New First Presidency

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Of course you do.  And of course you thought so.  And of course you believe that.  And her bellowing out a followup when she didn't get the "gotcha" answer she was plainly after was highly respectful and professionally executed.  /sarcasm 

Sounds like you have a prejudice here, is that really sarcasm?  BTW, President Nelson forgot her original question at first, and he never answered the part of about women, so it seems appropriate that she asked a follow up before they moved on.  

[ttribe]

17 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I can assure you I had no intentions of the sort with my use of that word.  Would be nice to have the benefit of the doubt sometimes, I'm really not a bad guy.  

Gee, it almost seems like the people responding to you might have...*gasp*...suspicious minds?!

[Avatar4321]

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

One thing I think it would have been smart to do, during the initial announcement of the new First Presidency or at the press conference afterward, is to give Elder Uchtdorf some time (if he wanted it) to say something and (unless there's a rift in the Quorum of the Twelve or the First Presidency ) to express support for the new First Presidency.

I think such a course would do something to put to rest any notion of such a rift.  I would be surprised if Elder Uchtdorf didn't address it somehow in his upcoming Conference address.

I doubt it crossed their minds that anyone would be thinking this change indicated a rift among the fp and 12

[USU78]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Sounds like you have a prejudice here, is that really sarcasm?  BTW, President Nelson forgot her original question at first, and he never answered the part of about women, so it seems appropriate that she asked a follow up before they moved on.  

Quote

And holding my nose, I went morosely through all yesterdays and todays:  verily, badly smell the all yesterdays and todays of the scribbling rabble.  --  Also Sprach Zarathustra, Nietzsche

Celebrating the best religion writer at a newspaper is like handing a humanitarian award to the tallest gal in Mensa.

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, drums12 said:

With respect, I think there is abundant precedent for conflict in the highest quorums of the Church.  Just because the 12 and FP put up a united Front doesn't mean it's so.

I disagree, and I think it's more than a front.  

[Kenngo1969]

1 minute ago, Avatar4321 said:

I doubt it crossed their minds that anyone would be thinking this change indicated a rift among the fp and 12

You're probably right there.  Just shows how little imagination the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve have, compared to the chattering classes in LDS Cyberspace.  

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Why do we assume counseling has to be a private matter?  Can't couldn't some counsels be public for everyone to witness.  I don't put any boundaries on what a counsel has to be or can't be.  I see many opportunities here.   I also see the leadership lacking in this counseling subject with respect to hearing the words of regular members like myself.  Feedback from the bottom to the top is seriously not working well in the current system.  Great opportunities to counsel with regular individuals and increase that dialogue.  

I suspect many would be less open in their speech if the counsels were public.  Since most who encourage public meetings also tend to push encouraging people to be their authentic selves, they should seriously consider potential backfire when people feel they are on display as many would feel if their private discussions became public.

I do think feedback or ways for members to believe their voices are heard and respected could definitely be improved or at the very least more teaching and public approval of using current options.  For an example of why I think this way, I had no clue who else to appeal to when a bishop would not step in and stop an understaffed overnight, winter scout camp...one leader taking a dozen 12 year old boys overnight in one very old and beat up van up into the mountains to a lonely, likely empty campground in winter pre-cellphone days was not only against all Church and Scouting rules, but totally idiotic...if the leader had been injured or the van broke down and he had to walk for help, what a nightmare especially considering the immaturity on some of the boys.  Thankfully this has been my only time I felt the need to appeal for more help, but couldn't and even more thankfully, nothing bad happened.  I have heard from sources I see as trustworthy of those who have appealed to stake presidents and been essentially ignored, who felt helpless with their only option left to withdraw their family while leaving others in what they saw as dangerous situations.  I believe a hotline for any member to report over safety issues that was staffed with people appointed by SL and not local leaders to avoid potential protectionism as much as possible would be wise; but I may not be aware of issues that make this unviable.

I am not pro the idea of wide open mike night such as what happens in city councils given that complaints and concerns in the Church often involved the private lives of other members.  Perhaps a bishop and stake president could set aside a few hours a month to have appointments to discuss concerns in general and if he were to make this well known, in emergencies people would be more comfortable in seeking help.  Also it really should be better publicized who one should appeal to if one does not believe the stake president is adequately addressing one's concerns...yes, this means the obsessives, antis, and emotionally and mentally unstable will be harassing leaders more, but the benefit would outweigh the cost, imo.

[Kenngo1969]

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Gee, it almost seems like the people responding to you might have...*gasp*...suspicious minds?!

 

[Avatar4321]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Well, not really:

There have been twelve instances, prior to Elder Echtdorf, of counselors in the First Presidency not being retained in that calling in the subsequent First Presidency.  That seems like ample precedent.

Thanks,

-Smac

Surprised Sydney rigdon wasn’t on that list

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Anything that reinforces polygamy as divine and eternal doctrine, I guarantee will rub a lot of people wrong.  Ideally the church would articulate that this idea of polygamy wasn't commanded by God and that any relationships in the next life must be equally agreed upon by all parties in order to be in effect.  Something that doesn't privilege men would be my preference, so relationships could go both ways.  But I don't expect that to ever happen.  

It would be easy enough to open up multiple sealings for living women to make it identical to men given that policy is identical for the dead...with currently no explanation of "the woman has to chose" attached.

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I've only got a couple of pages in, but I have to say that you guys aren't all that different from Catholics when it comes to speculating on why a president/pope was chosen, what was done behind the scenes, and what it will mean going forward

 

Quote

From CA Steve: Is the elevation of the senior apostle to prophet, a policy or doctrine?

By tradition I think, the next President is kind of predetermined as the senior most member of the apostles quorum. I suppose that cuts down on speculation, but there is still speculation regarding his counselors. However, in the beginning there was an election put to the body. If I read our law correctly, however, the only qualification needed to be called as President is that one be a high priest.

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Now, you've just got to be like the cool kids and install a chimney in the SLC temple to burn the ballots...

In the first presidential succession there was a general vote taken - I don't know what they did with the ballots - probably nothing so cool as burning them in the chimney. That "necessity" was done away in the next presidential succession.

 

 

Edited January 16, 2018 by RevTestament

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think the trend in society in general including the Mormon church is to make difficult decisions behind closed doors.  This happens increasingly often in congress and the church has a history of this as well.  Joseph started this tradition with his secrecy and secret councils and rituals.  I believe there is a yearning for more public discussions and articulations of concepts in society at large.  I believe this is a gospel principle, that we should aspire to.  I believe the gospel teaches us that the best ideas should win the day and that it is our duty and a moral responsibility to articulate and persuade others towards the best principles.  These are concepts I find worth taking a leadership position on, and I support those who try to bring things into the open and have honest discussions in respectful ways.  Shining light on things hidden in the darkness can have a real sanitizing effect, both metaphorically and literally.  

If the contents of the meetings would be limited solely to those who are committed to support leadership and the faith community (even if in nonconventional ways), I would be more inclined.  However, I have seen too much targeting by those antagonistic to the community itself to feel comfortable in insisting people make themselves targets by being fully open in public settings.  Leaders have as much right to be protected as the rest of the community.

Edited January 16, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

I doubt it crossed their minds that anyone would be thinking this change indicated a rift among the fp and 12

I would be surprised if they didn't as I believe the lack of factions have been mentioned by some, possibly PA people but if they are saying it, I believe the top leaders would be aware that this type of discussion occurs.

[Duncan]

Here is what the late Pres. Hugh B. Brown wrote about not being retained in the 1st Presidency when Pres. McKay died, 

"Joseph Fielding Smith was sustained as the new President of the Church. He selected Harold B. Lee as his First Counselor and  Nathan Eldon Tanner as second counselor. I therefore took my place  in the Twelve; because of illness I have been somewhat inactive"

The Memoirs of Hugh B. Brown, p132

 I didn't know that Pres. Tanner was a 2nd counselor to Pres. Smith, although how he felt about it, I don't know if we'd ever know as he was like Pres. Hunter, just a very quiet, unassuming person and probably not concerned with the title of his calling

[bsjkki]

37 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Often it's out of the bishop's control. Sometimes the Stake requires these changes. I once went through 4 different counselors in a year because the stake continually would take my counselors for other positions. And yes, it did create challenges and chaos.

I think having them taken for a stake callings makes more sense than just a release. Do some Bishops change counselors purposely to provide the experience for more people? I know, in my ward, the released counselors both struggled to understand why they were released. There was not an obvious calling waiting for them. When I grew up, the counselors served the same term as the Bishop unless they moved. But, I've seen many people struggle when they were released from a large calling. It often takes an emotional adjustment for some people...especially if it seems premature and no new callings is waiting in the wings. Some take a release very personally or feel fired. 

[USU78]

18 minutes ago, rongo said:

What did she ask, and what did he answer?

Some of us work for a living, and couldn't watch . . .  

Start about 2:11:30, and ends about 2:19:00.

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/president-nelson-press-conference-recap

They want to make a paean to divine womanhood.  She wants to complain about quotas.  They aren't remotely speaking the same language. 

She knows her readership.  Her readership demands smart@rsery.

They know the truth of women's place in this here world  ...  and what a hole is left in the lives of those who experience loss of wife, loss of mother ... loss of woman.  Weepy Hal tells us more about the worth of woman than anything the likes of Peggy Fletcher ever could.

[smac97]

15 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I think the trend in society in general including the Mormon church is to make difficult decisions behind closed doors. 

I think the Church has had this preference in place for quite a while.  I don't think it's followed any specific social trend.

Quote

This happens increasingly often in congress and the church has a history of this as well. 

That the Church "has a history" of "behind closed doors" discussions rather undermines the suggestion that it is following a trend.

Quote

Joseph started this tradition with his secrecy and secret councils and rituals. 

I don't think "secrecy" is apt at all.  It's more a matter of discretion and decorum.

There are all sorts of eminently reasonable grounds for leadership groups to not hash out their decision-making processes in the public sphere.  To suggest that this amounts to "secrecy" is a bit silly.

Quote

I believe there is a yearning for more public discussions and articulations of concepts in society at large. 

In some ways, yes.  In politics, for example.

But in many other ways, however, I think your assessment is very incorrect. 

Lots of people value their privacy. 

Lots of people value discretion. 

Lots of people recognize that "popular opinion" can be a less-than-ideal means of adjudicating difficult issues. 

This is why consumers want their banks and ISPs and computers and smartphones and government entities and medical and mental health providers and clergy and so on to protect private information, not publish it for examination for any particular reason, or no reason at all.  

This is why we have courts of law, rather than mob rule or arbitrary tyrants.  As an attorney, I have been involved in countless disputes in which sensitive and difficult issues have been raised and addressed.  "Public discussions and articulations of concepts" do not really factor into these efforts.  To the contrary, these matters are handled formally.  In controlled circumstances.  The parties are constrained by rules of evidence and procedure.  And there is a clear decision-making apparatus (the judge), and a clear mechanism for disagreeing with that apparatus (appellate courts).

You must concur with this to some great extent, HFT.  You have not published your real name on this board.  Or your home address.  Or telephone number.  Or email address.  Or social security number.  Or bank account number.  Or the results of your latest medical physical.  Or your pet peeves you harbor regarding your spouse or children.  This is not because you are obsessed with "secrecy."  It is because these things are none of our business.  You are right to not disclose such things in the public sphere.

So it is, I think, with many of the difficult topics that are addressed by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.

Quote

I believe this is a gospel principle, that we should aspire to. 

CFR, please.  Chapter and verse.

Meanwhile, I'm going to go with the principles set out by then-Elder Oaks in this 1987 article:

Quote

In the private world, we have a right to expect critical evaluation of anything that is put into the marketplace or the public domain. Sports writers, reviewers of books and music, scholars, investment analysts, and those who test products and services must be free to exercise their critical faculties and to inform the public accordingly. This kind of criticism is usually directed toward issues, and it is usually constructive.

...

Government or corporate officials, who are elected directly or indirectly or appointed by majority vote, must expect that their performance will be subject to critical and public evaluations by their constituents. That is part of the process of informing those who have the right and power of selection or removal. The same is true of popularly elected officers in professional, community, and other private organizations. I suppose that the same is true even of church leaders who are selected by popular vote of members or their representative bodies. Consistent with gospel standards, these evaluations—though critical and public—should be constructive.

A different principle applies in our Church, where the selection of leaders is based on revelation, subject to the sustaining vote of the membership.

...

The first principle in the gospel procedure for managing differences is to keep our personal differences private. In this we have worthy examples to follow. Every student of Church history knows that there have been differences of opinion among Church leaders since the Church was organized. Each of us has experienced such differences in our work in auxiliaries, quorums, wards, stakes, and missions of the Church. We know that such differences are discussed, but not in public. Counselors acquiesce in the decisions of their president. Teachers follow the direction of their presidency. Members are loyal to the counsel of their bishop. All of this is done quietly and loyally—even by members who would have done differently if they had been in the position of authority.

Why aren’t these differences discussed in public? Public debate—the means of resolving differences in a democratic government—is not appropriate in our Church government. We are all subject to the authority of the called and sustained servants of the Lord. They and we are all governed by the direction of the Spirit of the Lord, and that Spirit only functions in an atmosphere of unity. That is why personal differences about Church doctrine or procedure need to be worked out privately. There is nothing inappropriate about private communications concerning such differences, provided they are carried on in a spirit of love.

There are at least five different procedures a Church member can follow in addressing differences with Church leaders—general or local, male or female.

...

The third procedure, which should be familiar to every student of the Bible, is to take up our differences privately with the leader involved. The Savior taught: “If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.” (Matt. 18:15.)

This course of action may be pursued in a private meeting, if possible, or it may be done through a letter or other indirect communication. How many differences could be resolved if we would only communicate privately about them! Some would disappear as they were identified as mere misunderstandings. Others would be postponed with an agreement to disagree for the present. But in many instances, private communications about differences would remove obstacles to individual growth and correction.

...

A fourth option is to communicate with the Church officer who has the power to correct or release the person thought to be in error or transgression. The Bible calls this “tell[ing] it unto the church.” (Matt. 18:17.) Modern scripture, in the revelation we call “the law of the Church,” describes this procedure:

“And if he or she confess not thou shalt deliver him or her up unto the church, not to the members, but to the elders. And it shall be done in a meeting, and that not before the world.” (D&C 42:89.)

Note the caution that this remedy is to be private—“not before the world.” This is not done in order to hide the facts, but rather to increase the chance that the correction will improve the life of a brother or sister.

As to matters of church governance, I think the Brethren are quite correct in their practice of addressing sensitive and difficult issues in councils, not in the public sphere.  The former allows those quorums to seek the will of God, whereas the latter would essentially make discussions devolve into politicking and popularity contests.

Quote

I believe the gospel teaches us that the best ideas should win the day and that it is our duty and a moral responsibility to articulate and persuade others towards the best principles. 

Well, yes.  But in the appropriate time, and place, and manner.  The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve presently hash things out in the temple.  Not on Facebook.  Not in the news media.  Not on YouTube.  

What they are doing is the best way to go.

Quote

These are concepts I find worth taking a leadership position on, and I support those who try to bring things into the open and have honest discussions in respectful ways.  Shining light on things hidden in the darkness can have a real sanitizing effect, both metaphorically and literally.  

I cannot imagine a more offensive way to characterize the discussions of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles - taking place in councils mandated by scripture, with attendant fasting and prayer, and in the temple - than claiming that such discussions are "hidden in the darkness."

The mind reels, actually.

I really hope I am misunderstanding your meaning here.

-Smac

Edited January 17, 2018 by smac97

[hope_for_things]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

If the contents of the meetings would be limited solely to those who are committed to support leadership and the faith community (even if in nonconventional ways), I would be more inclined.  However, I have seen too much targeting by those antagonistic to the community itself to feel comfortable in insisting people make themselves targets by being fully open in public settings.  Leaders have as much right to be protected as the rest of the community.

I don't see a need for "protection" from those with differences in opinion.  Why should ideas need protection, if the whole concept of the best ideas are the most persuasive at the end of the day.  Protection is needed to shield people and institutions from having to account for their poor ideas that aren't persuasive.  

[hope_for_things]

16 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Here is what the late Pres. Hugh B. Brown wrote about not being retained in the 1st Presidency when Pres. McKay died, 

"Joseph Fielding Smith was sustained as the new President of the Church. He selected Harold B. Lee as his First Counselor and  Nathan Eldon Tanner as second counselor. I therefore took my place  in the Twelve; because of illness I have been somewhat inactive"

The Memoirs of Hugh B. Brown, p132

 I didn't know that Pres. Tanner was a 2nd counselor to Pres. Smith, although how he felt about it, I don't know if we'd ever know as he was like Pres. Hunter, just a very quiet, unassuming person and probably not concerned with the title of his calling

Thanks for sharing this.  If this is accurate, then that makes the Uchtdorf demotion even more unique.  I don't think there is any evidence of him having any health problems.  

[Gray]

2 hours ago, CMZ said:

First of all we don't know that he was upset and, if so, why. He also spoke in April about how things like this don't matter:

 

If he now has personal feelings of being upset then he individually just has to remember what he said in April. And that's a big "if."

It's pretty clear though that he was upset at the meeting announcing the new presidency, right?

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I will admit we don't have much to go off when it comes to knowing what any of these people actually think on these issues, so we're really just left to speculate based on what little evidence exists, and perhaps I'm over reaching in my assessments on both sides.  

But surely we can look at their behavior. Both Monson and Uchtdorf were the leadership from the Prop-8 days onwards. I'm not quite sure how one can say Uchtdorf wasn't involved. Further there's nothing in Uchtdorf's rhetoric that suggests he disagrees. (Contrast this with say Brown) We do have Uchtdorf signing various First Presidency letters on LGBT that I think go against this reading of Uchtdorf as a theological liberal. Uchtdorf also, contra to some reports, has spoken on LGBT. 

 

[pogi]

I was analyzing facial expressions from Elder Uchtdorf, but then I started looking at everyone else's expressions and had to laugh.  What do you make of these facial expressions?  They all held that exact same expression for what felt like a minute!  If Elder Uchtdorf is interpreted as being upset, President Nelson must be irate, President Oaks jsut wishes that he was somewhere else, and Presidnt Eyring...completely befuddled! 

[pogi]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's pretty clear though that he was upset at the meeting announcing the new presidency, right?

It is no  more clear to me that Uchtdorf was upset then it is clear that President Nelson was irate.  Facial expressions are not always "clear" indicators of feelings.  Elder Uchtdorf looked pleasant to me.  It is a funny exercise to watch the different facial expressions of the different Apostles in that video and guess what they are thinking and feeling.

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

I was analyzing facial expressions from Elder Uchtdorf, but then I started looking at everyone else's expressions and had to laugh.  What do you make of these facial expressions?  They all held that exact same expression for what felt like a minute!  If Elder Uchtdorf is interpreted as being upset, President Nelson must be irate, President Oaks jsut wishes that he was somewhere else, and Presidnt Eyring...completely befuddled! 

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.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Anything that reinforces polygamy as divine and eternal doctrine, I guarantee will rub a lot of people wrong. 

Yep.  It'd be John 6 all over again.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Ideally the church would articulate that this idea of polygamy wasn't commanded by God

How is telling a falsehood "ideal?"  Polygamy manifestly was "commanded by God."

You might as well say "Ideally the Savior should have articulated that His remarks in John 6 were wrong."  After all, He said some things that "rub{bed} a lot of people wrong," too.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

and that any relationships in the next life must be equally agreed upon by all parties in order to be in effect. 

This is axiomatic.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Something that doesn't privilege men would be my preference, so relationships could go both ways.  But I don't expect that to ever happen.  

I don't believe that men are privileged over women, or that women are privileged over men.  We are all, in the end, "equal in the bonds of heavenly things" (D&C 78:5).

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Probably the best I can hope for is an eventual selective decanonization of parts of D&C 132.  

So all of this is just an exercise in wishful thinking.  Got it.

Thanks,

-Smac