Elder Uchtdorf: Progressive?

[kiwi57]

30 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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.

I can't remember the last time a policy was brought before the Church for a sustaining vote. That doesn't mean such policies are not inspired. Nor does it mean that the Spirit of the Lord does not confirm them to those who are faithful.

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

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

 

In 1989, President James E. Faust, one of the more left-leaning members of the Quorum (one who thought that Ernest Wilkinson’s right-wing influence on the First Presidency was nothing less than nefarious), celebrated:  “this requirement of unanimity . . . ensures that God rules through the Spirit, not man through majority or compromise” (interestingly, Oaks would later distance the Church from the name of this speech: “continuous revelation,” claiming that it overstates Church access to revelation: “We believe in continuing revelation, not continuous revelation.”). The following year, President Gordon B. Hinckley claimed that “if there is a lack of unity, there is an absence of action. . .[counselors] become a safeguard that is seldom, if ever, in error.” later promisingthat in 33 years of Church service, “there has never been a major action taken where this procedure was not observed. .  .Only then is implementation made” (emphasis added).

We have no reason to believe that policy changed.  Quinn observed in 1994: “Tabling items due to dissent continues to be a pattern in the contemporary Church” (Extensions of Power, Location 483). In 2012, Elder D. Todd Christofferson told the Church in 2012 that “the objective is not simply consensus among council members but revelation from God.” A year before the policy was implemented, then-Elder (now President) Russell M. Nelson (who has been the policy’s most public advocate) hashighlighted the sheer difficulty in getting “15 men [who] have varied educational and professional backgrounds, with differing opinions about many things” to agree on a policy; Nelson’s comments 2014 might reveal some level of vigorous exchange over the November 5 policy specifically.  As one former, rather high-ranking employee in the LDS Church humanitarian indicated to me, “they have egos, but they keep them in check.”

President (then Elder) Henry B. Eyring–whose named stands alongside Uchtdorf’s on the November 5 policy– has expressed his surprise at how junior apostles might challenge senior leadership:

I had been studying for the ten years I was a professor at Stanford how you make decisions in meetings, in groups, so I got a chance – here’s my chance to see how the Lord’s servants do it of which I now am one – but I looked at it with my Harvard-Stanford eyes.

And I thought, this is the strangest conversation. Here are the prophets of God and they’re disagreeing in an openness that I had never seen in business. In business you’re careful when you’re with the bosses, you know.I watched this process and they were disagreeing, and I thought ‘good heavens,’ I thought revelation would come to them all and they’d all see things the same way in some sort of way. And it was more open than anything I’d ever seen in all the groups I’d ever studied in business. I was just dumbfounded.

But then after awhile the conversation cycled around and they began to agree.. . .

Then, it was President Harold B. Lee who was chairing the meeting .and I thought now he’s going to announce the decision. I’d seen this miracle, and he said, ‘Wait a minute. I think we’ll bring this matter up again some other time. I sense there is someone in the room who is not yet settled.’ And they went on to the next item, and I thought, ‘That is strange.’ And then I watched somebody, one of the brethren, I think one of the Twelve, walk past President Lee, and say, ‘Thank you. There’s something I didn’t have a chance to say.’

So, I want you to know.  We’re in another kind of thing here.

President Hinckley celebrated that he has felt free “to speak on any issue, despite the fact that I was a junior member.” Ezra Taft Benson gained a reputation for paying close regard to even junior members of the Quorum (Extensions of Power, 455).

 

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

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.

You know Rockpond, I really wish you'd stop doing this.

Every single time you try to base an argument upon your untested and unexamined spiritual experiences, you confer upon the rest of us the absolute right to challenge that argument; but of course, as we have seen many times, the mods will come down like a ton of bricks upon anyone who does so.

So we're going to have to simply disregard these arguments as uncheckable.

[kllindley]

These men describe a process of revelation through unaminity, not majority or compromise or consensus. 

Your position is that they don't really mean agreement. That the process they use is no different than every other human organization. Even when they say it isn't. 

But that doesn't question their integrity or honesty. 

So they're delusional? What other option is there?

Seriously, help me understand what you're saying. Don't just throw out some one liner. 

[JulieM]

23 minutes ago, kllindley said:

These men describe a process of revelation through unaminity, not majority or compromise or consensus. 

Who are “these men” when it come to the 2015 policy?  As far as I know, only one has spoken about it (from what I remember).  Who other that Pres. Nelson spoke about it?

Edited February 9, 2018 by JulieM

[kllindley]

16 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Who are “these men” when it come to the 2015 policy?  As far as I know, only one has spoken about it (from what I remember).  Who other that Pres. Nelson spoke about it?

What evidence do you have that the standard operating procedure President Hinckley, President Faust, Elder Ballard, President Eyring, and Elder Christofferson described was not followed in this case?

Edited February 9, 2018 by kllindley

[JulieM]

7 minutes ago, kllindley said:

What's evidence do you have that the standard operating procedure President Hinckley, President Faust, Elder Ballard, President Eyring, and Elder Christofferson described was not followed in this case?

I was specifically referring to statements about what took place with the 2015 policy.

What statements do you have from those you named (about the process for writing the policiy or any other revelations), anything?

Edited February 9, 2018 by JulieM

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 hours ago, kllindley said:

The Brethren have been very clear that decisions are not made until a unanimous consensus is reached.

This has also been my personal experience serving as a counsellor in two bishoprics. On not one single occasion have I been asked to go along with a decision that I didn't know personally was inspired. This has meant, on occasion, delays of weeks in reaching a decision.

8 hours 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.

I think you're projecting. And I'm doing the same. What I've experienced on a local level is exactly how I presume the senior councils of the Church work.

8 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.

You seem to be forgetting one essential element here: access to revelation changes everything, including 'normal group dynamics and human interaction'.

5 hours 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.

I would have. It's never happened to me, and it has certainly never been expected of me.

3 hours ago, kllindley said:

These men describe a process of revelation through unaminity, not majority or compromise or consensus. 

Exactly! For anyone who has experienced it, this is not a foreign or difficult concept.

I've shared on this forum before the deliberations we engaged in as a bishopric one evening as part of a disciplinary council. The 'consensus' was two against one, I being the odd man out. We prayed. We discussed again. I shared my concerns, at length. We prayed again. On and on it went. Our bishop made it clear that we wouldn't act until all three of us were in perfect agreement. The next step was to ask me to pray. I happily agreed.

In my prayer, I clearly delineated all of my concerns to God and then explained how I felt. When I had exhausted all of this verbally (and it was a long prayer!), I paused, and in the silence, I heard a voice call me by name and then tell me clearly that my concerns were correct, followed by this question: 'But how many times have I taken you back when you weren't ready, just because you wanted it?'

I then 'saw' a quick succession of times when that very thing had occurred, and a wave of peace filled me from head to toe. Perfect unanimity! No compromise. No robots programmed to have the same opinions. Just revelation, clear and welcomed.

Imagine what would have happened instead if I'd just taken the easy route of agreeing to support a decision I didn't really share? As it turned out, all my concerns have proved correct. All of them. But I'm still completely at peace because the God of Heaven told me what He wanted me to do even though I wasn't wrong. It's a beautiful, blessed, merciful system!

Edited February 9, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Gray]

6 hours ago, kllindley said:

But when they explicitly state that decisions are not made until everyone comes to the same position,

That doesn't mean everyone agrees with the decision! That just means everyone is willing to assent to a decision.

 

Quote

you are calling their honesty and integrity into question. 

Nope. I just don't buy into the myth that they're a hive mind.

 

Quote

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?

I'm calling the myth into question. Are they fallible men or are they demigods? So many Mormons say they think they're the former but act as if they're the latter.

Edited February 9, 2018 by Gray

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm calling the myth into question. Are they fallible men or are they demigods?

They're prophets. I'm perpetually surprised by how many Saints and former Saints seem not to know what that means.

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

I was specifically referring to statements about what took place with the 2015 policy.

What statements do you have from those you named (about the process for writing the policiy or any other revelations), anything?

The statements are in bold in my post above.

Specifically about that policy? Of course not. I'm referring to repeated teachings about how decisions are made in the Church. You seem to believe that this procedure was not followed in regard to the 2015 policy. Why?

[kllindley]

27 minutes ago, Gray said:

That doesn't mean everyone agrees with the decision! That just means everyone is willing to assent to a decision.

 

Nope. I just don't buy into the myth that they're a hive mind.

 

I'm calling the myth into question. Are they fallible men or are they demigods? So many Mormons say they think they're the former but act as if they're the latter.

I haven't said anything about a hive mind, clones, or robots. I'm just taking them at their word that they do disagree, often vigorously. And that they don't move forward in important matters until there is unaminity. They don't use the word assent, or compromise. They deny that they go along with a majority decision they don't think is the right course. They say they wait until the Holy Ghost convinces everyone of the same course of action. 

You don't have to agree with or believe in the process they describe.Maybe you don't believe the Holy Ghost exists. But they certainly claim He does and operates in this setting. I don't understand why you have to twist what they say in order to make them "honest but not saying what *really happens*."

Edited February 9, 2018 by kllindley

[Rain]

 

 

6 hours 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.

 

 

This discussion is interesting in light of some things going on in my life. 

I'm part of a group of 5 people. Four of them prayed and felt good about something. I did not. In fact my first reaction was great resistance. I have thought about it and fought in my mind over it for a week now, but have not given it sincere prayer as of yet because I wasn' ready.

Today in our meeting I had questions. We discussed different things. That helped with a lot of my worries. Three out of the four of them expressed support of whatever I decided and that if I didn't feel the same way we would do something else. 

I ended up playing chauffer today because one car is out of commission and then we had multiple places family members needed to go. That gave me a lot of thinking time.

I finally realized my major concern. I've been sitting here thinking, "you need to humble yourself on this so you can get a clear answer."  But the more I have thought about it, the more I have felt good about choosing what the others chose, but they HAVE to know about this concern and understand why it is a concern. In other words, agreeing with the others wasn't a big deal to Heavenly Father, but through this whole process the concern came out and THAT was something that needs to change. Now I just need to ask if God confirms that

So I wouldn't be surprised if the 15 worked that way.  It isn't agreeing with each other. It is agreeing with God, but more importantly it is agreeing with God and listening for other concerns they need to work through or discover before becoming unanimous. If they all understand the concerns then by aligning themselves to God  they will be aligned with each other.

[Hamba Tuhan]

50 minutes ago, Rain said:

It isn't agreeing with each other. It is agreeing with God, but more importantly it is agreeing with God and listening for other concerns they need to work through or discover before becoming unanimous. If they all understand the concerns then by aligning themselves to God  they will be aligned with each other.

Perfectly summarised!

I genuinely thought that this process was such an integral feature of life for Church members that we should never need to explain it to fellow travellers, but apparently I'm mistaken.

I grew up watching my parents engage in this process repeatedly: open, frank discussion; the sharing of concerns; often protracted disagreement; more thinking, more research, more sharing of ideas and concerns -- all eventually leading to revelation, which always brought perfect unity immediately.

In my experience, all of the discussing/disagreeing/debating is not actually about who is right; rather, it's part of the price one pays -- the wrestle, if you will -- to be prepared and ready for the revelation when it comes.

I honestly don't think there's any other godly way for two people to become perfectly unified, let alone fifteen ...

Edited February 9, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Scott Lloyd]

It occurs to me that individuals who, with no other support than their own ill-informed supposition, are in effect ascribing to the prophets and apostles craven acquiescence when they disagree with the prevailing opinion in deliberations, would do well to study and thoughtfully consider the book Counseling with Our Councils. It was written by President M. Russell Ballard, who for 32 years has been a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and, of course, was recently appointed as acting president of that body.

Here is an article I wrote a little over a year ago on the council system in the Church and in families. It is drawn from President Ballard's writings and from a live interview I did with him on that occasion. He called it "the Lord's system."

His thoughts are fortified by personal experience including, one can reasonably assume, experience as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

 

 

Edited February 9, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

This has also been my personal experience serving as a counsellor in two bishoprics. On not one single occasion have I been asked to go along with a decision that I didn't know was personally inspired. This has meant, on occasion, delays of weeks in reaching a decision.

I think you're projecting. And I'm doing the same. What I've experienced on a local level is exactly how I presume the senior councils of the Church work.

You seem to be forgetting one essential element here: access to revelation changes everything, including 'normal group dynamics and human interaction'.

I would have. It's never happened to me, and it has certainly never been expected of me.

Exactly! For anyone who has experienced it, this is not a foreign or difficult concept.

I've shared on this forum before the deliberations we engaged in as a bishopric one evening as part of a disciplinary council. The 'consensus' was two against one, I being the odd man out. We prayed. We discussed again. I shared my concerns, at length. We prayed again. On and on it went. Our bishop made it clear that we wouldn't act until all three of us were in perfect agreement. The next step was to ask me to pray. I happily agreed.

In my prayer, I clearly delineated all of my concerns to God and then explained how I felt. When I had exhausted all of this verbally (and it was a long prayer!), I paused, and in the silence, I heard a voice call me by name and then tell me clearly that my concerns were correct, followed by this question: 'But how many times have I taken you back when you weren't ready, just because you wanted it?'

I then 'saw' a quick succession of times when that very thing had occurred, and a wave of peace filled me from head to toe. Perfect unanimity! No compromise. No robots programmed to have the same opinions. Just revelation, clear and welcomed.

Imagine what would have happened instead if I'd just taken the easy route of agreeing to support a decision I didn't really share? As it turned out, all my concerns have proved correct. All of them. But I'm still completely at peace because the God of Heaven told me what He wanted me to do even though I wasn't wrong. It's a beautiful, blessed, merciful system!

What a beautiful story about seeking and receiving revelation.

[rockpond]

11 hours ago, kllindley said:

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

It’s not something that came up.  And, I’m sorry, but I don’t get your point. 

[rockpond]

11 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

I can't remember the last time a policy was brought before the Church for a sustaining vote. That doesn't mean such policies are not inspired. Nor does it mean that the Spirit of the Lord does not confirm them to those who are faithful.

Correct.  Just as the First Presidency was ordained last month without a sustaining vote as required by the D&C.

So what does all of that indicate to us?

[rockpond]

11 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

You know Rockpond, I really wish you'd stop doing this.

Every single time you try to base an argument upon your untested and unexamined spiritual experiences, you confer upon the rest of us the absolute right to challenge that argument; but of course, as we have seen many times, the mods will come down like a ton of bricks upon anyone who does so.

So we're going to have to simply disregard these arguments as uncheckable.

Wait... so it’s okay for Scott to challenge my standing in the church?  It’s okay for Kiwi to direct subtle accusations of apostasy at me but I can’t respond with my personal testimony?

And since when is the sharing of personal spiritual experience off limits on these boards?

I’m not aware of mods coming down on anyone for challenging me.  I’m challenged all the time and will defend anyone’s right to do so, respectfully. 

Edited February 9, 2018 by rockpond

[rockpond]

10 hours ago, kllindley said:

What evidence do you have that the standard operating procedure President Hinckley, President Faust, Elder Ballard, President Eyring, and Elder Christofferson described was not followed in this case?

We didn’t follow our own scripture and seek a sustaining vote on the policy.

The Prophet wrote a letter to the church after the policy was published and he didn’t bother to mention that new revelation had been received to direct the policy.  

Weeks later Pres. Nelson announced to a YSA gathering that it was a revelation.  

[Tacenda]

33 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Correct.  Just as the First Presidency was ordained last month without a sustaining vote as required by the D&C.

So what does all of that indicate to us?

I wonder when they quit this practice...referencing the D&C.

[Gray]

10 hours ago, kllindley said:

I haven't said anything about a hive mind, clones, or robots. I'm just taking them at their word that they do disagree, often vigorously. And that they don't move forward in important matters until there is unaminity.

How does that in any way contradict my position? It doesn't.

 

 

[Gray]

10 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

They're prophets. I'm perpetually surprised by how many Saints and former Saints seem not to know what that means.

I know what it means. It doesn't mean they're magical beings.

[kllindley]

22 minutes ago, Gray said:

How does that in any way contradict my position? It doesn't.

 

 

"Unaminity: the state of being of one opinion about something." "When there is unanimity, everyone agrees. When it comes to opinion, unanimity is the opposite of disagreement. Unanimity is a word for a group of people all being of one mind."

They say they are of one mind, of one opinion, that they agree on important decisions. That is the meaning of the word they use. You say they aren't. Please help me understand how that doesn't create a contradiction?

[Gray]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

"Unaminity: the state of being of one opinion about something." "When there is unanimity, everyone agrees. When it comes to opinion, unanimity is the opposite of disagreement. Unanimity is a word for a group of people all being of one mind."

They say they are of one mind, of one opinion, that they agree on important decisions. That is the meaning of the word they use. You say they aren't. Please help me understand how that doesn't create a contradiction?

A vote can be unanimous and some who voted can still have reservations or disagreement. How do you think groupthink happens? Is it because everyone agrees, or because everyone goes along with the group?