expressed.

Those who express opposition to November 2015 policy, for example, are out of harmony with the Church. Those who look forward to a day when homosexual behavior will be approved in the Church and when same-sex "marriages" are sealed in the temples have views that are out of harmony with the teachings of the Church.

 

I don't know what you consider evidence, but, except for anomalous occurrences such as the apostasy of George P. Lee or Amasa Lyman, you will look in vain for instances when an apostle or First Presidency member will speak in opposition to the established doctrine, policy or teaching of the Church.

Anyway, you asked and I answered. I don't think you expected anyone would say they believe the Brethren are in 100 percent agreement with the doctrines and policies of the Church, but you have my answer. I see no reason for a protracted argument about it.

 

I assume you would say that the "out of harmony" thing doesn't apply to private disagreements.  Given how the November policy as "revelation" isn't talked about much by those not named Nelson, one could assume that maybe there was some private disagreement?  In any event, apostles are known to disagree about policies from time to time.  Why have 12 when one with a bunch of mirrors would do if expressing opposition were a sin?  I think it is well understood that certain apostles like President Hugh B. Brown had been lobbying to have the priesthood ban removed for some time prior to 1978.  He didn't agree with it and wanted it changed while others like President Lee and Elder Stapley wanted it to remain.

[kllindley]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

I'm not talking about integrity or dishonesty. I'm talking about absolutely normal group dynamics and human interaction. This happens in every meeting, religious or secular. Pretty sure the brethren aren't agree-bots programmed to have the same opinions about everything.

But when they explicitly state that decisions are not made until everyone comes to the same position, you are calling their honesty and integrity into question.  I get human interaction and group dynamics.  The Brethren do too.  They sat on Executive Boards for years and then categorically state that this body functions like no other organization.  You deny that statement.  How is that not calling integrity into question?

[JulieM]

19 minutes ago, kllindley said:

But when they explicitly state that decisions are not made until everyone comes to the same position, you are calling their honesty and integrity into question.  I get human interaction and group dynamics.  The Brethren do too.  They sat on Executive Boards for years and then categorically state that this body functions like no other organization.  You deny that statement.  How is that not calling integrity into question?

There all kinds of ways to come to an agreement.  Compromise is agreeing to move forward together too.  You can’t possibly believe  all 15 agree on everything important and don’t have different feelings and opinions on each decision made.  They are not mindless clones.  Yes, they come out of meetings making a united decision, but that still does not mean they all 100 percent agree on all aspects of it.

But this isn’t calling into question any of their integrity.  Good men can disagree.

 

Edited February 8, 2018 by JulieM

[Calm]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

The Brethren have been very clear that decisions are not made until a unanimous consensus is reached. Elder Ballard stated that none of them were "shrinking violets."  I tend to take people at their word rather than assume that they are lying about the process they use to make decisions. 

I have seen no evidence to suggest that some of the Brethren compromise their integrity by conceeding in order to maintain an illusion of unity. 

These guys have been working together a long time.  There is little to no pressure about job security, I bet.  Sure, there could be grudge holding and such and therefore they might act to avoid that....but the most effective way would be to speak up early on to avoid disagreements surfacing at the last minute.  After a couple of centuries of doing this with highly successful men, I would be quite surprised if effective traditions on how to work with each other at the top levels were not used most of the time.

If the documents were a one off occurrence, that would be different; I can see something being pushed once like it appears happened with the Priesthood Ban and two apostles being out of town.  But Elder Uchtdorf has signed off on multiple occasions, he would have known what to expect after at least the first time and then been able to actively work to modify language and policy as one of the top three policymakers or push for delay until agreement was reached.

He does not come across the least bit of a shrinking violet or someone who is not articulate or who is reluctant to use reason and persuasion to change people's minds.  The things that lead some people to think he disagrees with others are evidence he is willing to speak up.  If he is willing to do it for the entire church, for the world, why not in an intimate group with two other men or even with 11?

Edited February 8, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, JulieM said:

There all kinds of ways to come to an agreement.  Compromise is agreeing to move forward together too.  You can’t possibly believe  all 15 agree on everything important and don’t have different feelings and opinions on each decision made.  They are not mindless clones.  Yes, they come out of meetings making a united decision, but that still does not mean they all 100 percent agree on all aspects of it.

But this isn’t calling into question any of their integrity.  Good men can disagree.

 

But there is a difference between agreeing about the basic policy, doctrine, and ideas while approaching the details or nuances differently and the major disagreements that appear to be claimed as potential or even likely here.

 

[JulieM]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

But there is a difference between agreeing about the basic policy, doctrine, and ideas while approaching the details or nuances differently and the major disagreements that appear to be claimed as potential or even likely here.

 

Of course.  But there could have been disagreement about whether such a policy was even necessary too.  However not strong enough feelings to go against the Prophet if he felt it was right.  There could have been all level of disagreement just as would normally happen in a group that size.  There’s nothing wrong with that and I think a variety of opinions is a positive thing.

We just don’t know because most have been silent about it (including President Monson himself).

We also have only heard one experience or perspective (I think).  I’m sure he truthfully related what he believed and what were his own feelings.  But most of us have been in meetings and heard someone give their perspective and wondered if they were in the same meeting we were in when we hear them relate something.  

Edited February 8, 2018 by JulieM

[kiwi57]

19 hours 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.

As others have already pointed out, the use of "retrogades" was applied to the other apostles, and was used to represent the idea that Elder Uchtdorf is the only forward-thinking person among a bunch of reactionary old curmudgeons. It is, frankly, a silly idea, but it is one that seems to get some air time.

I'm mildly surprised that you found "trope" off-putting, although as the saying goes, there is no use arguing about taste.

[kiwi57]

9 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?

It's an interesting question, but it's a bit of a derail. In the context of this thread, the fact that the Church has issued a number of statements of doctrine and policy during Elder Uchtdorf's service in the presiding quorums is prima facie evidence that he is on board with them. The fact that his signature appears on several of the relevant documents is pretty conclusive proof that he is.

There just isn't any evidence for the popular myth that Elder Uchtdorf is out of harmony with the doctrines and policies of the Church.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

I assume you would say that the "out of harmony" thing doesn't apply to private disagreements.  Given how the November policy as "revelation" isn't talked about much by those not named Nelson, one could assume that maybe there was some private disagreement? 

Such an assumption is not self-evident to me.

Quote

In any event, apostles are known to disagree about policies from time to time.  Why have 12 when one with a bunch of mirrors would do if expressing opposition were a sin? 

We have 12, because there is safety in numbers. A council of prophets discusses and deliberates, they air any disagreements, in the course of the deliberation, ideas that are not in harmony with the will of the Lord blow away like chaff, they arrive at a consensus as guided by the Holy Spirit and reach a state of unity.

 

Quote

I think it is well understood that certain apostles like President Hugh B. Brown had been lobbying to have the priesthood ban removed for some time prior to 1978.  He didn't agree with it and wanted it changed while others like President Lee and Elder Stapley wanted it to remain.

When it was the right time for it to happen, the Brethren as a body experienced the revelation in accordance with the process I described above.

 

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

There all kinds of ways to come to an agreement.  Compromise is agreeing to move forward together too.  You can’t possibly believe  all 15 agree on everything important and don’t have different feelings and opinions on each decision made.  They are not mindless clones.  Yes, they come out of meetings making a united decision, but that still does not mean they all 100 percent agree on all aspects of it.

But this isn’t calling into question any of their integrity.  Good men can disagree.

 

I'm not suggesting that disagreement is a lack of integrity. But I think that when they explicitly state that they agree on the important issues, insisting that they don't agree means that they're lying when they say they do. I don't have any problem with them disagreeing. The Brethren repeatedly say that they don't move forward until they all agree. Are they being honest when they say that or not?

I'll leave open the possibility that we're speaking past each other right now about what I mean when I talk about integrity. Unfortunately, I'm not so sure that matters. I mean, how can there be any real discussion when you apparently get to the side what I can and can't possibly believe.

[strappinglad]

Show of hands, all those who think that had 4 members of the 12 been strongly against the November policy, there would still have been the same November policy ?

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, kllindley said:

The Brethren have been very clear that decisions are not made until a unanimous consensus is reached. Elder Ballard stated that none of them were "shrinking violets."  I tend to take people at their word rather than assume that they are lying about the process they use to make decisions. 

I have seen no evidence to suggest that some of the Brethren compromise their integrity by conceeding in order to maintain an illusion of unity. 

If you think I was suggesting that any of the apostles are lying or compromising their integrity than you misunderstood my comments.

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No, I mean out of harmony with the policy and doctrine as they have been authoritatively and unequivocally expressed.

Those who express opposition to November 2015 policy, for example, are out of harmony with the Church. Those who look forward to a day when homosexual behavior will be approved in the Church and when same-sex "marriages" are sealed in the temples have views that are out of harmony with the teachings of the Church.

 

I don't know what you consider evidence, but, except for anomalous occurrences such as the apostasy of George P. Lee or Amasa Lyman, you will look in vain for instances when an apostle or First Presidency member will speak in opposition to the established doctrine, policy or teaching of the Church.

Anyway, you asked and I answered. I don't think you expected anyone would say they believe the Brethren are in 100 percent agreement with the doctrines and policies of the Church, but you have my answer. I see no reason for a protracted argument about it.

 

You are correct, I didn't expect anyone here believes that the Brethren are always in 100 percent agreement with the doctrines and policies of the Church.  I asked the question to emphasize a point (since there seemed to be this thought that it was necessary for Elder Uchtdorf to be in agreement on everything).  As for evidence that the Brethren have, at times, not been in 100% agreement there is plenty:  Consider the differences between Orson Pratt and Brigham Young regarding the nature of God and spirits; differences among the Brethren during the GA Smith and McKay eras regarding building strategies;  disagreements over Elder McConkie's Mormon Doctrine and President Benson's Fourteen Fundamentals; the lack of unity among the 12 and the FP regarding blacks and the priesthood in the late McKay years.

As for my being in or out of "harmony with the Church" as you have explained it above, I'm comfortable with that.  I'm only concerned with being in harmony with the Spirit of God and I'm good with my standing in that regard.

Edited February 9, 2018 by rockpond

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

I'm not talking about integrity or dishonesty. I'm talking about absolutely normal group dynamics and human interaction. This happens in every meeting, religious or secular. Pretty sure the brethren aren't agree-bots programmed to have the same opinions about everything.

There were times when, as a bishop's counselor, I wasn't in full agreement with my bishop or particular ward council decisions.  But once we walked out of bishopric meeting or ward council meeting with a decision having been made - I fully supported it.  And I never felt like my integrity or honesty was in peril.

[Calm]

My position...if Elder Uchtdorf's put his signature on similar documents multiple times, then he agrees with what teachings and policies are shared among those documents.

I find it very hard to believe that something significant enough to be signed by the 1st Presidency would be put forward without being submitted at least once and more likely multiple times as a draft for input from all 1st Presidency members (when healthy enough to participate) where Elder Uchtdorf could have privately discussed any reservations with the two other members of the Presidencies.  Nor do either Pres. Monson or Pres. Faust seem the type to me to ramrod something over the wishes of one or both of the other two.

We are talking about one of the three most powerful men in the LDS faith for the last ten years.  A man who appears to me to take his calling very seriously so that if he believed he was inspired to believe something different than what was being presented, he would see it as his calling to speak up and work on persuading others to that belief.  And if he expressed concern, I don't see either Pres. Monson or Pres. Eyring saying 'we are going to ignore your concerns and press forward immediately'.

I can see neutrality or agreement, but disagreement over an extended period of time saying nothing or saying something and being ignored...the dynamics among the three of them just didn't come off that way at all to me.

Edited February 9, 2018 by Calm

[rockpond]

33 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Show of hands, all those who think that had 4 members of the 12 been strongly against the November policy, there would still have been the same November policy ?

I don't think we are even certain that all Twelve (or 15) were in attendance when it was decided to add the policy to the handbook.  Such details are not shared with us.  So whether 3 or 4 or 5 disagreed or they all agreed is not particularly relevant.  The Prophet did not declare that he had received a revelation for the church and the policy was never brought before the church for a sustaining vote.

[kllindley]

34 minutes ago, rockpond said:

There were times when, as a bishop's counselor, I wasn't in full agreement with my bishop or particular ward council decisions.  But once we walked out of bishopric meeting or ward council meeting with a decision having been made - I fully supported it.  And I never felt like my integrity or honesty was in peril.

But did you tell people that you were in full agreement? That's my only point.