Thoughts on new First Presidency?

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Historian Ben Parks opinion on the new First Presidency selection:
Benjamin Parks

He has some interesting thoughts, that I would find relevant if I didn’t believe that revelation played a significant part in who was called into the First Presidency. (I also find him referring to not being retained in the First Presidency as a demotion kind of dumb). 

[JAHS]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

He has some interesting thoughts, that I would find relevant if I didn’t believe that revelation played a significant part in who was called into the First Presidency. (I also find him referring to not being retained in the First Presidency as a demotion kind of dumb). 

Yes I thought the same thing. Church members are not promoted or demoted; just a change of assignments. It is his perception as an historian rather than as a Church member.
He is or was a member of the Church and has written a lot on Church history. 

Edited October 15, 2025 by JAHS

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

The apostles longevity is amazing right? And you're young Calm! We ain't old, haha!!

I don’t think of myself as the least bit old as long as I avoid the mirror, but have to laugh at myself when I see at times others my age as getting there.  People do seem to expect more of themselves and life from this angle than just biding time like it appeared a lot to me in my youth.

[Rain]

56 minutes ago, bluebell said:

He has some interesting thoughts, that I would find relevant if I didn’t believe that revelation played a significant part in who was called into the First Presidency.

I don't think they are mutually exclusive  not that you said mutually exclusive, just the idea of whether they are relevant.  Many church members feel that "study it out" is a big part of receiving revelation.  Everything I heard him say could be part of that process. I can see President Oakes really studying it out first.  Also, I don't think that God always has one answer - like the one conference talk that says something about God trusting you to make the right choice I think often God would trust his prophet to make the right choice for who would work well with him, but that God would trust him if he chose someone else instead. 

56 minutes ago, bluebell said:

(I also find him referring to not being retained in the First Presidency as a demotion kind of dumb). 

I would agree there. Really, none of us who had no real relationship with President Nelson could possibly know why.

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, Rain said:

I don't think they are mutually exclusive  not that you said mutually exclusive, just the idea of whether they are relevant.  Many church members feel that "study it out" is a big part of receiving revelation.  Everything I heard him say could be part of that process. I can see President Oakes really studying it out first.  Also, I don't think that God always has one answer - like the one conference talk that says something about God trusting you to make the right choice I think often God would trust his prophet to make the right choice for who would work well with him, but that God would trust him if he chose someone else instead. 

 

Generally speaking I agree and think you make a good point.

In this particular situation, where Pres. Oaks specifically said “after an extended process of fasting and prayer I have been inspired to call…” the explanations of a historian on why Pres. Oaks called who he called seems superfluous.

When we don’t have the person explaining why they did something then I can see how a historical treatment of the way things were done in the past could be helpful. When we actually do have the person’s own words though, explaining how a decision was made, any commentary that ignores the person‘s explanation seems a little bit irrelevant to me.

[Kenngo1969]

21 hours ago, bluebell said:

He has some interesting thoughts, that I would find relevant if I didn’t believe that revelation played a significant part in who was called into the First Presidency. (I also find him referring to not being retained in the First Presidency as a demotion kind of dumb). 

I'm sure then-President Uchtdorf still is stinging from the slight!    

[Rain]

On 10/15/2025 at 1:03 PM, bluebell said:

Generally speaking I agree and think you make a good point.

In this particular situation, where Pres. Oaks specifically said “after an extended process of fasting and prayer I have been inspired to call…” the explanations of a historian on why Pres. Oaks called who he called seems superfluous.

When we don’t have the person explaining why they did something then I can see how a historical treatment of the way things were done in the past could be helpful. When we actually do have the person’s own words though, explaining how a decision was made, any commentary that ignores the person‘s explanation seems a little bit irrelevant to me.

I really hate to reply.  I just feel kind of broken with so many conversations recently (politics) and I did not want to come across as an agumentative anti, but I love you and I didn't want you to think I was just dropping what you said.

I think you are right that it could be superfluous especially if the guy doesn't have actual knowledge of what went through President Oaks mind. 

Did President Oaks say more than "after an extended process of fasting and prayer I have been inspired to call"?  Because if that's all he said then some of what the guy said could be part of that process and that wouldn't be superfluous - if the guy actually has any real knowledge that it was part of the process. I'm assuming he doesn't because I would think he would havesaid something like 'when President Oaks told me, "___"' if he did have it.  

I've heard so many people say "I fasted and prayed about it" and they ignored the study it out part or they used their answer to manipulate others.  (Definitely NOT saying that is what President Oaks is doing!) Just hoping that it will help people reading what I wrote to study it out and to see that how people study it out and how people get answers may be a little different than the next person, but it is not necessarily wrong.   I realize this is important to me because I'm a little sensitive about how others see my own answers to prayers.

Edit: I apologize for the font problems.  I had to get on my computer to fix them, but they still won't change.

Edited October 16, 2025 by Rain

[JVW]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

I really hate to reply.  I just feel kind of broken with so many conversations recently (politics) and I did not want to come across as an agumentative anti, but I love you and I didn't want you to think I was just dropping what you said.

I feel you. I have been posting much less than I would've otherwise because of the uptick in politics on the board. Then when I do post I usually feel like an idiot after but invested so much time into my post that I'd feel ashamed to delete it. I'm glad that you chose to respond today.

1 hour ago, Rain said:

I think you are right that it could be superfluous especially if the guy doesn't have actual knowledge of what went through President Oaks mind. 

Did President Oaks say more than "after an extended process of fasting and prayer I have been inspired to call"?  Because if that's all he said then some of what the guy said could be part of that process and that wouldn't be superfluous - if the guy actually has any real knowledge that it was part of the process. I'm assuming he doesn't because I would think he would said something like 'when President Oaks told me, "___"' if he did have it.  

I've heard so many people say "I fasted and prayed about it" and they ignored the study it out part or they used their answer to manipulate others.  (Definitely NOT saying that is what President Oaks is doing!) Just hoping that it will help people reading what I wrote to study it out and to see that how people study it out and how people get answers may be a little different than the next person, but it is not necessarily wrong.   I realize this is important to me because I'm a little sensitive about how others see my own answers to prayers.

I don't really have any concerns about the new First Presidency so I won't be praying and asking God about whether He called them or not. If they make some decisions that I think are absolutely stupid then I might feel some motivation to have a chat with God about it. I've found in the past that God is very responsive to me when it comes to matters dealing with the leadership of the church. I'd be curious to hear how He responds to you if you ever feel motivated enough to talk to Him about your concerns.

[Rain]

23 minutes ago, JVW said:

I feel you. I have been posting much less than I would've otherwise because of the uptick in politics on the board. Then when I do post I usually feel like an idiot after but invested so much time into my post that I'd feel ashamed to delete it. I'm glad that you chose to respond today.

I don't really have any concerns about the new First Presidency so I won't be praying and asking God about whether He called them or not. If they make some decisions that I think are absolutely stupid then I might feel some motivation to have a chat with God about it. I've found in the past that God is very responsive to me when it comes to matters dealing with the leadership of the church. I'd be curious to hear how He responds to you if you ever feel motivated enough to talk to Him about your concerns.

What concerns are you talking about?  The new presidency?  I don't have any concerns there.  It doesn't matter to me who was put in or why.

 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

I really hate to reply.  I just feel kind of broken with so many conversations recently (politics) and I did not want to come across as an agumentative anti, but I love you and I didn't want you to think I was just dropping what you said.

I think you are right that it could be superfluous especially if the guy doesn't have actual knowledge of what went through President Oaks mind. 

Did President Oaks say more than "after an extended process of fasting and prayer I have been inspired to call"?  Because if that's all he said then some of what the guy said could be part of that process and that wouldn't be superfluous - if the guy actually has any real knowledge that it was part of the process. I'm assuming he doesn't because I would think he would havesaid something like 'when President Oaks told me, "___"' if he did have it.  

I've heard so many people say "I fasted and prayed about it" and they ignored the study it out part or they used their answer to manipulate others.  (Definitely NOT saying that is what President Oaks is doing!) Just hoping that it will help people reading what I wrote to study it out and to see that how people study it out and how people get answers may be a little different than the next person, but it is not necessarily wrong.   I realize this is important to me because I'm a little sensitive about how others see my own answers to prayers.

I’ve got no issues with anything that you said. My issues were purely from an academic point of view. This man is a professional historian.  I am not a historian and only have a degree in history but one of the very first things you learn is that you let people speak for themselves if you can. Primary sources are king.  He had a primary source—he had exact quotes from that source about the topic he’s speaking on—and he ignored it.

There’s a chance that the blurb that was shared is only a blurb, and that the guy went into more in depth in other blurbs. But just going on the reel that was shared, I did not see the benefit of him explaining the process while ignoring his primary source, which would’ve been the words of president Oaks himself.  Maybe he’s not religious and didn’t want to touch that aspect of it, but with him being a historian that seems like sloppy work to me. He needs to share the sources whether he agrees with the ideology or theology behind them or not.

(none of this is to say that I think he’s a bad historian or that his reels aren’t interesting. I’ve watched stuff from him before and thought it was helpful. But this does cause me to doubt the accuracy of his conclusions, now that it appears he’s willing to ignore sources he doesn’t want to deal with.)

[Rain]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I’ve got no issues with anything that you said. My issues were purely from an academic point of view. This man is a professional historian.  I am not a historian and only have a degree in history but one of the very first things you learn is that you let people speak for themselves if you can. Primary sources are king.  He had a primary source—he had exact quotes from that source about the topic he’s speaking on—and he ignored it.

There’s a chance that the blurb that was shared is only a blurb, and that the guy went into more in depth in other blurbs. But just going on the reel that was shared, I did not see the benefit of him explaining the process while ignoring his primary source, which would’ve been the words of president Oaks himself.  Maybe he’s not religious and didn’t want to touch that aspect of it, but with him being a historian that seems like sloppy work to me. He needs to share the sources whether he agrees with the ideology or theology behind them or not.

(none of this is to say that I think he’s a bad historian or that his reels aren’t interesting. I’ve watched stuff from him before and thought it was helpful. But this does cause me to doubt the accuracy of his conclusions, now that it appears he’s willing to ignore sources he doesn’t want to deal with.)

Got it! I agree.  Also, until you said historian in your last post I didn't catch somehow that he was one.  

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But this does cause me to doubt the accuracy of his conclusions, now that it appears he’s willing to ignore sources he doesn’t want to deal with.

It’s happened before in my experience. I think he does very good work, but his bias does lead him to favor naturalistic and critical views and sometimes that apparently leads him to ignore important sources. I am not claiming he engages in deception in case anyone interprets my meaning that way, just that he likely doesn’t see much value in somethings that are actually valuable information like going to the most direct source here, like someone not recognizing an extraordinarily valuable red diamond because in their mind diamonds are clear or maybe slightly tinted pink or blue. (I didn’t know there even were red diamonds till I googled ‘what was the most valuable color of diamond’).

Edited October 16, 2025 by Calm

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

It’s happened before in my experience. I think he does very good work, but his bias does lead him to favor naturalistic and critical views and sometimes that apparently leads him to ignore important sources. I am not claiming he engages in deception in case anyone interprets my meaning that way, just that he likely doesn’t see much value in somethings that are actually valuable information like going to the most direct source here, like someone not recognizing an extraordinarily valuable red diamond because in their mind diamonds are clear or maybe slightly tinted pink or blue. (I didn’t know there even were red diamonds till I googled ‘what was the most valuable color of diamond’).

I annoys me when people trade on their profession to give their views more authority but then don't uphold the ideals of their profession very well.  I don't know enough about this guy to say that applies here, but after this experience I probably won't watch many more of his reels when I come across them.  He's created doubt in my mind about his ability to get beyond an agenda.  Historians with an agenda can do a lot of damage.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

Got it! I agree.  Also, until you said historian in your last post I didn't catch somehow that he was one.  

I don't know if he ever says it outloud in his video but his label is 'benjamin parks historian' so he seems to want people to know.   

He's popping up more often for me but I'm not sure if that's because he's suddenly getting more popular, putting out more reels, or if since I watched on once the algorithm is sending more of his stuff my way.

[ZealouslyStriving]

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I annoys me when people trade on their profession to give their views more authority but then don't uphold the ideals of their profession very well.  I don't know enough about this guy to say that applies here, but after this experience I probably won't watch many more of his reels when I come across them.  He's created doubt in my mind about his ability to get beyond an agenda.  Historians with an agenda can do a lot of damage.

Some gnawing feeling has always stopped me from watching Parks' videos when they started showing up on my YT feed. He just seemed... off. I could never bring myself to click on them.

[JAHS]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't know if he ever says it outloud in his video but his label is 'benjamin parks historian' so he seems to want people to know.   

He's popping up more often for me but I'm not sure if that's because he's suddenly getting more popular, putting out more reels, or if since I watched on once the algorithm is sending more of his stuff my way.

He does have a pretty long resume of education and experience.

[bluebell]

11 hours ago, JAHS said:

He does have a pretty long resume of education and experience.

He definitely does.  That makes me think that him leaving out a quote from Pres. Oaks was a deliberate decision.  I'd love to know the reasoning (maybe after hearing it I would even find it a reasonable one).

Still not wanting to put much effort into watching his reels anymore though.  

[Teancum]

On 10/8/2025 at 6:13 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

Wouldn't it be something if they just left the Apostolic Interregnum in place for a few years?

Why?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

That makes me think that him leaving out a quote from Pres. Oaks was a deliberate decision. 

It does seem like standard procedure any beginner, even a middle school kid doing a report would know had value, so odd.

[ZealouslyStriving]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Why?

I already answered this days ago when asked the same thing.

[Navidad]

I believe I am correct that Anthony Ivin's highest position before bring made an apostle was as stake president of the Juarez stake that included all the early Mexican Colonies. Ruben Clark became an apostle aster he was serving as a counselor to the then president. I believe I am correct (not certain 😊) that he never served a church calling prior to being named the church president's counselor. 

[Teancum]

On 10/14/2025 at 4:38 PM, JAHS said:

Isn't Elder Holland the Senior Apostle now?

Yes.

[Teancum]

On 10/17/2025 at 2:04 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

I already answered this days ago when asked the same thing.

Well I have not been on the board much so I must have missed it.  I was simply curious.

[ZealouslyStriving]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Well I have not been on the board much so I must have missed it.  I was simply curious.

Fair enough...

Because it would be completely unexpected and catch people by surprise.

That's about it.

[bluebell]

BREAKING: Elder Gérald Caussé, former Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has been called to serve as the newest member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

📷: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

https://ksltv.com/?p=842190