bluebell

I think they only call an acting president when the actual president is in the first presidency. So Oaks was the actual president of the previous quorum of the 12 apostles but because he was in the first presidency, they called an acting president to fulfill those duties. But there is no need for an acting president at this time because president Holland is the actual president.

He does look old, but I meant tired. When the camera panned over to the new counselors elder hiring was looking a little out of it for the first few seconds.

This book specifically is about polish police officers who were commandeered (for lack of a better term) by the nazis when the nazis took Poland. So they didn’t get to vote on it. But I think your point stands. Many were ok with following the nazi regime because they were promised power and other things for doing so. They already didn’t really like Jewish people, so the leap wasn’t that far.

I don't think Pres. Christofferson was on anyone's list. I've liked him since I got to hear him speak in person a long time ago and realized how funny he was. He'll do good. Pres. Eyring just looks tired but we already know he'll do wonderfully as well.

I was going to say that this probably isn't that unique of a situation (chapels burning down on consecutive days around the world), we are just more aware of chapel fires right now because of Michigan.

It's focus is historical, so not overtly. But it teaches some good lessons about human psychology. It outlines exactly what you've said--we all think we'd be the exception but most of us wouldn't be. Not because we are evil but because we are built to justify immorality when it serves us. These men agreed to do these horrible things for a lot of different reasons but mostly it was a weird combination of their sense of community, personal obligation to each other, and self-centeredness. They didn't want to stand out, they wanted to be supportive of each other and bear their share of the weight (knowing that if they refused the guy next to them would have to do more), and they wanted the perks for themselves and their communities that compliance provided. Because they were being asked to harm a group that they had sufficiently 'othered' for generations, the cost to be the exception didn't really make sense. It would be like hurting your own family to save the life of a horse. (a side note--The nazis had wanted these polish officers to shoot all the Jewish people in their communities (thousands of Jewish people) one by one, but the men couldn't do it more than a few times without breaking down. They couldn't give them enough alcohol to get them to do it face to face like they had planned. But the nazis came up with less personal ways to kill the Jewish people, so most of the soldiers adapted and continued to comply. Some refused after initially participating though and for the most part, they were allowed to without much pushback.) My takeaway (read in between the lines) of these men's story is that to be the exception you have to be willing to stand out among your peers, you have to have a firm sense of the worth of everyone (you can have no enemies, no 'othering' of people who are different), and you have to be willing to suffer, often for people you don't know and who you can't save anyway. It's hard to suffer for strangers. If we haven't developed a strong sense of morality and Christ-like love for all, most of us would never do it. We will choose ourselves every time.

Yesterday I couldn't get it to work on my phone but it was fine on my computer. Today it's been better for me.

Ordinary Men by Christopher Browning is a haunting book about how the Nazis got basically “decent” men to do unimaginable acts of evil for them. The book also goes into detail about the psychological effects of such compliance. Notably, it also discusses the exceptions and how compliance was not the only choice; it was just the path of least resistance. But it definitely had a cost.

Probably, but it doesn’t really change the questions in the OP. Is it ever ok to support evil for a good cause (also known as questioning whether the ends ever justify the means)?

Very true. But we don’t have any evidence that the other apostles considered themselves prophets and seers. Maybe they did, there’s just nothing in the NT to support the idea.

I think they probably could have been, but we have no evidence they were viewed that way (or believed themselves to be prophets as well). So i think all we have to go on with the topic is extrapolation from our current understanding. Unless there’s been some revelation on it that I’m not aware of. And that could certainly be the case.

I’m thinking he’s referring to the scriptural record? Even in the book of Mormon after Christ’s resurrection, we don’t have a record of a prophet and apostles at the same time. In that instance it was a prophet and 12 disciples.

I don't equate sexism with misogyny either. @JVW, did you mean to suggest that the church was once disdainful and deeply prejudice against women when you used that term, or did you mean something different? It's not unusual for me to use a word and not mean the exact definition (usually because I was being lazy or just didn't care enough to look up the exact definition to make sure I was using it right). I'm wondering if that's what has happened here with the use of misogyny?

The church was kind of progressive in its views of women for a while, but then we really retreated in the mid-1900s. I think JVW was talking about women that are currently alive, and most of them would’ve been children at best when some of these perks were still available. I think a lot of the women alive right now who were adults and aware enough to recognize the discrepancies, did experience a more sexist church. But not all of course.

I hope I did not give the impression that I thought you did think that of President Nielson! I understood where your ire was aimed. And I think it’s valid. I personally don’t have a problem with men being ordained and women not being ordained, but I get why a lot of women do.

I don’t completely agree with Peacefully’s perspective but I agree with parts and I think I understand what she’s trying to say (maybe). In all the examples you shared, the “power” in the relationship resides with the man. They get to decide if and how much they want to counsel with the women in the church. If they decide they don’t want to counsel with any women at all, they could probably get away with it. Women leaders must wait in the wings, hoping their male leaders want to hear from them and will listen. In ward, stake, and general leadership, men get to express their views by virtue of their leadership callings while women get to express their views by invitation. This means that women’s voices are dependent on male allowance. In some circumstances, and with some leaders, it can feel infantilizing. Especially if a man expects women to be grateful that they were allowed to share their opinions. Thankfully, I think that such men in the church are very very few and far between now. This was not the case even 40 years ago, but things have gotten much better. And I don’t believe that President Nelson was of that mindset at all. But still, the baggage goes deep and in a lot of ways has never been dealt with. These kinds of topics can really touch that nerve because in many women (not all women) it’s still raw. (and to be fair to the men, I don’t think most of them enjoy being in the position that they are in regards to women. I don’t think they want to be the arbiter of their voices or the final voice of authority by virtue of their gender. They are as caught up in the organization of the church and the gendered aspect of priesthood leadership as much as the women are. And if they truly and sincerely believe that this is how God has set it up—as many women do—they would be apostate to take it upon themselves to change it. It would be wrong for any woman to pressure any man to act against God’s commandments. No matter how noble the cause. At the same time, men’s willingness to acknowledge, recognize, and validate the inequalities in church and the effect they have on women and girls, would create an unmeasurable amount of goodwill and healing.)

Great minds think alike.

I feel like the 'juicy' part is just that he would invite the RS presidency to give him feedback and make edits (and not on what the edits were).

I wonder if they split the stake and that's how he ended up serving twice back-to-back. I've heard that most stake presidents serve for around 10 years (not sure if that's a new thing or not).

No new temples announced today.

No new temples announced. Pres. Oaks said that at this time we would focus on the ones that have already been announced and which are currently in progress.

Me too. New temple announcements are exciting, and sometimes it's more important and wise to focus on the ones that have been announced rather than announce more.

He fooled us all.

I've never seen him personally differently, but I'll still try to check out the book. Thanks for the recommendation!

There is always a chance that he might want counselors with a different perspective. Time will tell.