Jump to content

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Gray said:

My feeling is that the "liberal ones" (relatively speaking) on this issue never give talks about "traditional marriage" and the conservative ones talk about it quite a lot. Generally speaking. Could be wrong of course.

Yes, you could.

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

God has set up the council system to help us to become one.  He invites us to" Counsel with the Lord in all thy doings, and he will direct thee for bgood"  (Alma 37:37).

The Council of the Twelve Apostles and the First Presidency counsel together.  They all come with their diverse opinions.  Through counseling together and by inviting the Lord to be a part of their counsels they come to know the Lord's will. 

I don't see the two things as mutually exclusive.  Why not have public disagreements on topics, its not without precedent in the history of the LDS church, reading about early church history it was common.  Councils can happen, and so can honest dialogue in public.  

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Yes, you could.

This sounds like a projection.

 

;)

Edited by Gray

Share this post


Link to post

Yay we get to hear more from President Oaks!

boo we don’t get to hear more from elder Uchtdorf 

if you think president Nelson is rewarding or punishing anyone with position changes you don’t really understand how this works.

isnt it interesting though, President Nelson & Oaks were both called to the 12 the same day. Now they stand as 1&2 in the Church under Christ 

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Usually when people talk about becoming more "conservative", they mean that the Church or others are resistant to change. Based on a number of people and comments here, they speak of change, and are resistant to it themselves. Quite the paradox, I would think. How would any of us know what is discussed behind the scenes, or closed doors? 

I think being resistant to change is a pretty human tendency that affects us all.  You're right that I don't like the change to Oaks, so in that sense I'm pushing back.  

Wish we could get more insight into the closed door conversations.  We certainly don't have much to go by.  Sometimes we have history from past presidencies after they are long gone, so looking at history and following some clues are the best I think we can do on that matter.  

Share this post


Link to post
53 minutes ago, Nevo said:

President Nelson even referred to D&C 132 in the press conference.

At first I thought he was inadvertently inventing scripture when he said that there's a verse in the D&C that says that "before the foundation of the world, women were created to bear and care for the sons and daughters of God. And in doing so they glorify God." It just didn't sound like anything I'd ever read. But it turns out he was paraphrasing D&C 132:63: "But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified." President Nelson evidently knows the Doctrine and Covenants better than I do.

I prefer this one:

41 And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.

(For the negative impaired:  41 And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I HAVE appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath NOT committed adultery and shall NOT be destroyed.)

However, the women having babies stuff goes back to Genesis so I don't think something that ubiquitous can be pinned on any one verse. 

Edited by juliann

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, Gray said:

Anyone can read Elder Uchtdorf's body language and tell he was upset.

Or maybe he just needed to go to the bathroom. 

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Wow, thanks, I also thought he was just making up a scripture.  This is excellent quick research work. 

Now isn't Nelson sealed to two women, I know Oaks is.  Is it fair to say that we might see renewed emphasis on the doctrine of polygamy under this new presidency?  I'm not saying they will bring the earthly practice back, but they could continue the emphasis on eternal polygamy and on this as a doctrine that is still important, rather than a distancing from this idea that I believe we've seen in recent years.  

Nothing wrong with that as long as widows are included along with the widowers. Elder Oaks did back up by referring to "people" with more than one spouse rather than only men in his PBS interview. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

The "Silver Fox's" "demotion" isn't going to go over well with some people.  Perhaps the most interesting thing about this so far is that President Nelson has said that the Brethren in new callings (or "old callings," in President-cum-Elder Uchtdorf's case) have already received assignments for which they are uniquely qualified.

Thoughts?

It was after having served as first counselor in the First Presidency and later, under a new Church president, being named second counselor, that Elder J. Reuben Clark Jr., gave his classic general conference address in which he said that in the service of the Lord, it is not where you serve but how you serve that matters.

(I've just now started reading this thread, so if this had already been brought up, please pardon my ignorance.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think being resistant to change is a pretty human tendency that affects us all.  You're right that I don't like the change to Oaks, so in that sense I'm pushing back.  

Wish we could get more insight into the closed door conversations.  We certainly don't have much to go by.  Sometimes we have history from past presidencies after they are long gone, so looking at history and following some clues are the best I think we can do on that matter.  

I understand, when President Hinckley passed away, I was praying to God for a recount. :) 

Share this post


Link to post

It strikes me that there are a few folks on this thread that are paying homage to Joseph Smith by, as it were,  talking through their hat.

In that vein, I suggest that Pres./Elder Uchtdorf had celebratory hot tacos for supper last night and was feeling the effects of that event. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

Does Peggy Fletcher have to be so nasty and combative all the time?

Sheesh.

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Does Peggy Fletcher have to be so nasty and combative all the time?

Sheesh.

:rolleyes:

She asked a good question. What, are you going to disagree with a prophet of the Lord? 

Edited by Tacenda

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

Thank you for your "suspicion."

Those of us who don't have suspicious minds will, of course, see things differently.

FaroffVictoriousFlyingfox-max-1mb.gif

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Projecting again.  We already have the word of someone who saw Elder Uchtdorf on Sunday night, not long after the changes were made, let alone circa 48 hours later, when they were finally announced, and he made no such observation.

I watched that. I don't see the relevance to sitting in full view while you are replaced. At all. As Gray said, it was really apparent he wasn't happy. Holland patting his hand sure didn't help dispel that image, hard to imagine Uchtdorf appreciating that.

What in the world is the point of denying this?  

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Yay we get to hear more from President Oaks!

boo we don’t get to hear more from elder Uchtdorf 

if you think president Nelson is rewarding or punishing anyone with position changes you don’t really understand how this works.

isnt it interesting though, President Nelson & Oaks were both called to the 12 the same day. Now they stand as 1&2 in the Church under Christ 

And now that President Oaks has completed his tenure as President of the Twelve, he gets to complete his tutelage under a sitting President of the Church to prepare him for that sad day when he loses his old friend and has to take on the daunting task of Prophethood.

It won't be long, I fear.

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

She asks good questions. What, are you going to disagree with a prophet of the Lord? 

He's more tolerant of nastiness than I, apparently.  Too much Nietszche reading in my misspent youth, I suppose:

Quote

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

-- Also Sprach Zarathustra

Edited by USU78

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Actually, we have quite a bit.  Pres. Uchtdorf sustained the changes to the CHI.  He was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve when the Proclamation was issued.

I think Elder Uchtdorf takes the whole "not my will, but thine, be done" concept fairly seriously.   We all have our opinions about how things should be, but discipleship means, in the end, the subordination of our personal opinions to God's will.  

I think members of the Church err when we approach the Church as if it is a political construct.  I have said as much here:

There seems to be some elements of this in this thread.  Some seem to be wanting to "factionalize" the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, with Pres. Uchtdorf in one faction and Pres. Nelson and Pres. Oaks in another.  I don't think that is a healthy approach.  I don't think Elder Uchtdorf would appreciate being publicly characterized in this way.

Thanks,

-Smac

It was evident from the way the press framed their questions -- how will the Church address [LGBT, millennials, women, Mexico, Brazil, etc.] from a social and economic perspective -- that the world has a tendency to divide people into interest and special interest groups. But the responses generally reflected the attitude that the Lord sees and loves His children as individuals, and that they share more issues in common (natural disasters, life challenges, etc.), whether facing them or helping others who do).

I would love to see a critique of how the reporters carried out their responsibilities! :) Fumbling, bad hair (for a TV guy!) and a frazzled neurotic (yes, appearances only!).

Share this post


Link to post

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 :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute 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 :)

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute 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...

Ballots?  We're still casting lots.

Share this post


Link to post
4 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 :)

 

Please don't paint us all with a broad brush.

I, for one, think some of the comments I have seen here unseemly (and I have only seen a few).

 

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post

Will someone tell me at what point they saw Pres. Uchtdorf react a certain way? I did see the part where Pres. Holland pats their hands or arms, but not the facial expression of Pres. Uchtdorf. 

Also, I wanted to express what I thought of the question of transparency. I wish they had mentioned the Gospel Topic Essays, because who can afford the JS Papers, of course, I guess they're online now. But who can actually read such volumes that Pres. Oaks even mentions that they are huge. Shouldn't they mention the essays so that people can see things swiftly, rather than taking years to get through thousands of pages. Which, btw, Larry H. Miller started and put up funds for. It really wasn't the church that started it, that I know of, but glad they did.

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.

×