rockpond Posted July 23, 2019 Posted July 23, 2019 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Here is what Wikipedia has on consensus. I’m highlighting portions for emphasis. QUOTE: “Consensus is the community resolution when opposing parties <set aside their differences> and agree on a statement that is agreeable to all, <even if only barely.> “Disputes on Wikipedia are settled by editing and discussion, not voting. Discussion should aim towards building a consensus. Consensus is a group discussion where everyone's opinions are heard and understood, and a solution is created that respects those opinions. <Consensus is not what everyone agrees to, nor is it the preference of the majority. Consensus results in the best solution that the group can achieve at the time.> Remember, the root of "consensus" is "consent". This means that <even if parties disagree, there is still overall consent to move forward in order to settle the issue.>” CLOSE QUOTE This may be good enough for politicians, government bodies, but it does not strike me as what the Lord wants for councils that are meeting in His name and seeking to bring about His will. Rather, I believe He expects each member of the council to seek the spiritual gift of revelation to the end that they, each and every one, unite themselves with the mind and will of God. It does not mean setting aside one’s personal opinions for the sake of moving forward with business (the very essence of consensus). It means having the humility, the spiritual malleability, to allow the Spirit to influence one’s mind and heart, to change it, if need be, to conform to the will of God. This may at times take a lot of time, labor, patience and prayer. But I believe it to be the Lord’s desire. That’s fine. Wikipedia’s definition of consensus that they use in dispute resolution for their pages really has almost nothing to do with my comments on the Brethren and how they seek and receive revelation. That said, I like your concluding paragraph. Is it what the Brethren do, precisely? I don’t know. The statements we have don’t really go into that level of detail.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 23, 2019 Posted July 23, 2019 (edited) 21 minutes ago, rockpond said: That’s fine. Wikipedia’s definition of consensus that they use in dispute resolution for their pages really has almost nothing to do with my comments on the Brethren and how they seek and receive revelation. That said, I like your concluding paragraph. Is it what the Brethren do, precisely? I don’t know. The statements we have don’t really go into that level of detail. I believe President Ballard’s teachings on “counseling with our councils,” expressed in multiple general conference talks and a book by that title, do go into that level of detail, conceptually, at least. I believe it inconceivable that his teachings would not reflect his many years of experience as a General Authority and an apostle of the Lord. And if you like my concluding paragraph, you cannot accurately label what I have described there as consensus. Edited July 23, 2019 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted July 23, 2019 Posted July 23, 2019 (edited) Here’s an insightful blog post on the difference in meaning between consensus and unanimity by one who has done some rigorous study on the subject: http://gri-bloggen.se/what-is-consensus/ Here’s a quote, but read the whole thing. It’s good. QUOTE: One of the most important insights in my research on meetings so far has been to understand that consensus is not the same as unanimity. In a nutshell, unanimity is when everyone agrees and consensus is when no one disagrees. Although this seems like a hair-splittingly small distinction, the difference between the two can be huge in practice. CLOSE QUOTE Edited July 23, 2019 by Scott Lloyd 1
Hamba Tuhan Posted July 23, 2019 Posted July 23, 2019 (edited) 49 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I believe He expects each member of the council to seek the spiritual gift of revelation to the end that they, each and every one, unite themselves with the mind and will of God, thereby uniting with one another. This is something that I have repeatedly experienced in Church councils of all kinds and in family councils. The end result has been that people who have said, for example, 'No, no. A million times no' -- and I have been that person more than once! -- then say, 'Yes', and they do so attended by perfect peace and assurance that they are acting in harmony with God's will. This experience, in fact, has been one of the central features of my membership in the Church, permeating it from beginning to end, top to bottom. It is one of the great privileges of being a member, available to literally everyone. I am confused, therefore, when people imply this may not be the experience of the prophets ... as though they alone are somehow missing out on this great gift that typifies what it means to belong to the Church of Jesus Christ and have access to the Gift of the Holy Ghost and attendant spiritual gifts. I am equally confused when I hear on this forum of local leaders who, instead of teaching their members to seek unity through revelation, settle for a loyal or obedient consensus instead, effectively robbing their people of this sublime opportunity. Edited July 23, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan 4
rockpond Posted July 23, 2019 Posted July 23, 2019 26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I believe President Ballard’s teachings on “counseling with our councils,” expressed in multiple general conference talks and a book by that title, do go into that level of detail, conceptually, at least. I believe it inconceivable that his teachings would not reflect his many years of experience as a General Authority and an apostle of the Lord. Okay. And? Nothing you’ve written seems to really counter my position. 26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: And if you like my concluding paragraph, you cannot accurately label what I have described there as consensus. Consensus is described by Merriam-Webster as unanimity, a general agreement, and group solidarity in sentiment and belief. So, yeah, I do consider your concluding paragraph to be describing consensus.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 23, 2019 Posted July 23, 2019 4 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: This is something that I have repeatedly experienced in Church councils of all kinds and in family councils. The end result has been that people who have said, for example, 'No, no. A million times no' -- and I have been that person more than once! -- then say, 'Yes', and they do so attended by perfect peace and assurance that they are acting in harmony with God's will. This experience, in fact, has been one of the central features of my membership in the Church, permeating it from beginning to end, top to bottom. It is one of the great privileges of being a member, available to literally everyone. I am confused, therefore, when people imply this may not be the experience of the prophets ... as though they alone are somehow missing out on this great gift that typifies what it means to belong to the Church of Jesus Christ and have access to the Gift of the Holy Ghost and attendant spiritual gifts. I am equally confused when I hear on this forum of local leaders who, instead of teaching their members to seek unity through revelation, settle for a loyal or obedient consensus instead, effectively robbing their people of this sublime opportunity. Thank you for sharing this experience and insight. Would that we all understood it better.
rockpond Posted July 23, 2019 Posted July 23, 2019 4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Here’s an insightful blog post on the difference in meaning between consensus and unanimity by one who has done some rigorous study on the subject: http://gri-bloggen.se/what-is-consensus/ I am using the word as defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. If you prefer to use a definition from the above noted blog, that’s fine. But I am not incorrect for using the widely accepted dictionary definition.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 23, 2019 Posted July 23, 2019 4 minutes ago, rockpond said: Okay. And? Nothing you’ve written seems to really counter my position. Consensus is described by Merriam-Webster as unanimity, a general agreement, and group solidarity in sentiment and belief. So, yeah, I do consider your concluding paragraph to be describing consensus. Please see the blog post I linked to above. It might help you more clearly understand the difference between consensus and unanimity.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 23, 2019 Posted July 23, 2019 (edited) 8 minutes ago, rockpond said: I am using the word as defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. If you prefer to use a definition from the above noted blog, that’s fine. But I am not incorrect for using the widely accepted dictionary definition. Did you go to the link and read it? And do you believe that words can be broadly similar in meaning while at the same time having important distinctions? Edited July 23, 2019 by Scott Lloyd
rockpond Posted July 23, 2019 Posted July 23, 2019 14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Please see the blog post I linked to above. It might help you more clearly understand the difference between consensus and unanimity. I’ve provided the definition I’ve been using. 13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Did you go to the link and read it? No. See above. 13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: And do you believe that words can be broadly similar in meaning while at the same time having important distinctions? Yes. I understand that you are highlighting such a distinction. And I’m explaining to you the definition I used (which is a widely accepted dictionary definition). Is there a point to this back and forth? I’m not seeing it.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 23, 2019 Posted July 23, 2019 5 minutes ago, rockpond said: I’ve provided the definition I’ve been using. No. See above. Yes. I understand that you are highlighting such a distinction. And I’m explaining to you the definition I used (which is a widely accepted dictionary definition). Is there a point to this back and forth? I’m not seeing it. The point is that you refuse to see an important distinction between consensus and unanimity, and you won’t even look at material I reference that explains it. If you agree that words that are broadly similar in meaning (and are thus apt to appear in a single dictionary entry) can (and do) have important distinctions, I don’t see why you refuse to consider such distinctions in this case.
rockpond Posted July 23, 2019 Posted July 23, 2019 47 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: The point is that you refuse to see an important distinction between consensus and unanimity, and you won’t even look at material I reference that explains it. If you agree that words that are broadly similar in meaning (and are thus apt to appear in a single dictionary entry) can (and do) have important distinctions, I don’t see why you refuse to consider such distinctions in this case. You seemed to take issue with my agreement with another poster’s statement. And it seemed to revolve around how I was using the word consensus. So, I explained the definition I was using. Now you seem to want me to understand another definition of consensus and how it is different than unanimity. I’m not sure why. Is it so that I will understand your belief on the matter? I don’t really think we’re that far apart. And I don’t really care that much about your belief on the matter. I’m happy to defend my position (and believe I’ve done a sufficient job at that). If you’d like to explain why another definition of consensus better explains your belief... go for it. 2
Kenngo1969 Posted July 23, 2019 Posted July 23, 2019 (edited) On 7/21/2019 at 8:24 PM, Robert F. Smith said: I agree, and dearly wish that the Brethren had held to the teachings of Brother Joseph, thus making 1978 unnecessary. Here's one historical datum that makes the "Joseph Smith was an enlightened progressive for his time, and the Church of Jesus Christ didn't go off the rails racially until that racist Brigham Young took over" narrative problematic: Brigham Young also ordained a black man to the priesthood before he put the ban in place. P.S.: It may not have been Brigham Young who performed the ordination, but, to the best of my knowledge, he did not rescind it and allowed it to stand when he found out about it. Surely, the Lion of the Lord, who, allegedly, ruled his kingdom with an iron fist, would not be so impotent that if he disapproved of the ordination, he would simply have thrown up his hands and proclaimed himself powerless to alter that state of affairs? Edited July 23, 2019 by Kenngo1969 1
stemelbow Posted July 23, 2019 Posted July 23, 2019 59 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: Here's one historical datum that makes the "Joseph Smith was an enlightened progressive for his time, and the Church of Jesus Christ didn't go off the rails racially until that racist Brigham Young took over" narrative problematic: Brigham Young also ordained a black man to the priesthood before he put the ban in place. P.S.: It may not have been Brigham Young who performed the ordination, but, to the best of my knowledge, he did not rescind it and allowed it to stand when he found out about it. Surely, the Lion of the Lord, who, allegedly, ruled his kingdom with an iron fist, would not be so impotent that if he disapproved of the ordination, he would simply have thrown up his hands and proclaimed himself powerless to alter that state of affairs? Does anyone not think Joseph was racist to some extent or another? I thought the whole narrative the church wants to put out is the ban happened because everyone, essentially, was racist in those days. It was just normal, so the Church followed along. I think the record does demonstrate, though, as you say that the ban was instituted by BY. Joseph may have had some of the same thoughts about race, though, and perhaps that leaked around and caused BY to so institute.
CV75 Posted July 23, 2019 Posted July 23, 2019 20 hours ago, juliann said: Pres Hinckly said that to the head of the AME church at the time, as related by that leader. I don’t recall his name but he relates it on the Nobody Knows video. I think President Nelson's remarks transcend an apology, but those who gracefully wish to take them (or the year+ process of the Church reaching out to the NAACP) as such will help move this collaboration forward. If anyone would have verified that he gave an apology, this news organization would have eagerly done so, based on my observation of past behavior: https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/07/22/naacp-convention-lds/ and in support of one of its own, as a previous article suggested that an apology is merited (linked in this article). "Nelson did not apologize for the church’s previous racial policy, but Brown seemed to suggest the faith already had." 1
The Nehor Posted July 23, 2019 Posted July 23, 2019 13 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Does anyone not think Joseph was racist to some extent or another? I thought the whole narrative the church wants to put out is the ban happened because everyone, essentially, was racist in those days. It was just normal, so the Church followed along. I think the record does demonstrate, though, as you say that the ban was instituted by BY. Joseph may have had some of the same thoughts about race, though, and perhaps that leaked around and caused BY to so institute. The enlightened progressives of the time were racists by modern standards. Many thought blacks were inferior but also thought that slavery was just going way too far. America was more racist then most of the world at the time. They had to be to keep the institution of slavery. Slavery was a moral monstrosity and everyone knew it and felt it. Some tried to mitigate it with justifications and attempts to soften its harshness while others grew to hate themselves and projected it outwards and were even crueler. Tocqueville had a lot to say about the general misery in the South. You cannot treat human beings that way without the burden of sin hitting you hard. 1
CV75 Posted July 23, 2019 Posted July 23, 2019 18 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Does anyone not think Joseph was racist to some extent or another? I thought the whole narrative the church wants to put out is the ban happened because everyone, essentially, was racist in those days. It was just normal, so the Church followed along. I think the record does demonstrate, though, as you say that the ban was instituted by BY. Joseph may have had some of the same thoughts about race, though, and perhaps that leaked around and caused BY to so institute. The Church doesn't explain that the ban was put in place by racists, but that the "Church was established in 1830, during an era of great racial division in the United States. At the time, many people of African descent lived in slavery, and racial distinctions and prejudice were not just common but customary among white Americans. Those realities, though unfamiliar and disturbing today, influenced all aspects of people’s lives, including their religion. Many Christian churches of that era, for instance, were segregated along racial lines. From the beginnings of the Church, people of every race and ethnicity could be baptized and received as members. Toward the end of his life, Church founder Joseph Smith openly opposed slavery. There has never been a Churchwide policy of segregated congregations." https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng The section on "The Church in an American Racial Culture" is especially instructive in this regard, and in eh conclusion, while racism is condemned, the label "racist" is never used. 2
Robert F. Smith Posted July 23, 2019 Posted July 23, 2019 1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said: Here's one historical datum that makes the "Joseph Smith was an enlightened progressive for his time, and the Church of Jesus Christ didn't go off the rails racially until that racist Brigham Young took over" narrative problematic: Brigham Young also ordained a black man to the priesthood before he put the ban in place. P.S.: It may not have been Brigham Young who performed the ordination, but, to the best of my knowledge, he did not rescind it and allowed it to stand when he found out about it. Surely, the Lion of the Lord, who, allegedly, ruled his kingdom with an iron fist, would not be so impotent that if he disapproved of the ordination, he would simply have thrown up his hands and proclaimed himself powerless to alter that state of affairs? One thing about Brigham was his admiration for Joseph -- the last name he mentioned as he died. Yes, Brigham was well aware of Joseph's teachings, and Orson Pratt forcefully reminded him of that when he began denying priesthood and temple to Blacks. Brigham was only one of many who held racist views in the 19th century. That was normal, and I understand his feelings. However, he made a mistake in allowing those personal emotions to overwhelm better judgment. Kinda like King David ignoring the law against adultery when he saw Bathsheba, that then leading to murder. David was a great leader and a man after God's own heart, yet he stumbled, and God had to send a prophet (Nathan) to condemn him. According to Bruce McConkie, Brigham spoke about race without light and knowledge. McConkie even included himself among those who spoke on race without light and knowledge. 1
stemelbow Posted July 23, 2019 Posted July 23, 2019 13 minutes ago, The Nehor said: The enlightened progressives of the time were racists by modern standards. Many thought blacks were inferior but also thought that slavery was just going way too far. America was more racist then most of the world at the time. They had to be to keep the institution of slavery. Slavery was a moral monstrosity and everyone knew it and felt it. Some tried to mitigate it with justifications and attempts to soften its harshness while others grew to hate themselves and projected it outwards and were even crueler. Tocqueville had a lot to say about the general misery in the South. You cannot treat human beings that way without the burden of sin hitting you hard. Yep. They needed a god to speak up and say stop being racist, ye fools and hypocrites. But it didn't happen and we all suffered for god's lack of effort.
stemelbow Posted July 23, 2019 Posted July 23, 2019 15 minutes ago, CV75 said: The Church doesn't explain that the ban was put in place by racists, but that the "Church was established in 1830, during an era of great racial division in the United States. At the time, many people of African descent lived in slavery, and racial distinctions and prejudice were not just common but customary among white Americans. Those realities, though unfamiliar and disturbing today, influenced all aspects of people’s lives, including their religion. Many Christian churches of that era, for instance, were segregated along racial lines. From the beginnings of the Church, people of every race and ethnicity could be baptized and received as members. Toward the end of his life, Church founder Joseph Smith openly opposed slavery. There has never been a Churchwide policy of segregated congregations." https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng The section on "The Church in an American Racial Culture" is especially instructive in this regard, and in eh conclusion, while racism is condemned, the label "racist" is never used. Indeed, the essay expressly avoids the explosive term "racist" or "racism". But the essay does try to soften the blow of the policy explanation by suggesting that the Church came about "during an era of great racial division". That is my point.
juliann Posted July 23, 2019 Posted July 23, 2019 4 hours ago, CV75 said: I think President Nelson's remarks transcend an apology, but those who gracefully wish to take them (or the year+ process of the Church reaching out to the NAACP) as such will help move this collaboration forward. If anyone would have verified that he gave an apology, this news organization would have eagerly done so, based on my observation of past behavior: https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/07/22/naacp-convention-lds/ and in support of one of its own, as a previous article suggested that an apology is merited (linked in this article). "Nelson did not apologize for the church’s previous racial policy, but Brown seemed to suggest the faith already had." I doubt many are aware of that video. What seems to indicate Brown did was that the language he used was very similar to what Pres. Hinckley said. So there are two things here, verification and is there an apology. Yes, there was an apology to a leader of a black congregation. 1
CV75 Posted July 23, 2019 Posted July 23, 2019 1 hour ago, juliann said: I doubt many are aware of that video. What seems to indicate Brown did was that the language he used was very similar to what Pres. Hinckley said. So there are two things here, verification and is there an apology. Yes, there was an apology to a leader of a black congregation. I recall President Hinckley saying a number of things to discourage racism (e.g. this talk: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2006/05/the-need-for-greater-kindness?lang=eng ). Would you provide the reference for his more apologizing wording? I would have thought that would have garnered significant attention in the press and Church outlets as well.
CV75 Posted July 23, 2019 Posted July 23, 2019 5 hours ago, stemelbow said: Indeed, the essay expressly avoids the explosive term "racist" or "racism". But the essay does try to soften the blow of the policy explanation by suggesting that the Church came about "during an era of great racial division". That is my point. It does use the word "racism," so I wouldn't attribute any palliation to the Church's motives, especially in describing the particulars. Historical objectivity, maybe. Do you consider yourself as having been brought up in an era of racism and influenced thereby?
stemelbow Posted July 23, 2019 Posted July 23, 2019 5 minutes ago, CV75 said: It does use the word "racism," so I wouldn't attribute any palliation to the Church's motives, especially in describing the particulars. Historical objectivity, maybe. Do you consider yourself as having been brought up in an era of racism and influenced thereby? Palliation? Thanks for the word. Objectivity is a weird idea. I mean we strive for it, but I doubt we ever achieve it. I think the essay very much leans church-ward in terms of bias, even though it strives for some level of objectivity. Not really compared to eras past. That's not say there isn't some residual effects of the past, nor that racism and it's influence is stamped out.
CV75 Posted July 23, 2019 Posted July 23, 2019 1 minute ago, stemelbow said: Palliation? Thanks for the word. Objectivity is a weird idea. I mean we strive for it, but I doubt we ever achieve it. I think the essay very much leans church-ward in terms of bias, even though it strives for some level of objectivity. Not really compared to eras past. That's not say there isn't some residual effects of the past, nor that racism and it's influence is stamped out. Not to compare eras, from my observation you were brought up in an era or racism and it is seemingly intensifying in some quarters.
Recommended Posts