As you are no doubt aware, the open spot in the Twelve was filled last week by the calling of Clark G. Gilbert as a new apostle. The LDS Newsroom posted a piece with biographical information, most notably his service as President of BYU-Idaho, as Director of the online initiative BYU-Pathways, and most recently as a General Authority Seventy and Commissioner of the Church Education System.
There has been a lot of online chatter about the aggressively conservative approach Elder Gilbert has, in the past, taken while presiding over BYU-Idaho and then CES, with concern that might carry over to his new calling. An article at RNS by Jana Riess reflects some of this line of thinking. The truth is we don’t really know to what extent that approach is going to carry over to his work as an apostle. Here are a few paragraphs worth of my thoughts, in which I offer comments on both sides of the question.
First, there will be a new Commissioner of CES. If you think Gilbert’s tenure as Commissioner was too harsh, the good news is that there will be a new Commissioner. Take some solace in that. If, on the other hand, you stood up and cheered every time a not-quite-conservative-enough prof was chased out of one of the BYUs, don’t despair. I’m pretty sure the next Commissioner will be more or less as conservative as Gilbert was. They are not looking for the next Eugene England to run CES. Maybe they should be, but that’s a different discussion.
Second, there is the weight of office. A calling as an Apostle is a big deal. Generally, when a person is called to high office, they try to rise to the occasion and meet the expectations that go along with the calling. That’s as true of a new bishop or new stake president as it is of an Apostle. Remember when Ezra Taft Benson ascended to the Presidency of the Church? Lots of people feared that he would say the same sort of wacky things he did as an Apostle in General Conference and elsewhere. Well, he didn’t. His most noteworthy talk as President was on the Book of Mormon. So Apostle Gilbert might be a rather different person than President of BYU-I Gilbert or Commissioner Gilbert.
Third, he will be a junior Apostle. While we often talk about the Big 15, it is certainly the case that those in the First Presidency and two or three other senior apostles carry most of the weight in making decisions. Junior apostles spend ten or twelve years in waiting before they can start making a real impact. A junior Apostle can perhaps make some waves at a Stake Conference where they speak and possibly with a General Conference talk if they come up with the right term or metaphor but that’s about it. Contrast the high profile of Elder Uchtdorf when in the First Presidency with the disappearing act that followed his return to the Twelve.
Fourth, it might be a signal. This being the first apostolic call issued by President Oaks, some fear this signals a hard right turn toward retrenchment under President Oaks. Well, for one, it’s hard to get more right-turnish than we already are. And for two, if Pres. Oaks wanted a hard right turn, he could have called Elder Bednar or Elder Renlund into the First Presidency. He didn’t. It’s worth noting that recent apostles called in the Nelson years were surprisingly diverse and open-minded. Elders Gong, Soares, Kearon, and Causse give me hope for the future of the Church. If Elder Gilbert turns out to be an arch-conservative, maybe that just brings some balance to the Force.
Fifth, there is a shortcut to influence. As a counter-argument to my “he’s just a junior Apostle” paragraph above, there is a chance that when the next opening in the First Presidency arises, Elder Gilbert gets called in. He seems like an experienced, talented administrator and he has the (relative) youth and energy generally needed to be productive in that calling. He might be the same sort of high-profile or at least highly effective counselor that J. Reuben Clark and N. Eldon Tanner were. Somone favoring this development might argue that touchy-feely talks by kinder, gentler apostles might make people feel good, but it’s nice to have a leader who can just Get Things Done. Elder Gilbert seems like a Get Things Done kind of guy.
Sixth, remember who is running the Twelve now. Elder Gilbert will sit in meetings of the Twelve run by Acting President Uchtdorf (Pres. Eyring is senior, but he is in the First Presidency). Perhaps some of Elder Uchtdorf’s charm and gentle touch will rub off on Elder Gilbert. Imagine the first meeting, with Elder Uchtdorf bringing up the first item of business, “What do we do about the problems in such-and-such a stake?” Elder Gilbert, as the juniorest apostle, shares his opinion first: “Excommunicate everybody.” Uchtdorf chuckles, and says, “Well, I hope it doesn’t come to that. Think what Jesus might do. Elder Causse, what do you think?” A few years of this could be very instructive.
Seventh, sometimes personality trumps seniority. Another counter-argument to my “he’s just a junior Apostle” argument is that sometimes a strong personality creates influence despite lacking seniority. In a big committee like the Twelve, there are usually two or three people who speak a lot and make an argument and then just a bunch of other guys who go with the flow. Bruce R. McConkie is the best example of a strong personality that had outsized influence, although he was sort of a rogue apostle and I suspect Elder Gilbert is more inclined to stay in his lane. But Elder Gibert may nevertheless exercise more influence than his junior status would lead us to expect. He may not turn out to be Darth Gilbert, but I don’t think he’ll be just another guy in the quorum.
What do you think? Any guesses what Elder Gilbert might talk about in General Conference five or so weeks from now?
[Edit: As noted below by commenter Yet Another John, Elder Gilbert is the second apostle called by Pres. Oaks. Elder Causse was the first.]
Wheat & Tares 
Honestly, is Clark Gilbert terribly different from the others? Anderson, Bednar, and Rasband seem fairly hardline to me, as is He was picked younger, so in the next couple of decades he’ll probably be president. But for now, he’ll have one talk per conference and one talk every more and then featured in the Liahona. His talks might stand out a little more for their hardline nature, but there can be backlash effect, just like what happened with Packer. He still will have to choose his words carefully.
Lots of things about Gilbert make me nervous, but if I were to look for positives, his business background is interesting and somewhat unique. He was a protege of the late Clayton Christensen at Harvard Business School. Christensen is best known for introducing the term “disruptive innovation” in his hugely influential 1997 book The Innovator’s Dilemma. It was a groundbreaking insight at the time, and still is an important way of thinking about things, even if the terminology has now become a bit overused and frequently misapplied. BYU Pathways very much looks like an application of disruptive innovation theory to higher education. It seems like it has been successful and beneficial to many. Gilbert has been criticized for his leadership of the Deseret News, which included large layoffs. That is never confidence inspiring, but in his defense I would say that a downsized but (I assume) still profitable news media organization is a better than average outcome for that particular industry in the last decade or two (see Washington Post).
As a long time reader of Christensen’s work, I’ve considered the question of how one would apply the concepts to the church itself. One of the key ideas in The Innovator’s Dilemma is that sometimes transformational ideas begin in startups that are serving underserved parts of the market with solutions that are inexpensive but good enough for that market segment. Applying that to the church, I would say that means the top leadership should be more open to ideas originating in the far corners of the church that have proven to be beneficial to the local membership. It implies being less top-down and more bottom-up. It possibly implies more regional autonomy. I imagine that Gilbert, if he can get past his urge to impose Soviet-style thought policing on the membership of the church, could potentially be a strong advocate for that kind of thinking, which could result in a lot of positive change.
So there you go; that’s the best case I can make for Gilbert being a benefit to the Q15. But he still makes me nervous. As a Gen Xer who is only slightly younger than Gilbert, he could be president of the church when I die. We’ll see what 30-something years of being an apostle does for him until then.
There are many objections to Gilbert. But one deserves much more attention than it is getting. Gilbert is one more administrator/businessman that comes at the expense of those Jesus would have chosen.
Jesus did not pick apostles who were influential, well-known businessmen and administrators. He chose fisherman and the like. Even when he chose someone with administrative skills, it was a deeply unpopular tax collector or a treasurer who ultimately betrayed him.
Jesus chose those who were naturally humble, or were forced to be humble by their circumstances. He did not choose the big shots of the day.
What the Church could use today is a few more J. Golden Kimballs who came from humble backgrounds. How about a good old sea captain of a whaling vessel? That would definitely right the ship.
I’m a pessimist, but I really like Quentin’s take on Gilbert (maybe, conceivably) being open to more bottom-up innovation if he’s true to what he learned in business school. Didn’t primary come as a bottom-up innovation? If I were more literate in Mormon history, I’m sure I could come up with more examples.
But I am also with Quentin on his conclusion. I’m also from Gen X, and I figure that by the time Gilbert is running the Church (whatever Bednar leaves behind) in the 2050s, if I’m still living and in the Church, I will at least be able to say “not my circus, not my monkeys (for much longer)” as he implements whatever wild policies he comes up with.
A few quick responses to the OP, from someone who has been around for a while.
Benson’s presidency is now remembered for his emphasis on the Book of Mormon, but at the time, the talk that got the most attention was “To the Mothers in Zion” (1987), which was even made into a pamphlet and distributed church-wide. That ultra-conservative, harshly judgmental talk was devastating for two generations of LDS women.
Even though Clark will be a junior apostle, the unanimity rule means that he will be able to block change for a very long time. This appointment appears to be Pres. Oaks’s attempt to spike any movement among the Q15 to change policies with regard to LGBTQ folks, or toward more compassionate, progressive stances with regard to politics, finances, women, race, academics, etc. Oaks may be terrified of what Uchtdorf might do as president (even though Uchtdorf is more conservative than many members think).
Some of us have remained in the church, despite discomfort, for many decades, playing the long game. We made it through the revocation of the priesthood/temple ban for Blacks and were just waiting for McConkie, Benson, and Packer to pass on, hoping that future church leaders might less prejudiced, more attuned to changes in science and society, more humble, more open to new revelation, and more aligned with the moral principles taught by prophets and Christ himself in the Bible and the Book of Mormon. To many of us, it feels like Bruce R. McConkie has just been put back into the Quorum of the Twelve.
And finally, my acquaintances who have worked most closely with Elder Gilbert are the most disappointed by his elevation to the apostleship. My understanding is that morale has been very low at all CES institutions under his leadership. He does not trust his subordinates, he does not treat them with respect, and his authoritarian ideal of prophet-worship is especially disconcerting. Perhaps it will turn out that I am wrong, but at this point I’m not sure that a vastly increased role for Elder Gilbert will be good for the Church or for the rising generation of Latter-day Saints, many of whom will see his culture-war positions in similar ways to how I viewed the priesthood ban as a teenager.
As far as him being a junioe apostle, it must be remembered that most if not all the damage (maybe notnthe best word) that Ezra T Benson did was bweore he was president of the church, attiuteds and conservative thinking that still linger in mids and speech of many in the church. Back then they sent him away to Europe I’m not sure that would be an option. All I know about Gilbert is what I hear from friends BYU. As they say time will tell! With 76 years of exprience in the church I kind of fill like Rhett Butler in Gone with the Wind, “Frankly, my dear, I dont give a damn.”
Isn’t he the second apostle called by President Oaks? Elder Causse was the first.
Another possible upside: as the youngest apostle, he is the most physically able to travel while having the last choice in assignments, so he will likely have a lot of overseas travel ahead of him, primarily to “hardship assignments”. That means coming face-to-face with the Saints around the world, and getting a better sense of the challenges faced by Church members (as well as the general populations) in developing countries. Over time, this may have some effect toward softening his heart and broadening his perspective.
And as the OP mentioned, the weight of the office is significant, as he will soon learn. There’s a big difference between overseeing a small system of American private universities and running a global church. With running the CES, he had tools to enforce compliance and was empowered to use them. He could threaten to take away jobs, derail academic careers and expel uncooperative/undesirable students. Dealing with the wider Church membership, however, he will quickly come to realize that he has no power to stop dissatisfied members from leaving, and any attempts to use his platform to coerce and manipulate them into staying will only make the problem worse.
Also, I get the impression that Gilbert is a very businesslike, process-oriented, no-nonsense leader, which has plenty of downsides, but also means he probably has no tolerance for people who try to kiss his backside or otherwise ingratiate themselves to him (though I could be wrong about this), as suggested by the fact that he didn’t rise through the typical GA-70 pipeline; his own time as a GA-70 was concurrent to his service as CES Commissioner, so it doesn’t really count in the same way. Though he might have an authoritarian bent, it’s quite different than that of RMN, who was an egotist who seemed to enjoy basking in the cult of personality. Time will tell.
Look at it this way. He is not going to be stepping on the higher leaders’ toes. The biggest leaders in the limelight will still be Oaks, Uchtdorf, Christofferson, Bednar, and those with more experience and name-recognition. It takes time for the members to internalize different apostles as apostles and to assign them clout. Honestly I couldn’t tell you who all the Q15 are off the top of my head. I remember Causse was recently called, but I’ve already forgotten numbers 6-10. Gong and a couple of others. I think a lot of members are like me. The ones with experience come to mind first. What we’re worrying about is a possibility of hardline thinking and leadership that wouldn’t even be terribly apparent until at least a decade from now.
Another silver lining: there are beliefs, policies, and actions that happened in the past that won’t happen again, even if the leaders wanted them to. Discrimination against blacks won’t happen again in the church. Forbidding and shaming women from working outside the home. Bensonist anti-civil rights Bircherism. Church-sponsored (even if indirect and covert) BOM archaeology digs and heavy emphasis on historicity. Prop 8 campaigns. Toxic rhetoric about LGBTQs, even if the church will probably never allow same-sex marriage in the temple or view same-sex marriage as legitimate.
Gilbert is a step back, yes. But there are simply places the church can never go back to no matter who is called. I think Reiss’s Salt Lake Tribune article’s wording about Gilbert being “controversial” got ex-Mormons and PIMOs in a tizzy. But did we really have that much hope for sweeping change to the liberal side in the church? And on the flip side, are we really that terrified that church retrenchment will take us too far back? I think we’re OK.
Peggy’s article didn’t stir up controversy. He was already well known as a regressive a-hole to work for. His witch hunt and firing of anyone with even a whiff of compassion for LGBTQ students among BYU faculty is well known. Mormonism is a small enough world that people know people who’ve got direct experience, and he’s not a beloved leader by…basically anyone. He’s not a good boss. The only people who like him are virulent bigots who haven’t had the displeasure of working for him.
Having said that, here’s my silver lining–because that’s what we’re doing here, right. I can’t tell if he’s an ideologue or a bureaucrat (my post tomorrow talks about these differences, but in the context of authoritarian regimes). Is he truly, deeply antagonistic toward LGBTQ people, women, and people of color, or is that the job he had to do to get what he wanted (promotions, prestigue, Oaks’ attention and a shot at that sweet sweet red chair)? I am not sure. He was certainly willing to do the bidding of the powers that be, seemingly with glee, certainly with vigor, but was that because of them or because of him? I would say that means he’s either not super principled, not a great leader (both of which are things that anyone who has worked for him has already said), but it doesn’t mean that he operates that way when there’s nothing to gain from it.
For example, would he suddenly have a change of heart under a Pres. Uchtdorf or a Pres. Gong? And an interesting thought experiment is what if Uchtdorf as president called him into the First Presidency–Uchtdorf is an actual leader. Would a Gilbert suddenly figure out how to correctly suck up to the much kinder more empathetic Uchtdorf when the landscape changes? Would Uchtdorf make a lasting impression on him (as a real leader often does)?
This same question, ideologue or bureaucrat, has arisen before in non-LDS contexts, such as in a trial in the 1960s. Sometimes it is had to tell the difference; and I wonder if there is any benefit in parsing such a case.
I read Elder Gilbert’s quotation where he spoke of pivoting (his word)his loyalty from President Nelson’s will to President Oaks’ will immediately upon President Nelson’s death. This caused me some concern, as I really don’t want to see a need for much of a pivot at all and the good ship Zion should continue sailing its course with natural course adjustments appropriate for the conditions. I would prefer for a member’s loyalty to be almost exclusively (but charitably) to our Savior, and less to the institution of the Church, and almost none to the person of the Church’s current president. However, and regrettably, I have seen some hints that some other members of the Church see it the opposite of how I do.
I am hopeful that Elder Gilbert will learn and will grow into his new role. President Monson spoke many times of a person being unqualified at the beginning, but becoming qualified through service. May God bless us all as we grow in our callings.
I think the real question is: has the Lord confirmed President Oak’s choice of Elder Gilbert? And my guess is that every apostle has received their own personal confirmation of the Lord’s acceptance of Elder Gilbert as an apostle.
I am close to multiple people who have worked with him including family members and ward members and I have never heard any positive comment about him. I am shocked that he was called. I am not sure he really understands that other people are people and not just objects to be acted upon. I hope he will do some kind of good in the Quorum. I’m sure he has talents but loving and ministering to others do not seem to be among them.
There is a lot I want to say about Clark Gilbert, but I just don’t have the energy. I’ll keep it to three observations.
(1) I am close friends with a family whose employment Gilbert destroyed when he gutted Deseret News and took it from being a more respected paper under the editorship of powerful journalists like John Hughes (a Pulitzer Prize recipient) to an arm of church public affairs focused on “community journalism” and promoting only church views. Many at the paper had given up careers at more prestigious publications to be curb kicked by a very ambitious young Gilbert who was intent on building his resume as a good church bureaucrat. (1a) I have a couple of friends in BYU-I administration who have quietly said Gilbert was a nightmare to work for when he was president of BYU-I and thank heavens he was only in the position for two years. (1b) Harvard this and Harvard that is what often comes from Gilbert when he speaks; he was denied tenure at HBS (often obscured in his autobiographical narratives) and frankly stands so short when compared to the academic and administrative accomplishments of Kim Clark, for example, it isn’t even funny. Gilbert is ballyhooed for being a part of Clayton Christensen’s school of disruptive innovation. I wouldn’t call what Gilbert has done a reflection of Christensen’s genius. He didn’t start BYU Pathways but may deserve some credit for pushing it forward. I’ve met both Kim Clark and Clark Gilbert on different occasions and I’ll just say that if I were the captain picking a kickball team–metaphorically–I would pick Kim first every time…and Gilbert last. Sounds harsh, but I think these are legitimate observations of Clark Gilbert.
(2) I think we need to remember that not only is he Darth Gilbert for his hardline positions he imposes as education commissioner, he was the one who executed the recrafted employment agreement all CES employees are made to sign that removes the CES employee’s clergy-penitent privilege. I can’t think of a more sinister and diabolical restrictive covenant to put in an employment agreement than to say if you are going to work for CES in any capacity (e.g., seminary teacher, college professor, college dean, department secretary, etc.) anything you disclose to your bishop can be shared with the ecclesiastical clearance office (ECO) and be grounds for termination–and you will never know why you were terminated or what your bishop or stake president may have reported you for. It’s so draconian it boggles my mind. If that doesn’t qualify him for the title Darth Gilbert I don’t know what else could. And the ECO, an opaque office where resumes for faculty positions are put forward for hire by college deans, disappear into the black only to be returned with a ‘hire’ stamp or a ‘rejected’ stamp with no explanation. That is another conversation we could have about Clark Gilbert’s legacy.
(3) In answer to your question, “Any guesses what Elder Gilbert might talk about in General Conference five or so weeks from now?” Himself. He is arrogant, condescending and self-absorbed. Possibly a follow-up question to your question can be, “How many times will he associate himself with Harvard?”
Jack, your question reminds me of Robert Kirby’s quip that with some callings you don’t know if the Lord is punishing the Church or the person being called.
Following up on a few comments here. I am not connected to anyone who has interacted with Gilbert, so the stories shared are revealing and unsettling. The best we can hope for is that the calling humbles him. Really humbles, not just in the performative “I’m so humbled by this calling” way. But I’m putting performative humility on my bingo card for contents of his first talk in April.
Regarding the question of whether progressive change can happen under a progressive church president with some hardliner members of the quorum, let’s recall that Spencer Kimball persuaded Bruce McConkie to go along with the 1978 revelation. Mark Petersen was a lost cause so they did it while he was too sick. It can happen. At least so I try to reassure myself.
In response to Jack’s point about God confirming the choice, I’ll reword the question this way: did President Oaks have good feelings about the choice he made to call Clark Gilbert, which he interpreted as divine approval of the choice? Of course he did, because that’s how confirmation bias works. Let’s stop pretending this process is infallible, because it isn’t, no matter what your calling. Prophets make mistakes, and not just trivial things in their private lives, real mistakes in running the church. Real mistakes like excluding a group of people from the priesthood for over a century, or maybe sometimes calling someone to be an apostle and later regretting it. So was Clark Gilbert God’s preferred choice? Only God really knows. It’s possible to have an understanding of “sustaining” leaders that can include the idea that some of them were chosen because of the biases of other leaders.
Quentin, just a detail. I think that Delbert Stapley was too sick and was in the hospital, and Elder Peterson was in South America.
There is another possibility. Sometimes there is only one person for a calling, but more often than not I think there are any number of people whom the Lord would be pleased to see called. And sometimes the Lord allows others to be called. I say nothing about the calling of this person. I wish that common consent still meant what it did for many years, but we have changed that 180 degrees. I think this calling could have waited until April, and wish that it would have.
I personally wish we would adopt a more Catholic approach to selection of the Q15 and the prophet–a conclave. Get all the seventy, general auxiliary (men and women) and remaining Q15 in a room and vote until a certainty threshold for one person is met.
Jack, I am also entitled to receive personal revelation on whether he is the Lord’s choice or not. He is supposed to be selected by common consent and they seem to have done away with that.
I’m not super familiar with Clayton Christensen or his book, but I have been in the small business world long enough that whenver some some CEO or VP or sales starts talking about “disruptive innovation” it’s almost always a tell that the guy in question is bad at his job and an unpelasent person to be around. More to the point, (in my anecdotal experience) business bro’s who go around regurgitating that kind of terminology are, in fact, hostile to any sort of bottom-up innovation or change. They think that they’re the only ones allowed to disrupt and innovate and perpetually see themselves as Davids in David and Goliath scenarios but they’re predisposed against their own employees’ suggestions for innovations. They have main character syndrome big time.
If Gilbert is making the disruptive innovation thing part of his brand, that’s a red flag to me personally.
It’s not that I don’t agree with the idea of innovation and disruption, indeed, I think the church needs lots of radical change and disruption, but whenever I hear it in the business context it just brings to my mind the image of the petty bourgeoisie small business tyrant.
As for the CES angle, I do know a CES employee who recalls an unpleasent semniar type meeting he attended wherein Gilbert basically just yelled at BYU faculty for an hour. I also have a close friend doing BYU pathway at the moment and they often ask me for help trying to figure out the labrythinan system they have set up.
I get that Pathway is supposed to help people without much money or experience in unviersity settings get some kind of education, but as an academic who uses some of the same tools (like Canvas), I find the set up of pathway to be really bizarre. In their first term, the students take a ‘life skills’ course and a ‘religion’ course. But really it all is just one big religion course with the occasional home finance assignment.
The life skills course has assigments like “share an image of Christ on your social media account”, and their readings about how to improve writing and thinking skills are pretty much essays that cite general authorities. That seems like it should be in the religion class right? There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with that I guess, but it is odd to me that they’re relying on almost exlusively church sources to learn about secular topics.
It’s a real stretch for me to see how Pathway would help anyone prepare for university-level study, but I guess it makes sense when you consider that the endpoint of the Pathway is enrollment into BYU-I’s online degree program.
Also, as far as inter-Q12 dynamics go.
I assume that if Uctdorf were to the president of the church at some point, and IF he were to steer some kind of progressive new direction (big if), I don’t think that would just magically cure people like Bednar and Giblert of their conservative revanchism.
The pattern, as I see it, is that if some apostle has a hobby horse they really want to get going, they sit back and wait for X number of funerals until they’re in a senior position or the president of the church and then just start implementing things out of nowhere, and that’s how we get these whiplash effects every now and then when the president dies. Nelson had an agenda that wasn’t so obvious to the average church goer until it was his turn to be president. Now that Oaks is in charge, we see the chruch trying to quitely reclaim the mormon moniker. Which says to me that he was never really onboard with Nelson’s terminology agenda, Oaks just bided his time is now trying to quietly reverse it.
So, if Gilbert has some kind of master plan to mold the church in the way that he thinks it ought to be, he’s just going to let it marinate for a couple decades until he ends up on the throne, and I’m sure he’ll tolerate whatever theoretically progressive initivatives that Uctdorf or Gong would cook up and then politely and discretely throw it all out the window when it’s his turn.
As a social conservative I love the work that Elder Gilbert has done. Even so I should be careful not to automatically assume that he’s the right pick because, forsooth, his sociopolitical values line up pretty-well with mine. And by the same token–nor should the folks here who are on the other side of the aisle assume that he cannot be the right pick because his sociopolitical values are not aligned with theirs. The key to knowing if he is approved of God is to remember that “by the power of the Holy Ghost [we] may know the truth of all things.”
But only if it aligns with your answer, which, of course always aligns with the Q15, am I right, Jack. The arrogance of those who believe their narrative is the only one is astounding and dangerous.
But of course members like Jack don’t care about anything more than their current narrative and the absolute imperviousness that comes with the being chosen people, despite evidence contrary and all the other existing, similar narratives in the world. Comments like Jacks make me remember why I hate organized religion so much. It’s also totally out of line with Christ’s teachings. Oh, the infantilization of the LDS church! Gilbert definitely love Jack, and not the rest of us. Actions speak volumes. Gilbert is a tool. A dangerous one.
I understand the references to Elder Uchtdorf as one who may take progressive steps if/when he can, but I’m muddled by the same references to Elder Gong. Didn’t his own son publicly state that no one should look to his dad as a person willing to take progressive steps? That was a few years ago; did something change?
Because from where I’m sitting and typing, outside Uchtdorf and maybe Kearon, they are all just shades of whatever.
My experience with Pathways is limited but my nephew is enrolled. I do recall my brother telling me his first semester classes were two religion classes and a self-help type class I did NOT say the quiet part out loud which was “cool, but when does he start taking accredited classes that will land him a job?”
Chadwick: I think your take on Gong might be the more correct one. I suspect the (dashed) hopes about him were because 1) he’s Asian, 2) he’s the guy who kept bringing the real info to the Q12 before being called, so he “got it”, and 3) he’s on good terms with his gay son. Well, regarding 3, that turned out to have some strings attached when they were at dinner, and he told his son not to post a photo of them together which might imply he actually loves his own son and his partner and isn’t a virulent bigot, which is the requirement, so please don’t post it. That doesn’t feel like a guy who’s so much ideologically not progressive–just unwilling to rock the boat as the low man on the totem pole. But it is cowardly, of course, and it is truly terrible for a parent to do that, of course. It doesn’t bode well, but subordinate behavior doesn’t always equal what you do in the biggest red chair, and also doesn’t necessarily equal what you do when the winds shift. Maybe he’s just being the malleable perspective-less beta that’s required.
Jack — the idea of the Holy Ghost as a kind of personal “divine fact-checker” is a modern LDS reinterpretation, not the scriptural or historical pattern. Your framing treats the Spirit as an individual emotional validator, as if everyone is entitled to their own private “warm fuzzy” confirmation for whatever they already believe. That approach is largely a 20th-century development and misses the far more robust, relational meaning the Spirit has in scripture.
Biblically and in early Restoration practice, the Spirit is primarily a communal reality — a marker of God’s presence within a people, not just within isolated individuals. The Spirit was recognized in the unity, coherence, and shared discernment of the community. This understanding fits much better with how the “law of common consent” originally functioned: as a theocratic mechanism for the body of believers to collectively sense whether God’s Spirit rested upon a decision or a leader.
So rather than relying on individualized emotional impressions, the more scripturally grounded question is whether the community, together, can recognize the Spirit in a given choice. That’s the original logic, and it’s significantly different from the modern individualized model.
Jack
the law of common consent”.
What is it? Scripturally, historically, and has our modern interpretation strayed from its origin?
What was the purpose and application of common consent for Joseph Smith?
In the context of the Church in 1830, the indications are that saying that “all things shall be done by common consent in the Church” meant that Church leaders had to seek and have the agreement of Church membership in order to enact policies. As the Joseph Smith Papers website indicates in the footnote for the passage in the revelation: “The term ‘common consent’ likely referred to seeking the agreement of church members for a particular course of action.” For example, in recalling the day the Church of Christ was organized, Joseph Smith recorded that: “We proceeded, (according to previous commandment) to call on our brethren to know whether they accepted us as their teachers in the things of the Kingdom of God, and whether they were satisfied that we should proceed and be organized as a Church according to said commandment which we had received. To these they consented by a unanimous vote. (The vote now is done after the fact, just a formality) The same process was followed in 1835 to accept the Doctrine and Covenants—a group of Church leaders gathered to examine the Doctrine and Covenants and concluded that it was “necessary to call the general assembly of the Church to see whether the book be approved or not by the authorities of the church, that it may, if approved, become a law unto the church, and a rule of faith and a practice unto the same.”
At a conference on 17 August 1835, the book was presented by Oliver Cowdery to the general assembly of the Church, then voting proceeded by quorums and groups, followed by the entire Church membership present. In both of these cases, voting was required to accept individuals as leaders or scriptures as canon by the Church.
It appears that the same understanding existed at the turn of the twentieth century and played a role in the Reed Smoot hearings.
During those proceedings, President Joseph F. Smith stated that: “No revelation given through the head of the church ever becomes binding and authoritative upon members of the church until it has been presented to the church and accepted by them.”
President Francis Lyman likewise affirmed that:
“The Lord has directed that in all our transactions of business everything must be done by common consent; that the president or the prophet or the apostles cannot take matters in their own hands, even if it comes from the Lord, and carry it in spite of the people. They have their rights and their rights are respected, and their agency is respected.”
I realize this is an incredibly tricky thing in practice, particularly given the logistical challenges, but I don’t think that warrants the abandonment of “common consent”, as intended to be the marriage of Theocratic and democratic systems, unique to the restoration, to ensure that we are “one”, not trapped in the eternal one up, one down position. The fact is Jack, the church has corrupted this early practice, and that’s not really debatable.
Todd,
Re: The spirit as a fact checker: I agree that it’s much more than a fact checker. Nevertheless, the is (IMO) scriptural precedent for idea that the spirit can illuminate us vis-a-vis specific details. It showed Nephi where to go to find food. It taught him (from time to time) the details of building a ship. It told Alma where the Nephites were to meet the Lamanite armies. It told Nephi (son of Helaman) who murdered the chief judge. It told Samuel the Lamanite what the specific signs would be marking the birth and death of the Savior. It told Mormon to include the small plates.
Re: Common consent: I think you underestimate the system that we have in place, brother. If the apostles were to select a mug like me to be the next president of the church–you can bet there’d be a lot of reports of dissent coming in from all over the church. And it’s no small thing that every ward and stake votes on the leaders of the church every year–that’s 3600 stakes and 30,000+ wards.
That said, I agree that it’s common consent looks different today than it did in earlier times. For one thing, the church handles dissenting views in a more private environment nowadays–rather than in open meetings where disagreement between the members could get really disruptive. Also, IMO, now that less sectarian than we used to be it’s become necessary to change things up a bit because of the damage that some folks would seek to do who do not have the church’s best interest at heart.
Quentin: “Disruptive innovation” as a principle has it’s weak points, like if it’s a new idea, it must be good. Even in the Church, a flashy idea does not always work. Take a look at the Sports Baptism fiasco the Church went through, Henry D. Moyle thought it was a great idea at the time. Oops.
BigSky: I hope “Harvard this, and Harvard that” does not come up by him. I think of Hugh B. Brown’s earlier life, when he was in the Canadian Army. He was blacklisted for being a member, crushing his dream of being promoted. In his later life, he did not either brag about being so close to promotion, nor did he rail against the bigotry against the Church. He did mention that his mind flashed back to hi currant bush trimming, of how the bush could not just grow anyway it wanted & still be fruitful.
With a church than has more members living outside the USA, it would have been helpful to choose another apostle outside the area to better represent all members. Instead, Oaks selected an apostle who will carry on his legacy of homophobia and strict orthodoxy and a leadership style in which patriarchy culture matters more than people. BYU’s national ranking went down under Gilbert’s watch, something almost unheard of among top ranked universities. The Deseret News as a viable new source tanked. I don’t know enough about the Pathways program to review it, although anecdotally, it seems to be doing some good.
Some top LDS Church leaders now commonly conflate themselves with Jesus, and I don’t expect Gilbert to be any different. With Oaks choice of a 55-year-old apostle, the Church will have Gilbert’s leadership for a long time to come. Time will tell if he softens in his strict orthodoxy. When he says LDS truth matters more than other truth,
am concerned that he will to disregard all of the best research and science and will instead promote staying inside the LDS echo chamber, where members listen only to faithful members and ignore those who suffer or are in the margins. The sheep in the fold will be protected, and the lost sheep will be ignored and villified.