Jump to content

Recommended Posts

President Russell M. Nelson, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

President Dallin H. Oaks, First Counselor in the First Presidency and President of the Quorum of the Twelve

President Henry B. Eyring, Second Counselor in the First Presidency

President M. Russell Ballard, Acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

 

Share this post


Link to post

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?

Edited by Kenngo1969
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I have suspected that there are in the GA's those who are more liberal in approach and those who are more conservative in approach.
Elder Uchtdorf and President Nelson I suspect have always been on opposite ends of the spectrum.

I don't think there is contention, but I suspect President Nelson chose President Oaks as someone with a similar ideological approach to the gospel, and potentially to prepare him to succeed (President Nelson being 93 after all).  I agree that this may be a minor PR challenge for the First Presidency, but it's not like Elder Uchtdorf has gone anywhere.  He will still speak at Conference, which is the only interaction most members have with most of the General Authorities.

 

That's what I was thinking as well, Pres. Oaks is being prepared to take over the Church. Let's be honest, people don't like the Church they sustain with their feet, how many active members now? like 5-6 million or something?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Keep in mind that Uchtdorf can still go back in at some point and was a rather junior member anyways when called into the First Presidency back in 2008.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
54 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I have suspected that there are in the GA's those who are more liberal in approach and those who are more conservative in approach.
Elder Uchtdorf and President Nelson I suspect have always been on opposite ends of the spectrum.

I don't think there is contention, but I suspect President Nelson chose President Oaks as someone with a similar ideological approach to the gospel, and potentially to prepare him to succeed (President Nelson being 93 after all).  I agree that this may be a minor PR challenge for the First Presidency, but it's not like Elder Uchtdorf has gone anywhere.  He will still speak at Conference, which is the only interaction most members have with most of the General Authorities.

I'm sure some members will be disappointed as they really do love Elder Uchtdorf.  I agree that President Oaks and President Nelson are more of the same thinking when it comes to being more conservative.

Many are already posting elsewhere this means more anti-gay stuff (people haven't forgotten that President Oak's was head of BYU during some of the ugly things that occurred there against the gays).

I will support this new presidency, of course.  But, I'll miss have Elder Uchtdorf's strong voice in there.  I'm sure he will still be a presence and influence (hopefully).

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

So saddened by losing Elder Uchtdorf in the presidency.  This is not a good sign for the progressives in the church like me.   Here is my suspicion on what just happened.  

1.  I think Elder Oaks "earned" this promotion through his vocal and ardent articulation on the LGBT topic and on women and the priesthood, and I think Nelson rewarded and promoted him accordingly.  

2. I suspect that Elder Uchtdorf was vocal behind the scenes with concerns about the LGBT policy and possibly other issues, and I think Nelson and others interpreted his concerns as disloyalty.  

This news today has me greatly saddened.  I see this as retrenchment and a move in the wrong direction.  

I agree.  But hopefully, only temporarily.  (And no, I'm not hoping for anyone's demise....but changes of heart).  I won't hold my breath though.

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I have suspected that there are in the GA's those who are more liberal in approach and those who are more conservative in approach.  Elder Uchtdorf and President Nelson I suspect have always been on opposite ends of the spectrum.

I don't think there is contention, but I suspect President Nelson chose President Oaks as someone with a similar ideological approach to the gospel, and potentially to prepare him to succeed (President Nelson being 93 after all).

I believe that, not only is there not any contention in the Quorum of the Twelve, there isn't a rift ... not even a minor one ... in the Quorum First Presidency or in the Quorum of the Twelve (or in those two Quorums collectively).  I realize that you cannot comment in detail or with specificity, but what do you think of President Nelson's assertion that each of those Brethren have already received assignments for which they are uniquely qualified?  Do you doubt it?  (That's a rhetorical question more than anything else; you certainly don't owe me any sort of an explanation.)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

So saddened by losing Elder Uchtdorf in the presidency.  This is not a good sign for the progressives in the church like me. 

I agree with this.  Not that I support the progressive ideologies, but I agree with your assessment.
 

Quote

 Here is my suspicion on what just happened.  

1.  I think Elder Oaks "earned" this promotion through his vocal and ardent articulation on the LGBT topic and on women and the priesthood, and I think Nelson rewarded and promoted him accordingly.  
2. I suspect that Elder Uchtdorf was vocal behind the scenes with concerns about the LGBT policy and possibly other issues, and I think Nelson and others interpreted his concerns as disloyalty.  

I think you may be overstating.
I think Oaks was chosen #1 because he is next in line and will likely be the President in just a couple of years.
I think the secondary reason is because he shares the gospel approach with President Nelson.
I don't think this was reward and punishment for loyalty or disloyalty.

But by any standard the removal of Elder Uchtdorf is a change from a very long precedent.  The reasons will likely be debated for years to come.
 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Kenngo1969 said:

I believe that, not only is there not any contention in the Quorum of the Twelve, there isn't a rift ... not even a minor one ... in the Quorum First Presidency or in the Quorum of the Twelve (or in those two Quorums collectively).  

On what would you base such an assertion?  Historically there has always been varying viewpoints in the Quorum.  They are not a hive mind.

Quote

I realize that you cannot comment in detail or with specificity, but what do you think of President Nelson's assertion that each of those Brethren have already received assignments for which they are uniquely qualified?  Do you doubt it?  (That's a rhetorical question more than anything else; you certainly don't owe me any sort of an explanation.)

I don't doubt for a second they have given Elder Uchtdorf something to do that he is well suited for.
That doesn't change the unusual action that just occurred.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree.  But hopefully, only temporarily.  (And no, I'm not hoping for anyone's demise....but changes of heart).  I won't hold my breath though.

In the long run all things are temporary at some level.  I just can't view this specific change as positive from my vantage point its a negative change and a sign that at least in the short term, things are getting worse, not better.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Duncan said:

That's what I was thinking as well, Pres. Oaks is being prepared to take over the Church. Let's be honest, people don't like the Church they sustain with their feet, how many active members now? like 5-6 million or something?

You're conflating two concepts, My Young Padawan.  We sustain with our hands and (most importantly) with our hearts.  We vote with our feet.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not a representative democracy which is governed by popular vote.  God is at the head.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I agree with this.  Not that I support the progressive ideologies, but I agree with your assessment.
 

I think you may be overstating.
I think Oaks was chosen #1 because he is next in line and will likely be the President in just a couple of years.
I think the secondary reason is because he shares the gospel approach with President Nelson.
I don't think this was reward and punishment for loyalty or disloyalty.

But by any standard the removal of Elder Uchtdorf is a change from a very long precedent.  The reasons will likely be debated for years to come.
 

There doesn't have to be debate (although people can debate if they want to). When a new First Presidency is organized the new prophet has no obligation to retain the prior prophet's counselors. And I'm quite sure inspiration from the Lord was involved. This move announced today merely points out priesthood realities and that we have an instance where something that was a custom but not a mandate held no sway.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

You're conflating two concepts, My Young Padawan.  We sustain with our hands and (most importantly) with our hearts.  We vote with our feet.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not a representative democracy which is governed by popular vote.  God is at the head.

I know all of that but if people don't like their leaders, they split and what is padawan? is that some kind of noodle or something?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I agree with this.  Not that I support the progressive ideologies, but I agree with your assessment.
 

I think you may be overstating.
I think Oaks was chosen #1 because he is next in line and will likely be the President in just a couple of years.
I think the secondary reason is because he shares the gospel approach with President Nelson.
I don't think this was reward and punishment for loyalty or disloyalty.

But by any standard the removal of Elder Uchtdorf is a change from a very long precedent.  The reasons will likely be debated for years to come.
 

I'm hearing this same idea that Oaks was chosen because he was next in line in social media right now, but what evidence do we have to support that idea?  Are there others in the past who've been chosen when they were next in line for the presidency? 

I do agree that he likely aligns with Nelson ideologically more on orthodoxy.  My use of the words punishment or reward are ways of expressing that same idea, people are rewarded when their personalities are synced up and people are punished when they don't align well.  I see those as just natural consequences for the realities of working with people.  

Agree with you that this is a departure from precedent.  Wish we could see the power play behind the scenes look.  I know from reading history that there have been very strong power plays and disagreements within the quorum in the past, and I suspect that those same dynamics are at play today because this is human nature.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'm surprised by how upset Elder Uctdorf looks during the whole broadcast.  There was a point or two when he seemed to have tried to brave a smile, but it really looked forced.  The moment wherein Holland seemingly reaches over to console Uctdorf was a bit awkward looking.  

the humanness is quite palpable here.

But Oaks and Nelson look as giddy as oaks did when he and Ballard announced they plan to answer the kids questions some months back.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Except there has already been a debate.

40 years ago President Hugh B. Brown wasn't retained by President Harold B. Lee.  It has long been understood that their disagreement on the priesthood ban was a factor.
I know the popular idea for many members is that all the apostles are perfectly united in belief and understanding.
I think such a notion is simply not true.

I think such a notion is silly.  But then again, I think the notion doesn't come out of no where.  The leaders want that perception it seems to me.  

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Except there has already been a debate.

 

I'm not saying there's no debate. I'm saying there doesn't have to be. People could refer themselves to Uchtdorf's talk just two nights ago where he talked about how things are being led properly.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm hearing this same idea that Oaks was chosen because he was next in line in social media right now, but what evidence do we have to support that idea?  Are there others in the past who've been chosen when they were next in line for the presidency? 

I do agree that he likely aligns with Nelson ideologically more on orthodoxy.  My use of the words punishment or reward are ways of expressing that same idea, people are rewarded when their personalities are synced up and people are punished when they don't align well.  I see those as just natural consequences for the realities of working with people.  

Agree with you that this is a departure from precedent.  Wish we could see the power play behind the scenes look.  I know from reading history that there have been very strong power plays and disagreements within the quorum in the past, and I suspect that those same dynamics are at play today because this is human nature.  

 

Harold B. Lee was called into the Presidency by Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith and Pres. Lee was next in line

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.

×