- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Does this surprise you as much as it did President Eyring when he experienced it? I wonder what critics would think of this. I think we all know this, frankly, and I think we probably differ in how we view it. On the plus side, it’s hard to have a maverick slingshot us into a difficult or disastrous direction. On the other hand, it’s hard for things that we feel should get done to actually get done when consensus can’t be reached. For example, I think there are things that would happen now that I would love to see if the pattern was majority vote – but majority vote also probably would have caused actions in my lifetime that I would not have liked.
Old-Timer wrote:
On the plus side, it’s hard to have a maverick slingshot us into a difficult or disastrous direction. On the other hand, it’s hard for things that we feel should get done to actually get done when consensus can’t be reached. For example, I think there are things that would happen now that I would love to see if the pattern was majority vote – but majority vote also probably would have caused actions in my lifetime that I would not have liked.
Good comments. I think it is important to realize that those things the Lord wants to happen that cannot wait, he makes his will known more forcefully. For example, when he appeared to Lorenzo Snow in the temple to initiate a change in the way the new president of the church should be chosen, he did not inspire a meeting to discuss it. He appeared personally to Pres. Snow and told him flat out. Then, it was easy to get agreement and sustaining when he told the councils of his experience. When the Lord is urgent about something, it becomes clear very quickly.Another example is the revelation for the priesthood becoming available to all worthy male members. There were presidents of the church earlier, such as Pres. McKay, who prayed very earnestly to know if it was time. Nothing happened. Then, through Pres. Kimball the impressions came very strong as he struggled in the spirit to get confirmation. When it came time to be sustained by the other apostles there were mighty men of the spirit there who had very strong opinions the other way. The spiritual outpouring was described as pentecostal or like the dedication of the Kirtland Temple. The Lord knows when he wants important things to happen and makes it so. The brethren get to learn patience as do we to let things happen at his pace. Whether by getting our butts in gear or being patient.
Nothing surprising in that video. We know that the FP must present to the Q12 and the Q12 operates on a majority vote. That doesn’t mean that they don’t strive for consensus. That’s not terribly different from my place of work. We get in a room to try to figure things out. We try really hard to make sure that everyone is on board. Occasionally decisions have to be made that conform to one way and not the other. Then we strive even harder to all get on board with the decision, even if it wasn’t what we wanted in the first place. Evidence that the Q12 is a majority or “quorum” based institution comes in throughout our history. There only needed to be 7 apostles present to make a decision, so long as they all agree. When BY was accepted to become president and reform the FP for the first time in over three years, it was by majority vote of the Q12, and I think there were only 7 present. Some of the apostles who weren’t present, as I recall, were pretty unhappy not even to have had a voice, but majority ruled anyway. According to what we know, the Church was ready to undo the policy of the priesthood ban in the late 60’s and even had a majority vote of the Q12 to do so, but HBL wasn’t present and when he got back to SLC, he asked to be able to partake in the discussion and was able to sway other members that the change could only be made by revelation and was not a matter for simple policy change.
Parenthetically, I don’t believe there were any of the Q12 who had “strong opinions the other way” about ending the ban. I think it is fair to say only that they had strong opinions that it could only be changed by revelation… so when the ‘revelation’ came, that was the end of the discussion.
DaddyB, please accept this in complete respect for you and your beliefs, but it appears from what I’ve seen you post that you might be assuming something about this site that isn’t correct. Counting you, I think there may only be one person on these forums that believes that the Lord literally appeared to Lorenzo Snow to change the manner in which the FP was reorganized. I might be wrong about that, and I might be wrong in how I read your posts, but you seem like a true believer. You are welcome here, of course, but understand that this site is for and by people who don’t buy the whole enchilada. So far, your posts could have been written by my Bishop.
[ Admin Note]: Just to add to On Own Now’s comment, everyone is welcome here, no matter their perspective, as long as they are able to communicate respectfully and not imply or state that everyone else has to see things the way they do in order to be considered faithful. We need more traditional voices and views here to be as balanced and comprehensive as we would love to be, again, as long as they are respective of multiple, differing views. So far, I think DaddyB has been in line with that ideal, even though his comments will get some push back from many here. /back to the discussion of the thread
I actually loved the video! It was great to see an apostle talk openly about how people disagree in the q12! I wish everyone at church would watch this as it would allow for a much more open discussion instead of saying “Bruce r mckonkie once said this, therefore it is doctrine”. Thanks for sharing! There was nothing new for me though. It was just great actually hearing themselves talking about it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No surprise here for me, I have heard apostles mention things like this before and that sometimes their discussions are quite vigorous. Regarding the priesthood ban and revelation, I still fail to see why it took a revelation when the ban wasn’t started by revelation.
DarkJedi wrote:Regarding the priesthood ban and revelation, I still fail to see why it took a revelation when the ban wasn’t started by revelation.
I’ll answer, but keep in mind, I’m not defending. It’s not my position to have to defend, I’m simply stating what I believe was THEIR rationale.From a thread last year, and talking ONLY about the issue of the policy change in the second half of the 20th century:
On Own Now wrote:To me, I am not ready to say that bigotry or racism or prejudice was the cause… but rather, plain old hard-line thinking. What I mean by this is that the apostles who protested and stonewalled the policy change did so from the standpoint that this was “God’s law” and that the Church was not able to make a change like this without specific revelation from God. In other words… my opinion… they became paralyzed by their own dogma. For all their lives, they had defended the practice as being the will of God. They talked themselves into it. It’s pretty obvious with the benefit of distance, that this was a man-made policy and that God had nothing to do with it. But when these Church leaders had the opportunity, they balked at it, probably out of a sincere belief that God was at the helm and that he wouldn’t have set up the Church this way if he didn’t have a reason, and that only God could redirect the policy. The unfortunate side-effect of hard-line approaches is the taking of no prisoners… it’s absolutist, no matter how many have to be trampled. Preventing black Church members from going to the Temple was awful, but when you think it is the will of God, well, there’s just no room for compassion or re-evaluation… only justification.
I fear that the same situation is arising with the acceptance of same sex marriage. Our leaders are declaring what God’s Law is regarding it, with no actual basis for how we know it is God’s Law (outside of Leviticus).I imagine that over the next couple decades there are going to be some… ‘vigorous’… discussions about it at the top, and I don’t think it will change for a while for the same reason that the ban didn’t change until it was painfully obvious to everyone else: that there needs to be a ‘revelation’ to undo the phantom doctrine.
I totally agree with you OON, thanks for sharing that point of view. In fact, there are many things in addition to these “bigger” and more public issues that are likewise bogged down in the dogma. One of the things that has come to frustrate me most about the church is that such dogmas get started to begin with and they they are seemingly endlessly and mindlessly perpetuated. White shirts and ties to pass sacrament is one such dogma (among many). And we see new ones pop up all the time (such as Elder Evans’ assertion that the change in missionary age was a “revelation”). Sadly, some of these dogmas come directly from members of the Q15 – the only ones who actually have power and authority to change them. That said and closer to the topic, I do agree that most believing members probably have some idea that meetings of the FP and Q12 are love fests and mutual admiration societies where nobody ever questions anything and simply agree with whatever the leader says. I do believe that some people would be very shocked at the idea that there is sometimes vehement disagreement and that among them there are personal loyalties and dislikes. I am not implying here that any of them “hate” any of the others, but I do believe that like in all group relationships there are some any particular individual likes and agrees with more so than others in the group.
Why shouldn’t a policy change come through revelation? Thoreau wrote:Why shouldn’t a policy change come through revelation?
It could – but doesn’t necessarily.
DarkJedi wrote:
Regarding the priesthood ban and revelation, I still fail to see why it took a revelation when the ban wasn’t started by revelation.
This is an interesting assumption, but only an assumption. Just because we have no record of a revelation, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Are you aware of any official statement that says it was not an inspired policy?DaddyB wrote:DarkJedi wrote:
Regarding the priesthood ban and revelation, I still fail to see why it took a revelation when the ban wasn’t started by revelation.
This is an interesting assumption, but only an assumption. Just because we have no record of a revelation, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Are you aware of any official statement that says it was not an inspired policy?
Introduction to Official Declaration 2 (published by the Church, in the D&C):Quote:Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice.
If there were a revelation, it surely would have been recorded. If it had been recorded, then the Church, in its above statement, would be lying. I prefer to believe that the Church came to an honest conclusion that it was policy, not doctrine.On Own Now wrote:Preventing black Church members from going to the Temple was awful, but when you think it is the will of God, well, there’s just no room for compassion or re-evaluation… only justification.
It is interesting how we can assume that we know enough to judge the motives of those in leadership positions. Your assumption that this policy was not inspired because you feel you know how God would run things better than those who he as appointed to do so is still only an uninformed assumption. Keep in mind that if Jesus really is running this church, all he had to do is appear to the prophet and tell him to change things as he did with Pres. Snow to change the way the new President should be chosen. Since he didn’t, we must assume it was okay with him that this policy remained in place as long as it did. On this same website that posted this video, I found an interesting answer to someone with the same assumption in the comments of the Conceptual Principles page on that site. I think it is worth considering. Here it is:“Of all the Christian religions of the world, Mormonism is the one that most vigorously teaches that no human who has ever lived on this earth will be denied any saving ordinances. Such saving ordinances, which you are referring to, have been denied during mortality to the vast majority of people who have lived on the earth throughout history anyway. Comparatively, delaying such blessings for a small segment of the our brothers and sisters a few decades is a very minor thing. Besides, if it is evidence that the church is a fraud, as you infer, they weren’t missing out on anything anyway. The only reason it would be an issue at all is if these really are saving ordinances. If they are, then it was God’s choice to withhold them for a short period of time, and who are we to question God? This policy was completely consistent with the Bible and other teachings of this church and Christianity as a whole. So yes, your argument definitely is a red herring.”
DaddyB wrote:DarkJedi wrote:
Regarding the priesthood ban and revelation, I still fail to see why it took a revelation when the ban wasn’t started by revelation.
This is an interesting assumption, but only an assumption. Just because we have no record of a revelation, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Are you aware of any official statement that says it was not an inspired policy?You honestly believe the priesthood ban was an inspired policy?
- The topic ‘How are Decisions Made at the Top in Christ’s Church?’ is closed to new replies.