New First Presidency

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, Gray said:

No, no one looks like that when they're overjoyed, extremely relieved, or have just eaten a ghost pepper. 

I'm not one to throw around words like "gaslighting" or "backfire effect", and I don't think that's exactly what's happening in this thread. But I have a little more sympathy now with people who tend to use those terms. Because something a little like that seems to be playing out here.

I'm puzzled as to why some here think it would have been wrong for Elder Uchtdorf to have been sad or maybe even hurt a bit over what took place with removing him from the First Presidency.  People can say what they want (and produce talks stating that "all callings are equal in the eyes of the Lord"), but all calling are not equal in the eyes of the MEMBERS.

When was the last time people stood when a primary teacher entered the room?  (Not that they are not important...)

There very clearly is an importance or stature that goes along with being in the First Presidency of the church.  There's a change of title even (no longer referred to as "President Uchtdorf")  Members of the First Presidency are more visual and the members hear from them much more often than from the other Apostles.  Elder Uchtdorf appeared to really love that part of this calling.

It's totally normal for him to have felt some awkwardness and some sadness yesterday.  Once again...he is human.  But, that also does not mean that he doesn't love and support the men who are now in the First Presidency, either.

Edited January 17, 2018 by ALarson

[bsjkki]

Just adding this article to the discussion...and it has a photo. I had a hard time finding video or photos from yesterday to see what everybody was referring too. The stream on lds.org was not clear enough. https://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2018/01/17/many-mormons-are-not-high-on-uchtdorfs-lower-profile/  I think Elder Uchtdorf could have been feeling a range of emotions...just like a lot of people do when changing callings. Sometimes, a person can be greatly relieved at a release but also incredibly sad too. I think having President Oaks in  the First Presidency could be beneficial but I will also miss hearing from Elder Uchtdorf at women's conference. 

Edited January 17, 2018 by bsjkki

[rongo]

26 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Why do you think Holland patted Uchtdorf on the leg if not for consolation?  To most people in the outside world, it looks like a demotion, in my opinion.  It's got to be tough for him.  Maybe the pat was an acknowledgement of this?

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. 

[Exiled]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

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. 

It is forever possible that E. Holland's gesture was nothing, however, given the circumstances, it probably does mean reassurance due to a perceived public set-back.  Why the resistance to the obvious?  Is it somehow a spiritual crime to express normal human emotion?

[rongo]

Just now, Exiled said:

It is forever possible that E. Holland's gesture was nothing, however, given the circumstances, it probably does mean reassurance due to a perceived public set-back.  Why the resistance to the obvious?  Is it somehow a spiritual crime to express normal human emotion?

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. 

[smac97]

17 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Why do we assume counseling has to be a private matter? 

You haven't read Elder Oaks' article.  I encourage you to do that.

17 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Can't couldn't some counsels be public for everyone to witness. 

The Church has plenty of counsels, all the way down to the ward level.  

The Church has mechanisms in place for individuals to express their viewpoints.

So what sort of "public" councils do you have in mind?

17 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't put any boundaries on what a counsel has to be or can't be. 

Well, the Lord does.  So do His servants.

17 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I see many opportunities here.   

So do I.  These include opportunities for mischief.  Disrespect.  Incivility and lack of decorum.  Rebellion.

Kate Kelly.  John Dehlin.  Jeremy Runnells.  Apostates crave the opportunity to publicly grandstand against the Brethren.  Why on earth would the Church want to provide a platform that could (and, let's be honest here, would) be so misused?

I think the Church's current framework can be understandably difficult to work within.  But my sense is not that people agitating for more upward communications (from the members to the General Authorities) are not so much concerned with the lack of such communications options as they are with

A) a lack of sufficient/satisfactory feedback (essentially, the General Authorities saying "Okay, we've heard you.  Thanks."),

B) a lack of sufficient change (the General Authorities listening to, but ultimately not accepting, a proposal); and/or

C) just getting a chance to publicly grandstand against the Church in a venue provided by the Church.

Kate Kelly did it.  Jeremy Runnells tried it.

I am very open to the idea that members should have means of expressing ideas and concerns to the Church.  But members already have the means.  In the end, members need to repose a fairly significant amount of trust in those who are in authority.  Too many cooks and all that.

17 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I also see the leadership lacking in this counseling subject with respect to hearing the words of regular members like myself. 

There are around 16 millions members of the Church.  There is no way "regular members" like yourself can all expect to have regular, unfettered access to the fifteen men who lead the Church.  That is a manifestly unreasonable expectation.

A few weeks ago our ward's bishop attended a meeting with Elder Andersen.  Also present were Elder Roney (area authority), Bishop Davies (1st Counselor in Presiding Bishopric), a member of the Presidency of the Seventy, the mission president, and the temple presidents for both temples.  Elder Andersen told the bishops that the Quorum of the Twelve had started these sorts of meetings with bishops about nine years ago, that they try to have as many as possible, and that they had become very valuable and productive.  A big part of the meeting was a Q&A for the bishops to ask . . . pretty much whatever they wanted to ask.

Elder Andersen advised that the Twelve try to conduct as many of these sorts of meetings as they can fit into their schedules.  Moreover, it's not like the General Authorities are cloistered in Salt Lake.  They are out there.  They are traveling constantly, and communicating with regional and local leaders (and yes, some individual members as well). 

My brother works for the Church.  He works on various church initiatives pertaining to clean water, hygeine, gardening, and so on.  He travels extensively each year and meets with local members and leaders to see what the Church can do to help at the local level with local needs.  He then returns and reports.

My sister's father-in-law is a Seventy.  Until recently he served in the Dominican Republic as an Area Seventy.  I have heard him speak many times on the needs of the local members of the Church there.  He gets it.  He lived there.  He saw the struggles of the local members and people first-hand.  

My parents are presently serving in Zimbabwe.  They regularly report to the Church regarding the needs of the local members.  They also share many of their observations with us.

So with respect, I think you are largely speaking in ignorance when you publicly accuse the Brethren of "lacking in this counseling subject."  You have no idea how much effort they are put in to listening and responding to the members of the Church

17 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

Classic armchair quarterbacking. 

You presume to sit in judgment against those who are actually working to improve the lives of others.  And you do so with anonymity, behind a convenient online pseudonym. 

Meanwhile, the General Authorities and regional and local authorities of the Church, and the missionaries, and individual members, are quietly going about seeking to serve there fellow brothers and sisters. Perhaps you can understand why I find their efforts and example so much more compelling than your endless ark-steadying and fault-finding.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Just adding this article to the discussion...and it has a photo. I had a hard time finding video or photos from yesterday to see what everybody was referring too. The stream on lds.org was not clear enough. https://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2018/01/17/many-mormons-are-not-high-on-uchtdorfs-lower-profile/  I think Elder Uchtdorf could have been feeling a range of emotions...just like a lot of people do when changing callings. Sometimes, a person can be greatly relieved at a release but also incredibly sad too. I think having President Oaks in  the First Presidency could be beneficial but I will also miss hearing from Elder Uchtdorf at women's conference. 

Of all the General Authorities, Elders Uchtdorf and Holland have the closest to what could be called a "cult of personality" following in the Church.

I do not think either of them want such unseemly devotion.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Exiled]

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

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. 

Ok, but don't you think there is a huge difference between your experience and E. Uchtdorf's?  Imagine how German members may feel.  They and other europeans just might view this as a demotion and Uchtdorf will have to field questions about this inevitably.  In any event, would you think any less of him if he were a little upset?  Would that show a lack of faith in your estimation?

[clarkgoble]

46 minutes ago, Gray said:

What makes you think he was pushing it? He may have assented to include his signature in the name of unity, as part of his first presidency duties. But I've never heard him preach a word against gay relationships - he doesn't even tend to talk about gender roles.

I didn't say he personally was pushing it. I said that he was part of the First Presidency that was pushing it. That's the only evidence we have. For everything else what you say about Uchtdorf you could say about Monson. Yet we know Monson changed course in how LGBT issues were pursued relative to Hinkley. So the only evidence we have are those behaviors. 

So we can either say we don't know what Uchtdorf thinks or we can say all the evidence points towards traditionalism on LGBT issues. There's simply no evidence for him being theologically progressive (which is an ambiguous term if ever there was one - yet one getting thrown around a lot the last day or so).

Again I'm completely open to evidence to the contrary. Thus far no one has provided it thus we have to go by what he signed his name to and what he contributed to in a policy view.

[Duncan]

Pres. Nelson just put this out on FB

"My dear friends, we are thankful for the prayers that have been offered for us. As I said yesterday, I declare my devotion to God our Eternal Father and to His Son, Jesus Christ. I know Them, love Them, and pledge to serve Them—and you—with every remaining breath of my life.

Now, whatever your concerns, whatever your challenges, I wish to assure you that there is a place for you in this, the Lord’s Church. Our Father in Heaven cherishes His children and wants each of us to return home to Him.
To women, I say: whatever your calling, whatever your circumstances, we need your impressions, your insights, and your inspiration. We need your strength!

To you who are young, please know that you were born for this time. You are a chosen generation, fore-determined by God to do a remarkable work—to help prepare the people of this world for the Second Coming of the Lord. We need your strength and faith.

To anyone who finds themselves in unideal circumstances, to anyone who is struggling with doubts or fears, to anyone who has stepped off the path, I invite you, with all the hope in my heart, to stay on the path. Together, we can walk the covenant path. We must look forward to the future with complete faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, whose Church this is."

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Ok, but don't you think there is a huge difference between your experience and E. Uchtdorf's?

I actually don't think there's a huge difference between the two experiences. 

  Imagine how German members may feel.  They and other Europeans just might view this as a demotion and Uchtdorf will have to field questions about this inevitably.

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. 

In any event, would you think any less of him if he were a little upset?  Would that show a lack of faith in your estimation?

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. 

[USU78]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

I think most people are pretty good at reading faces. I think it's much harder to hide our emotions through our expressions than it is through our words.

Did you learn that from Lady Jessica and the rest of the gals around the cappuccino machine at the Magna Bene Gesserit Chapter House?

[Nofear]

I've seen quite a few people upset and disappointed by the new composition of the new First Presidency. Part of that upset is they view the new scenario as one representing a backwards step for the Church (as opposed to Elder Uchtdorf's "progressive" nature). Many hopeful for radical change despair that this new First Presidency is a symbol of the Church digging its heels into old, outdated ways. I do not see it that way, not at all.

I fully acknowledge that we, as a Church, do have things that need to change. Much of the membership of the Church is still caught in social conventions and mores that are not quite compatible with a Zion society. I also acknowledge that some of the Brethren may have attitudes about things that might reflect attitudes from decades earlier. But, I strongly believe that for more Zion-like social norms and doctrinal understanding to be adopted by the Church it is not the First Presidency that impairs our progress. We as a people (worldwide, and not just in the US) have to be ready for advancement. Some of the Brethren in the past have held opinions that we might call bigoted today. They are people too. What I have full confidence in is that if we, the membership, are ready for change then Pres. Nelson and his counselors and the rest of the Brethren and other General Officers of the Church won't hold us back -- no matter what their personal short comings imagined or real might be. And if they need a change in mindset, they will change as needed. I believe they will listen to, acknowledge, and give heed to revelation irrespective of their personal preconceptions and facilitate the Church as a whole adopting them. I have vastly far more confidence in the First Presidency executing the will of the Savior for the Church than random bloggers and commentators armchair quarterbacking.

Edited January 17, 2018 by Nofear
grammar typo

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Ok, but don't you think there is a huge difference between your experience and E. Uchtdorf's?  Imagine how German members may feel. 

Hopefully, they will sustain the leaders of the Church because they are called of God, not because of their nationality.

22 minutes ago, Exiled said:

They and other europeans just might view this as a demotion and Uchtdorf will have to field questions about this inevitably. 

I think his FB may have been intended to head off such notions.

22 minutes ago, Exiled said:

In any event, would you think any less of him if he were a little upset?  Would that show a lack of faith in your estimation?

I'm not interested in speculating about how he feels.  I'll go with his public statements.

Again, I think we are seeing bits and pieces of a weird phenomenon where the General Authorities are perceived less like men called by inspiration and more like political candidates.

Again, I do not think Elder Uchtdorf would appreciate such efforts to foment discord and factionalization in the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bsjkki]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Of all the General Authorities, Elders Uchtdorf and Holland have the closest to what could be called a "cult of personality" following in the Church.

I do not think either of them want such unseemly devotion.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm not sure why my comment initiated this response. Some of the Apostles are better speakers than others and some speak in a way that resonates with people individually. Are you saying people should not have favorite speakers among the Apostles? Is this what you call a "cult of personality?" It is okay for me to miss Elder Uchtdorf speaking at Women's Conference without turning that thought into some form of hero worship. I like his talks. They helped me a lot while I was struggling. This expression does not denigrate others in the role they are now being asked to perform. 

[Tacenda]

37 minutes ago, rongo said:

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. 

Not too long ago Pres. Eyring and Elder Holland, had a session with the youth through the internet. And they were all over each other. Patting arms, holding hands for a second, etc. So you're quite right. I think it was a gesture of knowing Pres. Uchtdorf is onto a new calling etc. So a show of support and understanding that Pres. Uchtdorf feels some sadness at not being in the calling anymore and remembering all the wonderful times. https://www.lds.org/media-library/video/2017-03-1000-face-to-face-with-president-eyring-and-elder-holland?lang=eng

[Exiled]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, I do not think Elder Uchtdorf would appreciate such efforts to foment discord and factionalization in the Church.

So, we should just deny whatever isn't faith promoting? You know I grew up around the G.A.s and spent time in their houses and discovered that to my shock and horror that they were human and subject to very non-faith promoting emotions.

[USU78]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Hopefully, they will sustain the leaders of the Church because they are called of God, not because of their nationality.

I think his FB may have been intended to head off such notions.

I'm not interested in speculating about how he feels.  I'll go with his public statements.

Again, I think we are seeing bits and pieces of a weird phenomenon where the General Authorities are perceived less like men called by inspiration and more like political candidates.

Again, I do not think Elder Uchtdorf would appreciate such efforts to foment discord and factionalization in the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

It wasn't that long ago that Elder Uchtdorf's calling as apostle was roundly panned because he wasn't part of some perceived preferred demographic or other.

[CMZ]

18 hours ago, Gray said:

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

No.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I'm not sure why my comment initiated this response.

I apologize.  It was intended as a generalized observation that was sparked by, but not intended to be specifically responsive to, your previous comment.

2 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Some of the Apostles are better speakers than others and some speak in a way that resonates with people individually. Are you saying people should not have favorite speakers among the Apostles?

Nope.  I was referring to "cult of personality" cliques, where devotion/allegiance is given to the person in a position of authority, rather than to the position of authority itself.

I have read some remarks by members of the Church which publicly express disappointment / sadness / anger / resentment at Pres. Oaks being called into the First Presidency and Elder Uchtdorf returning to the Quorum of the Twelve.  I don't think the Brethren want members to have such allegiances to individual leaders (such as Elder Uchtdorf) and/or aversions to individual leaders (such as Pres. Oaks), let alone publicly declare such things to the world.

We are supposed to sustain the General Authorities of the Church.  I think we are not supposed to prefer one over the other to the extent that we publicly express disappointment / sadness / anger / resentment at a change in callings/responsibilities.

When Pres. Kimball died, we shed some tears and bid him goodbye.  Then we sustained Pres. Benson.  

When Pres. Benson died, we shed some tears and bid him goodbye.  Then we sustained Pres. Hunter.

The same with Pres. Hunter.  And then Pres. Hinckely.  And now, most recently, with Pres. Monson.

We should not resent Pres. Nelson because he has now replaced Pres. Monson.  Each had a role to play.  Such roles are assigned by revelation.  By God.  

We should not resent Pres. Oaks because he has now replaced Elder Uchtdorf in the First Presidency (and Pres. Eyring in the First Counselor position).  Each had a role to play.  Such roles are assigned by revelation.  By God.  

It's not about speaking skills.  It's not about personalities.  It's about revelation.

2 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Is this what you call a "cult of personality?"

No.  See above.

2 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

It is okay for me to miss Elder Uchtdorf speaking at Women's Conference without turning that thought into some form of hero worship. I like his talks.

That's fine.

Some of the comments in this thread and elsewhere, however, seem to be trending toward personality-cult-type devotion.  That is unseemly.  That is not what Elder Uchtdorf wants.

2 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

They helped me a lot while I was struggling. This expression does not denigrate others in the role they are now being asked to perform. 

Again, I apologize.  My comment was generalized, and was not intended to be specifically responsive to you.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I'm puzzled as to why some here think it would have been wrong for Elder Uchtdorf to have been sad or maybe even hurt a bit over what took place with removing him from the First Presidency.  People can say what they want (and produce talks stating that "all callings are equal in the eyes of the Lord"), but all calling are not equal in the eyes of the MEMBERS.

When was the last time people stood when a primary teacher entered the room?  (Not that they are not important...)

There very clearly is an importance or stature that goes along with being in the First Presidency of the church.  There's a change of title even (no longer referred to as "President Uchtdorf")  Members of the First Presidency are more visual and the members hear from them much more often than from the other Apostles.  Elder Uchtdorf appeared to really love that part of this calling.

It's totally normal for him to have felt some awkwardness and some sadness yesterday.  Once again...he is human.  But, that also does not mean that he doesn't love and support the men who are now in the First Presidency, either.

Most people feel a sense of loss after being released from a calling they've put their heart and soul into. Bishops, Primary teachers, whomever. Why would a member of the 1st Presidency be any different. He was likely working on many important issues that are no longer under his stewardship. It is totally normal to feel some loss. It would be strange if he didn't.

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Exiled said:

So, we should just deny whatever isn't faith promoting?

I do not understand this question.

7 minutes ago, Exiled said:

You know I grew up around the G.A.s and spent time in their houses and discovered that to my shock and horror that they were human and subject to very non-faith promoting emotions.

Again, I do not get your point.

Thanks,

-SMac

[stemelbow]

I think Elder Uchtdorf is fine with the change in the sum.  I don't think that takes away from what has been perceived as him looking upset when it was all announced.  That's not to say he didn't know about it before it was announced either.  It simply means he looked unhappy, a little despondent, when the announcement took place.  It could be there were tons of other things on his mind.  It also could mean he was sad or not pleased with the way the change occurred and had to learn to deal with it.  If so, then I'm sure he's dealing just fine--as his facebook post I heard about indicated.  

I find some of the explanations on this thread a bit silly though.  I rather enjoy the humanness of the whole thing.  I could not believe my eyes and ears during the press conference after the announcement.  I'm glad they did it.  We don't get to see these men much outside of very polished very protected places.  I found the press conference embarrassing, as none of the questions were actually addressed, as, it seemed, these men were unable to respond to the prepared questions.  It seemed to reflect a more hostile perspective that many feel from the Church.  In the end though, I'm glad it was shown.  The humanness is hardly ever shown.  These guys looked every bit their age, mentally and physically.  It seems obvious much of the polish of the church's official position isn't originating from these brethren, but things like the policy change, with it's utterly poorly thought out explanations were likely produced by these brethren, even if the latter efforts, embarrassing as they were, to change it, rework it and pretend it was meant to be helpful were likely not from these brethren.  I was taken aback about how much they seemed to make it about them, rather than graciously, even if feigning such, speaking about the others and the issues.  

[CMZ]

16 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

So much for called by revelation.

 

Without me endorsing nor rejecting the idea that Elder Uchtdorf will "scout for non-American apostles" I will say that mortals can be aware of people that can potentially be called to positions AND still have revelation involved in the choosing.

[smac97]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

Most people feel a sense of loss after being released from a calling they've put their heart and soul into. Bishops, Primary teachers, whomever. Why would a member of the 1st Presidency be any different. He was likely working on many important issues that are no longer under his stewardship. It is totally normal to feel some loss. It would be strange if he didn't.

You make a very good point.

It is my understanding that some areas in the Church struggle with retaining bishops and stake presidents after they are released.  Those callings come with a perceived sense of "prestige," and some cultures (and individuals) have a hard time when the calling ends.

So this phenomenon is very human.  It's understandable.  But we ought not indulge it very much.

Thanks,

-Smac