Jump to content

Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, Duncan said:

"I assure you, I’m just fine."

Love it!! And, yes, hopefully it puts all doubts to rest. And we get some free Uchtdorf humor thrown in.

Edited by CMZ
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

The following from President Oaks doesn't sound like a hard-line, "the law is more important than love" conservative:
 

Quote

God’s love is so perfect that He lovingly requires us to obey His commandments because He knows that only through obedience to His laws can we become perfect, as He is. For this reason, God’s anger and His wrath are not a contradiction of His love but an evidence of His love. Every parent knows that you can love a child totally and completely while still being creatively angry and disappointed at that child’s self-defeating behavior.

The love of God is so universal that His perfect plan bestows many gifts on all of His children, even those who disobey His laws. Mortality is one such gift, bestowed on all who qualified in the War in Heaven.6 Another unconditional gift is the universal resurrection: “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22). Many other mortal gifts are not tied to our personal obedience to law. As Jesus taught, our Heavenly Father “maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matthew 5:45).

If only we will listen, we can know of God’s love and feel it, even when we are disobedient. A woman recently returned to Church activity gave this description in a sacrament meeting talk: “He has always been there for me, even when I rejected Him. He has always guided me and comforted me with His tender mercies all around me, but I [was] too angry to see and accept incidents and feelings as such.”7

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2009/10/love-and-law?lang=eng#title3

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Elder Uchtdorf just put this out on FB

 "I have seen countless comments on social media and have heard many questions regarding how I feel now that I am no longer a counselor in the First Presidency. I appreciate your concern for my welfare, but I assure you, I’m just fine

I love and support the First Presidency, and I am thrilled to again more closely associate with the other members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

Just after being called to the First Presidency in 2008, I delivered a talk in general conference titled “Lift Where You Stand.” During that address, I discussed the importance of seeing every calling we receive—no matter what it is—as an opportunity to strengthen and bless others and become what Heavenly Father wants us to become. I could give that talk again today and the words I shared would be just as relevant.

Just a few days ago, Harriet and I spoke to the young people of the Church and made specific reference to how we cannot connect the dots in our lives looking forward. We can only do so looking backward. In hindsight, each of us will see how the dots connect in our lives on a more elevated, spiritual level.

One of my favorite quotes comes from President Gordon B. Hinckley, who said the following:

“Your obligation is as serious in your sphere of responsibility as is my obligation in my sphere. No calling in this Church is small or of little consequence. All of us in the pursuit of our duty touch the lives of others.”

 

I think he has a great attitude, besides, less meetings, who wouldn't want that;)

That is a good attitude.  I hope our fellow Saints who have expressed displeasure with his "removal" or "demotion" will follow his lead.

Thanks

-Smac

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, CMZ said:

The following from President Oaks doesn't sound like a hard-line, "the law is more important than love" conservative:

I know it is a common trope to characterize lawyers as being obsessed with the letter of the law, as martinets who have no concern for the "human" side of legal issues that arise.

Having worked as an attorney for 13 years now, I feel that such characterizations are often very misplaced.  I think lawyers are some of the most clear-eyed observers of the interactions between "justice" and "mercy."

Thanks,

-Smac 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours 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.

Years ago I was released as an RS counselor. One day the president came over and told me that she had been feeling like I needed to be released.  It was odd timing because I had just got past a part of my life that made it difficult to hold that calling.  Now that it would be easier they were going to release me? But I instantly knew she was right. The Lord felt I was done in that calling.

I didn't feel demoted. I didn't feel like I was going to something lesser. Those things never even occurred to me.  No, I mourned the time I would spend with these women that I loved. I had felt closer to those women than I had in any other calling and would so miss them.

I don't have any problem if Elder Uchtdorf had been sad to leave that presidency. It is only natural. And wow, I can just imagine if I had been released because the president had died just like the president died in that presidency. 

Sadness would not have bothered me at all. That's not what bothered most here. It was the idea that Elder Uchtdorf was demoted - which would have been saying he was prideful. 

We have to laugh when members come up to me and my husband and say congratulations over this or that calling.  Yes, some members will often not see callings equal, but some of us do see them as equal and it just seems funny that other people don't feel the same way. 

Edited by Rain
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Duncan said:

Elder Uchtdorf just put this out on FB

 "I have seen countless comments on social media and have heard many questions regarding how I feel now that I am no longer a counselor in the First Presidency. I appreciate your concern for my welfare, but I assure you, I’m just fine

I love and support the First Presidency, and I am thrilled to again more closely associate with the other members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

Just after being called to the First Presidency in 2008, I delivered a talk in general conference titled “Lift Where You Stand.” During that address, I discussed the importance of seeing every calling we receive—no matter what it is—as an opportunity to strengthen and bless others and become what Heavenly Father wants us to become. I could give that talk again today and the words I shared would be just as relevant.

Just a few days ago, Harriet and I spoke to the young people of the Church and made specific reference to how we cannot connect the dots in our lives looking forward. We can only do so looking backward. In hindsight, each of us will see how the dots connect in our lives on a more elevated, spiritual level.

One of my favorite quotes comes from President Gordon B. Hinckley, who said the following:

“Your obligation is as serious in your sphere of responsibility as is my obligation in my sphere. No calling in this Church is small or of little consequence. All of us in the pursuit of our duty touch the lives of others.”

 

I think he has a great attitude, besides, less meetings, who wouldn't want that;)

I just saw this on my facebook feed. You missed in your quote that on facebook, following the word fine, he placed a heart and smiley face emoji! That means he really, really is fine! :) 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, CMZ said:

Mentioned several times earlier in this thread. But the people who didn't want to be influenced by it ignored it.

Ah, sorry to be (as one of Scott Lloyd's teenagers calls him) Captain Obvious or Captain Oblivious ... :D  Take your pick!  In fairness, this thread has moved quite quickly.  (And, Great Minds Think Alike ... )

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry if this was already posted. I hate jumping into large threads when I don’t have time to catch up on the posts.

In observing the new First Presidency, Daniel Peterson notes:

Quote

First, I’m impressed by their uniform hairstyle.  I find it inspiring.

 

Second, this is a very academic group:  President Nelson himself holds both an M.D. and a Ph.D. and was, for years, a member of the faculty of the School of Medicine at the University of Utah.  (His wife also holds a Ph.D.)  President Oaks taught at the University of Chicago Law School (where he had earned his juris doctorate) and even served for a time as interim dean of the law school before assuming the presidency of BYU.  When President Eyring was born, his father was a professor at Princeton University.  (His father later went on to serve as the dean of the graduate school at the University of Utah and as president of the American Chemical Society.)  President Eyring himself earned an M.B.A. and a doctorate at Harvard University, served on the faculty at Stanford University, was a visiting fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, presided over Ricks College (now BYU-Idaho), and served twice (1980-1985 and 1992-2005) as the Church’s commissioner of education.

 

A very well educated presidency I’d say. 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2018/01/new-first-presidency.html

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said:

That should end all discussion of the matter

You're dreaming, I am afraid. :P

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I hate stuttering...

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I just saw this on my facebook feed. You missed in your quote that on facebook, following the word fine, he placed a heart and smiley face emoji! That means he really, really is fine! :) 

When I tried to mention that the board here rejected my comment. Odd.

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Ah, sorry to be (as one of Scott Lloyd's teenagers calls him) Captain Obvious or Captain Oblivious ... :D  Take your pick!  In fairness, this thread has moved quite quickly.  (And, Great Minds Think Alike ... )

I hadn’t yet seen it on the thread, so thanks for quoting. I might have missed otherwise. 

And yes, it is highly apt considering the context of this discussion. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I hadn’t yet seen it on the thread, so thanks for quoting. I might have missed otherwise. 

And yes, it is highly apt considering the context of this discussion. 

I had posted several pages back Uchtdorf's story of working on getting the Madrid Temple ready to open only to find out he was not invited to the dedication (or whatever it was he wasn't invited to) and how he was put out at first and then realized it wasn't about him and that if he was invited then great, but if not then everything is still fine. Was there some then-unknown portent in that conference talk of his 9 months ago?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, CMZ said:

I had posted several pages back Uchtdorf's story of working on getting the Madrid Temple ready to open only to find out he was not invited to the dedication (or whatever it was he wasn't invited to) and how he was put out at first and then realized it wasn't about him and that if he was invited then great, but if not then everything is still fine. Was there some then-unknown portent in that conference talk of his 9 months ago?

No idea, but it certainly is timely now!

Those who are trying to divine disgruntlement on his part are doing the man a great injustice. They should cease forthwith. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Rain said:

Years ago I was released as an RS counselor. One day the president came over and told me that she had been feeling like I needed to be released.  It was odd timing because I had just got past a part of my life that made it difficult to hold that calling.  Now that it would be easier they were going to release me? But I instantly know she was right. The Lord felt I was done in that calling.

I didn't feel demoted. I didn't feel like I was going to something lesser. Those things never even occurred to me.  No, I mourned the time I would spend with these women that I loved. I had felt closer to those women than I had in any other calling and would so miss them.

I don't have any problem if Elder Uchtdorf had been sad to leave that presidency. It is only natural. And wow, I can just imagine if I had been released because the president had died just like the president died in that presidency. 

Sadness would not have bothered me at all. That's not what bothered most here. It was the idea that Elder Uchtdorf was demoted - which would have been saying he was prideful. 

We have to laugh when members come up to me and my husband and say congratulations over this or that calling.  Yes, some members will often not see callings equal, but some of us do see them as equal and it just seems funny that other people don't feel the same way. 

I've had similar experiences and appreciate your thoughts here, Rain.   I was simply expressing that I don't think it's wrong or bad if Elder Uchtdorf felt some sadness over no longer being in the First Presidency (for any number of reasons).  I think that emotion would be very normal to feel.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/16/2018 at 6:32 PM, hope_for_things said:

Perhaps saying you like polygamy is going too far, I retract that.  

Thank you.

On 1/16/2018 at 6:32 PM, hope_for_things said:

However you do believe God commanded it.  

I believe that because the Scriptures and the Church teaches it.

It's a matter of faith, of course.  But polygamy is baked into the LDS paradigm, along with animal sacrifice, male-only ordination, the Law of Chastity's narrow constraints on sexual activity, the Word of Wisdom, the Law of Tithing, the Book of Mormon and its origin story, and on and on and on.

On 1/16/2018 at 6:32 PM, hope_for_things said:

I don’t believe God commanded it.  That’s the key difference.  

I can see that.  I have a hard time understanding the basis for your position, but I see no need to press the matter.  You are not within my stewardship.  So perhaps we can just agree to disagree on this fundamental thing, and go our separate ways with cordiality.  I wish you well.

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Lemuel said:

I've got it figured out:

In an April 2014 GC talk, Nelson said: 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/let-your-faith-show?lang=eng

Uchtdorf was dropped because airplane stories give Nelson PTSD.

 

 

You made me laugh out loud at this!  Thanks for the early morning chuckle!  I was out of upvotes, so here's a High Five!

high_five-2495.jpg

Edited by Stargazer

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

That should end all discussion of the matter

Well, your optimism is noted, but I think you underestimate those who just can't stop poking at it with a stick.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

You need to read the entire story. People though that she was not showing enough remorse, etc. The stories in the press as the reporters "read her" at points in the trials.

On another front, I have a daughter that so often would walk around the house with the saddest expression on her face. When I would question her as to what was wrong she invariably said that there was nothing wrong. Eventually I came to the conclusion that there was nothing wrong. She just had a frowning face when her mind was wandering or she was in deep thought.

Now, since Elder Uchtdorf has publicly voiced his support for the new first presidency, maybe we should just take him at his word and stop reading between lines that are not there.

Glenn

I'm not sure what Elder Uchtdorf's public statement has to do with anything. A statement like that was inevitable, doesn't change his reactions during the press conference.

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Again, the problem with that is that it so frequently fails.  Juries go by outward appearance, God judges by the heart.  There is a reason for that.  Many are misled by Hollywood movies into believing that everything is telegraphed through facial expression and other gestures.  In real life that does not necessarily obtain.

Again, not seeing the relevance. We all read faces every day - it's a key part of communicating with each other.

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, USU78 said:

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

Quality Dune reference

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

Uchtdorf is by far the most theologically liberal of the 15. He hasn't publicly weighed in on gay marriage, but his other talks make it clear that he is not in lock step with most of the others on several key matters. That may mean he has a different viewpoint. That doesn't mean we know what his views are, but if any of them are more liberal on the issue, my money is on Uchtdorf .

As you say, President Monson didn't weigh in on it either. But, President Monson never weighed in on anything controversial in public that I can recall. That doesn't seem to have been his way.

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I suppose that's where you and I differ.  Is everything exactly the way I want it in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?  No; if it were, it would be the Church of Kenngo1969 of Latter-day ... Somethings. :huh: (Honestly, if it were, that would scare me.  See Isaiah 55:8-9.)  Your mileage varies, I'm sure, but I haven't found much success or fulfillment praying for God to change someone else's heart and mind to more closely match my own.  While I'm not holding myself up as any kind of a Paragon of Virtue, to the extent I have had success changing anyone's heart, that success has come when I've asked the Lord to (help me) change my own heart.

I suppose that you and I differ here, as well, but I think the Omniscient, Omnipotent, Lord of the Universe is capable of getting any changes He want made in His Church through the thick skull of even the obstinate President Russell M. Nelson.  And as for tradition, just be glad you're not Roman Catholic.  Not only are they steeped in tradition, they have something called sacred tradition!  Egad!  Can you imagine?! :shok::blink::huh: And then, there are Jews. 

And of course, your post points to a certain irony: This whole discussion has been about nothing but change, but, of course, that's bad, because some members are up-in-arms about those changes.  As for me? 

I would be exceedingly surprised if Elder Uchtdorf felt different.  Any disagreement notwithstanding, I certainly bear you no ill will.  Indeed, I wish you well. :) 

 

Yes I see you are safely in the "they can't possibly lead me astray" camp, therefore you follow.  Good for you.  

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, Gray said:

Again, not seeing the relevance. We all read faces every day - it's a key part of communicating with each other.

The question is not whether we do it or not, but how successful we are.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/03/people-are-pretty-bad-at-reading-faces/426834/

"The truth was written all over her face. The eyes are the window to the soul. From our clichés, you would think that we could read faces like they were … well, open books. In fact, the skill has more in common with dancing, or writing confessional poetry: People tend to overestimate their ability to do it.

Most of us can’t distinguish between certain expressions without contextual clues. In one study, participants were unable to tell whether faces in photos were showing pain or sexual pleasure about a quarter of the time [1]. In another, when people watched silent videos of the same person experiencing pain and faking pain, they couldn’t tell which was which. A computer was correct 85 percent of the time [2]. Computers were also better at telling that a person was smiling out of mild frustration rather than genuine delight [3].

And yet, as bad as we are at reading expressions, we jump to all kinds of conclusions based on people’s faces. We might scoff at the ancient Greek belief in physiognomy—assessing character on the basis of facial features—but we unwittingly practice it daily. Recent research shows that while there’s practically no evidence that faces reveal character, we nonetheless behave as if certain features signal certain traits [4]. People with stereotypically “feminine” facial features seem more trustworthy; those with lower eyebrows appear more dominant [5]. In another study, people were ready to decide whether an unfamiliar face should be trusted after looking at it for just 200 milliseconds. Even when given a chance to look longer, they rarely changed their mind [6]."

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Calm said:

The question is not whether we do it or not, but how successful we are.

 

Some people don't have the knack, to be sure.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×