Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3,500 Excellent


About rongo

  • Rank
    Brings Forth Plants
  • Birthday 07/19/1975

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Baseball, basketball, football (especially college); LDS Church history; the Gospel; reading

Recent Profile Visitors

2,447 profile views
  1. New First Presidency

    I actually don't think there's a huge difference between the two experiences. I really don't think this is an issue at all for active German members. And on the European front, I think it possible/likely that one of the new apostles will be Bishop Chause. No, I wouldn't. An incident that would be similar to how progressives think he's feeling would be our bishop when we moved to Arizona. He was elderly, absolutely thrilled to be called as a bishop, and served with his whole heart. He was released a year after he was called because the stake presidency was replaced, and they wanted the counselor who had never served as a bishop to have an opportunity to serve as a bishop. The one-year, newly called bishop was heartbroken. I really think that President Uchtdorf's situation is very different. He is still an apostle, so it's more like when we're released from callings and given other callings (like, when I'm released as a bishop and want to go into primary . . . ). Yes, I know that FP counselors haven't been replaced for decades without health reasons, but again, he was really young and young with seniority when he was called, and it's not a surprise that he might not serve until death in the FP.
  2. Has anyone noticed

    How so? Especially if the quorum is unanimous? If it were so vital for it to always be the senior apostle, then it would be codified/canonized. And we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
  3. This. cinepro asked: "If God woke up tomorrow and decided he hated gay people and wanted them to be miserable, would he need to tell President Nelson to change any of the current doctrines or policies in order to make them feel more hated and miserable?" He would need to change all of the things that the Church says and teaches that progressives probably regard as only PR-expedient lip service. If that were removed and we went all Westboro, that would be worse than the status quo, wouldn't it? The thing is, even in the days of "A Letter to a Friend," the Brethren expressed (and meant) only love and compassion for our gay brothers and sisters. The sticking point is that to many gays and progressives, words and even sincere feelings don't matter as long as the Church still teaches that it is a sin.
  4. New First Presidency

    In my case, because this has happened to me more than once --- without it meaning what you guys insist it must mean in this case. While I could certainly be wrong, and President Uchtdorf is saddened/frustrated at a perceived demotion, I really don't think he is. Everything I know about him, from when he was a stake president in Mannheim, to a Seventy, to an apostle, to a counselor in the First Presidency, indicates that he would not be into the social perceptions of his calls and releases. He was really young and junior in seniority and tenure when he was called into the FP, anyway.
  5. Passive voice. "what is getting approved for public consumption." Translate for us. Who is tempering and taking the hard edges off of the bigots' stances, then? Keeping in mind that you are alleging that the bigots are the ones in charge with absolute say. Are you saying that junior apostles are finessing their statements before they're ready for public consumption? Or nameless PR bureaucrats in the Church Office Building?
  6. New First Presidency

    I've had the stake president pat my leg or squeeze my arm when I've been mentioned by someone at the stand. That is actually quite common for someone to do that. And it doesn't have to mean --- at all --- that people are trying to get people through a very difficult and embarrassing public setback.
  7. New First Presidency

    Because that's totally how Uchtdorf (or any of them, for that matter) looked yesterday. You're not helping your case by posting a picture of a man crying and rubbing his eyes. If they had looked like that, I could go along with your "utterly despondent." As it is, they really looked how they always look.
  8. New Beginnings

    Anyone know when New Beginnings started in the Church? I've done a bunch of these talks, but I was wondering when this even started (as an expression, and as an annual meeting theme). I have no idea, myself. Also, what have historically been the YW class names (e.g., Gleaners, etc.) other than Beehives, Mia Maids, and Laurels? Thanks!
  9. Has anyone noticed

    I don't agree with this. *If* the collective Quorum of the Twelve unanimously felt that the Spirit told them to call a man other than the senior apostle, then that would be God's choice. Even though this departs from precedent. I agree that it would take a powerful manifestation to override the precedent, but if they collectively felt that, then it would depart from tradition and precedent. But, I don't agree that this could only happen if the president named his successor.
  10. New First Presidency

    "Utterly despondent?" Come on, now! I watched all of them for any signs of this, after the hullaballoo here. They all looked exactly how they look at General Conference or when visiting our local areas. The default face is stern and a little ticked off looking. Elder Bednar had his pinched upset face. I especially looked to see if I could see what some claimed to see in President Uchtdorf. Not a bit. He looked like he always does. Not surprisingly, the people who saw "utter despondence" in him are those who were very disappointed in what they see as his "demotion," and who are also unhappy with Elder Oaks' call to the First Presidency. This whole thing is a Rohrschach test that is more revealing of us than it is of how any of them felt during the announcement and press conference --- let alone internally.
  11. New First Presidency

    How did he know at that time? I think he had a problem with it, and so gave a talk talking about how it shouldn't matter. I think most members don't sit around clucking their tongues about counselors' numbers being changed, or even FP counselors being replaced by other apostles. My wife said last night, and I think she's right, considering the rank-and-file active members: Only the whack-a-doos on that message board of yours are losing their minds over this.
  12. New First Presidency

    That was exactly my thought. I scrutinized all of them, looking for some semblance of what juliann, stemelbow, and Gray said was clearly evident. They all looked upset. Elder Bednar, anyone? People are reading into this what they want their narrative to be.
  13. I don't think their answers were unclear or ambiguous. They focused on commandments, and that is the "why" as to why the Church won't be changing policy or doctrine on "LGBT issues." Had they answered according to your suggestion as to how they could have done it better, people would criticizing them for being businesslike, not really thinking about it, giving knee-jerk, pat answers, etc. I for one, am comforted that their gut response to this is commandments, the plan, and how the two are linked with lasting happiness.
  14. New First Presidency

    What did she ask, and what did he answer? Some of us work for a living, and couldn't watch . . .
  15. New First Presidency

    What. The. Heck. I've always looked at it as a package deal. They serve as long as I serve. Five years and change last time, going on three years this time, and counting. You don't choose counselors you don't think can shoulder the load.