Thoughts on new First Presidency?

[JLHPROF]

8 hours ago, rpn said:

If it adheres to recent behavior, it will include Elder Holland who is next in line for Presidency.   It's been several presidencies ago when one of the prophets spoke about how hard it is to be put in that position without some experience.   The challenge is that neither Elder Holland nor next in line Elder Eyring (who has also had presidency training already) can travel because of their health.  And First Presidency travel is important in our world where half of our members live outside the US.     Elder Uchtdorf is next but he already has had some training in the Presidency.

Did you notice that they had to go deep to Elder Bednar for the Michigan shooting/fire response?

 

Elder Holland is just unlikely with his declining health.  He may eventually become prophet without ever serving in the FP.

Elder Uchtdorf is unlikely I think for the same reason he wasn't retained by Pres Nelson. Different philosophies on the gospel.

Eyring may stay but Bednar will almost certainly be prophet one day and is healthier and more philosophically alligned with Pres Oaks. I think he's almost certain.

I'm thinking Gérald Caussé for Apostle.

Edited October 3, 2025 by JLHPROF

[rpn]

12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

. Different philosophies on the gospel.

 

How do you know that is why Elder Uchtdorf returned to the quorum?     I'm seen a lot of "this is just what the spirit tells me to do"  without anything having to be a pejorative about the person released or added.

[california boy]

I started to put my name in, but as soon as I sealed the envelope it burst into flames.

[Peacefully]

59 minutes ago, california boy said:

I started to put my name in, but as soon as I sealed the envelope it burst into flames.

I would vote for you:) Oops, my phone just  melted, 😝 

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, Peacefully said:

I would vote for you:) Oops, my phone just  melted, 😝 

Phone voting only works on American Idol or shows like that.  But who knows what new changes we'll get at General Conference this weekend (hope you get a new phone before Saturday ).

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, rpn said:

How do you know that is why Elder Uchtdorf returned to the quorum?     I'm seen a lot of "this is just what the spirit tells me to do"  without anything having to be a pejorative about the person released or added.

Having a differing understanding of the gospel is not a pejorative though is it?

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

I started to put my name in, but as soon as I sealed the envelope it burst into flames.

I think the flame was instigated by the very evil but also very gay laugh that you indulged in as you sealed the envelope.

[Benjamin McGuire]

10 hours ago, rpn said:

How do you know that is why Elder Uchtdorf returned to the quorum?     I'm seen a lot of "this is just what the spirit tells me to do"  without anything having to be a pejorative about the person released or added.

Historically though, this is what we have seen ever since David O. McKay, when philosophical differences in the First Presidency led to complications - especially with prophets who have major health concerns (and old age is one of those major health concerns). The issue with David O. McKay is too much of a surprise - with his dementia, and the eventual six counselors in the First Presidency, there was bound to be some complications. The general preference now leans more towards having the President of the Q12 take over administrative work when the prophet is indisposed than to have the counselors int he First Presidency running everything (another issue that was reinforced in the issues experienced by President McKay's first presidency).

Your concern here is a lot like the suggestion that really, anyone could be picked as the prophet (there isn't some sort of written requirement in scripture, after all). However, historically, the President of the Q12 has always become the prophet. And the President of the Q12 has always been given to the apostle with the most seniority. But ... there was that incident with Brigham Young, when he ordained three of his sons as apostles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Willard_YoungJohn Willard Young was ordained an apostle at the age of 11). And to deal with this novel situation, President Lorenzo Snow changed the rule that gave the presidency of the Q12 to the most senior apostle to the apostle with the most time spent serving in the Q12. This reduced the seniority of Brigham Young Jr. (the only one of the three sons who actually served in the Q12). So we can talk about the spirit's involvement in these issues - but - there is a practical reality that these decisions are sometimes complicated, with lots of factors. We shouldn't ignore those other factors - and this isn't about pejoratives. There has simply been a historically present swing between different perspectives in the past. Some of these shifts have been quite significant. It is the First Presidency that chooses new apostles. It is also a matter of historical record that progressive leaning prophets (like David O. McKay or Gordon B. Hinckley) tended to pick progressive leaning apostles. When we have a more conservative prophet, they tend to pick more conservative leaning apostles. Oaks and Nelson were both called by Spencer W. Kimball. This doesn't mean that the spirit isn't involved - it suggests to me that revelation is only a part of the process. The selection begins with those who are believed to be appropriate leaders. I think that these differences in perspective are good for the LDS Church as a whole.

[teddyaware]

13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Elder Holland is just unlikely with his declining health.  He may eventually become prophet without ever serving in the FP.

Elder Uchtdorf is unlikely I think for the same reason he wasn't retained by Pres Nelson. Different philosophies on the gospel.

Eyring may stay but Bednar will almost certainly be prophet one day and is healthier and more philosophically alligned with Pres Oaks. I think he's almost certain.

I'm thinking Gérald Caussé for Apostle.

Please provide one concrete example, taken from their own words, that exemplifies how Elder Uchtdorfs gospel philosophy differs President Nelson’s gospel philosophy? Rumors and surmisings won’t do.

Isn’t it true that the most likely reason why Elder Uchtdorf was placed back into the Quorum of the Twelve by President Nelson is because Dallin H Oaks was the next in line to become the church President and the fact that Elder Eyring, who was First Counselor in the previous First Presidency, holds apostolic seniority over Elder Uchtdorf?

Edited October 3, 2025 by teddyaware

[Benjamin McGuire]

36 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Isn’t it true that the most likely reason why Elder Uchtdorf was placed back into the Quorum of the Twelve by President Nelson is because Dallin H Oaks was the next in line to become the church President and the fact that Elder Eyring, who was First Counselor in the previous First Presidency, holds apostolic seniority over Elder Uchtdorf?

It isn't true (that this is the most likely reason). You could, of course, provide some concrete evidence for why this is true - and I would be happy to entertain it. There's no reason why Nelson couldn't have kept both Eyring and Uchtdorf as counselors.

It is true that the roles of First and Second Councillor follow seniority. But it is also true that the next in line (the current President of the Twelve) is only sometimes brought into the First Presidency. It usually does not happen when there exists a split in views between the prophet and the president of the Q12. Take for example, President McKay and President Joseph Fielding Smith. When David O. McKay was made First Counselor (under George Albert Smith), Joseph Fielding Smith became the acting president of the Quorum. When David O. McKay became the prophet, Joseph Fielding Smith remained as the President of the Q12 - he was not brought into the First Presidency. This challenges the point you raise because David O. McKay went through four First Counselors - Stephen L. RIchards (died), J. Reuben Clark (died), Henry D. Moyle (died), and Hugh B. Brown. The list of differences of views between McKay and Joseph Fielding Smith is large (things like young earth creationism - but let's not forget the fact that Joseph Fielding Smith was one of only three apostles who still opposed lifting the priesthood ban in the 1969, along with Harold B. Lee). In any case, when Joseph Fielding Smith became prophet, he chose Harold B. Lee as his First Counselor, making Spencer Kimball the acting President of the Quorum. When Harold B. Lee became president of the Church, he skipped over Spencer W. Kimball as First Counselor, instead opting for N. Eldon Tanner (who had been second counselor with Harold B. Lee under Joseph Fielding Smith). Spencer W. Kimball became the President of the Q12. Spencer W. Kimball skipped the next President of the Q12 - Ezra Taft Benson. And so this cycle continues. We can see distinct patterns in all of this. President Kimball was a moderate. Benson was a conservative. There is that famous statement made by President Hugh B. Brown (First Counselor to David O. McKay) when asked about Elder Ezra Taft Benson's having been given the assignment as a Mission President in Europe by President McKay (a unique assignment at the time for a senior apostle). President Brown was sent a letter by W. Averill Harriman (who was Under-secretary of State for European Affairs for the US Federal Government at the time) asking how long the Church intended to keep Benson in Europe - because Benson had been a political figure and because Benson had some very distinctive views on communism. President Brown wrote back: "If I had my way, he'll never come back!" At any rate, the point of all of this is to show that there has never been a consistent pattern of moving the next in line (the current president of the Q12) into the First Presidency. It does sometimes happen - and this is often likely when the men have known each other a long time (when they were selected by the same President of the Church, and when they continued to serve together for a long time). Russell M. Nelson and Dallin H. Oaks were ordained to the Q12 about a year apart (1984 and 1985) by President Benson. But, just as often, it doesn't happen - and this is especially true when there are differences in viewpoints that coincide with the prophets who called them to be apostles.

I don't think that these shifts are inherently good or bad - I think that it is good that there is diversity in the leadership of the Church. If all of our leaders were identical in their views, this would be a reason to be much more concerned. I think that we can look at history and use it to make some guesses about what the next First Presidency will look like. But, its all useless speculation really.

There are always differences. I am reminded in the moment right now of President Nelson's declaration about the use of the name Mormon. And yet we had a several years long (and highly successful) PR campaign created under President Monson (it lasted from 2010 to 2018 - almost the entirety of his Presidency). One of my brothers created a video of himself and his family for part of this campaign - and with President Nelson's comments, the LDS Church quietly scrubbed as much of it away as they could. It is a fascinating sort of view into all of this. This wasn't as major an event as the shift in views on the priesthood ban (between 1969 and 1978, every LDS leader who opposed lifting the ban passed away). But I think it points to the certainty we can have that at some point, we will have a prophet who will undo some of the policies that we think are significant today.

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

It isn't true (that this is the most likely reason). You could, of course, provide some concrete evidence for why this is true - and I would be happy to entertain it. There's no reason why Nelson couldn't have kept both Eyring and Uchtdorf as counselors.

It is true that the roles of First and Second Councillor follow seniority. But it is also true that the next in line (the current President of the Twelve) is only sometimes brought into the First Presidency. It usually does not happen when there exists a split in views between the prophet and the president of the Q12. Take for example, President McKay and President Joseph Fielding Smith. When David O. McKay was made First Counselor (under George Albert Smith), Joseph Fielding Smith became the acting president of the Quorum. When David O. McKay became the prophet, Joseph Fielding Smith remained as the President of the Q12 - he was not brought into the First Presidency. This challenges the point you raise because David O. McKay went through four First Counselors - Stephen L. RIchards (died), J. Reuben Clark (died), Henry D. Moyle (died), and Hugh B. Brown. The list of differences of views between McKay and Joseph Fielding Smith is large (things like young earth creationism - but let's not forget the fact that Joseph Fielding Smith was one of only three apostles who still opposed lifting the priesthood ban in the 1969, along with Harold B. Lee). In any case, when Joseph Fielding Smith became prophet, he chose Harold B. Lee as his First Counselor, making Spencer Kimball the acting President of the Quorum. When Harold B. Lee became president of the Church, he skipped over Spencer W. Kimball as First Counselor, instead opting for N. Eldon Tanner (who had been second counselor with Harold B. Lee under Joseph Fielding Smith). Spencer W. Kimball became the President of the Q12. Spencer W. Kimball skipped the next President of the Q12 - Ezra Taft Benson. And so this cycle continues. We can see distinct patterns in all of this. President Kimball was a moderate. Benson was a conservative. There is that famous statement made by President Hugh B. Brown (First Counselor to David O. McKay) when asked about Elder Ezra Taft Benson's having been given the assignment as a Mission President in Europe by President McKay (a unique assignment at the time for a senior apostle). President Brown was sent a letter by W. Averill Harriman (who was Under-secretary of State for European Affairs for the US Federal Government at the time) asking how long the Church intended to keep Benson in Europe - because Benson had been a political figure and because Benson had some very distinctive views on communism. President Brown wrote back: "If I had my way, he'll never come back!" At any rate, the point of all of this is to show that there has never been a consistent pattern of moving the next in line (the current president of the Q12) into the First Presidency. It does sometimes happen - and this is often likely when the men have known each other a long time (when they were selected by the same President of the Church, and when they continued to serve together for a long time). Russell M. Nelson and Dallin H. Oaks were ordained to the Q12 about a year apart (1984 and 1985) by President Benson. But, just as often, it doesn't happen - and this is especially true when there are differences in viewpoints that coincide with the prophets who called them to be apostles.

I don't think that these shifts are inherently good or bad - I think that it is good that there is diversity in the leadership of the Church. If all of our leaders were identical in their views, this would be a reason to be much more concerned. I think that we can look at history and use it to make some guesses about what the next First Presidency will look like. But, its all useless speculation really.

There are always differences. I am reminded in the moment right now of President Nelson's declaration about the use of the name Mormon. And yet we had a several years long (and highly successful) PR campaign created under President Monson (it lasted from 2010 to 2018 - almost the entirety of his Presidency). One of my brothers created a video of himself and his family for part of this campaign - and with President Nelson's comments, the LDS Church quietly scrubbed as much of it away as they could. It is a fascinating sort of view into all of this. This wasn't as major an event as the shift in views on the priesthood ban (between 1969 and 1978, every LDS leader who opposed lifting the ban passed away). But I think it points to the certainty we can have that at some point, we will have a prophet who will undo some of the policies that we think are significant today.

I guess you didn’t stop to think that in this particular instance President Nelson took into serious consideration his very advanced and vulnerable age, concluding that it would be a wise move to give the next most senior apostle the chance to “learn the ropes” of the First Presidency in preparation for the very likely event that he, President Oaks, would soon become the next Church President. Even more significantly, in the not terribly unlikely event that he could end up being incapacitated like Presidents Kimball and Benson, President Nelson came to the sound conclusion that it would be a very good thing to have the next most senior apostle placed in the key position to lead the church in the event of a medical leave of absence due to physical and/or mental incapacitation caused by a stroke or some other catastrophic medical event. Makes perfect sense to me that in this specific case President Nelson made the most wise and prudent move. Yes?

Edited October 3, 2025 by teddyaware

[Benjamin McGuire]

40 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

I guess you didn’t stop to think that in this particular instance President Nelson took into serious consideration his very advanced and vulnerable age, concluding that it would be a wise move to give the next most senior apostle the chance to “learn the ropes” of the First Presidency in preparation for the very likely event that he, President Oaks, would soon become the next Church President. Even more significantly, in the not terribly unlikely event that he could end up being incapacitated like Presidents Kimball and Benson, President Nelson came to the sound conclusion that it would be a very good thing to have the next most senior apostle placed in the key position to lead the church in the event of a medical leave of absence due to physical and/or mental incapacitation caused by a stroke or some other catastrophic medical event. Makes perfect sense to me that in this specific case President Nelson made the most wise and prudent move. Yes?

I actually think that you are just making all of this up. But just to point out some things -

When the President of the Church in incapacitated, it isn't the First Counselor that tends to take over management of the Church but the President of the Q12. When there is no prophet, the President of the Q12 does in fact take over (not the First Counselor - the First Presidency is simply dissolved). I am not sure what you think might be learned from being the First Counselor that wouldn't be learned by being the President of the Q12. I don't actually think that your logic means much. But, as I said, if you have any actual evidence of this, rather than your gut instinct, I would be happy to have a look.

[sunstoned]

17 hours ago, california boy said:

I started to put my name in, but as soon as I sealed the envelope it burst into flames.

Write-ins are not allowed.

[sunstoned]

17 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Elder Holland is just unlikely with his declining health.  He may eventually become prophet without ever serving in the FP.

Elder Uchtdorf is unlikely I think for the same reason he wasn't retained by Pres Nelson. Different philosophies on the gospel.

Eyring may stay but Bednar will almost certainly be prophet one day and is healthier and more philosophically alligned with Pres Oaks. I think he's almost certain.

I'm thinking Gérald Caussé for Apostle.

I generally concur, but I think it would be nice if Elder Uchtdorf was brought back.

[JLHPROF]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Having a differing understanding of the gospel is not a pejorative though is it?

I don't it's an issue of different understanding or even any disagreement.

I simply think that Pres Nelson, Oaks, Bednar, and possibly others take a more legalistic and literal approach. The "Mormon" usage is just one example. 

Elder Uchtdorf and others are the more gentle, subjective gospel teachers.  Nothing wrong with that and this is evidenced by member comments & response to both groups.

I simply don't see Oaks selecting counselors that don't match his perspective.

I still think Eyring & Bednar unless Pres Eyring age/health play a factor.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I guess you didn’t stop to think that in this particular instance President Nelson took into serious consideration his very advanced and vulnerable age, concluding that it would be a wise move to give the next most senior apostle the chance to “learn the ropes” of the First Presidency in preparation for the very likely event that he, President Oaks, would soon become the next Church President. Even more significantly, in the not terribly unlikely event that he could end up being incapacitated like Presidents Kimball and Benson, President Nelson came to the sound conclusion that it would be a very good thing to have the next most senior apostle placed in the key position to lead the church in the event of a medical leave of absence due to physical and/or mental incapacitation caused by a stroke or some other catastrophic medical event. Makes perfect sense to me that in this specific case President Nelson made the most wise and prudent move. Yes?

By that logic he'd choose Holland (unlikely given his health) and they would have chosen Ballard a few years back.

Being next in line has never been any indication of a First Presidency calling.

[JAHS]

On 10/1/2025 at 4:30 PM, Tacenda said:

I was not happy with Pres Oaks at first. But a memory of a few years ago came to mind, of a Gospel Doctrine teacher that rubbed me the wrong way and was cocky while teaching. But then he was called to be the bishop, and I was not looking forward to him being bishop. But he turned out to be one of my favorite bishops actually. It humbled him and he was awesome to work with, especially for my husband who was a scout leader and needed things to be okay'd as far as scout trips etc. And he officiated my daughter's wedding and did a pretty good job.

So I'm hoping Pres Oaks will be different too. 

 

That seems to happen often. I remember how afraid many memberswere when when Ezra Taft Benson was about to be the next president, imagining what might happen to the church with him in charge. But he fooled everyone when his main message was about how important the Book of Mormon is to our faith.

[Peacefully]

On 10/1/2025 at 6:30 PM, Tacenda said:

I was not happy with Pres Oaks at first. But a memory of a few years ago came to mind, of a Gospel Doctrine teacher that rubbed me the wrong way and was cocky while teaching. But then he was called to be the bishop, and I was not looking forward to him being bishop. But he turned out to be one of my favorite bishops actually. It humbled him and he was awesome to work with, especially for my husband who was a scout leader and needed things to be okay'd as far as scout trips etc. And he officiated my daughter's wedding and did a pretty good job.

So I'm hoping Pres Oaks will be different too. 

 

I had the same experience with a bishop who rubbed me the wrong way but then I met with him one on one for my temple recommend and he was so understanding about the things I disagreed with in the church. He renewed my recommendation no problem. It’s been the same with every leader I have confided in. I mean they can’t change the rules even if they wanted to but I think they realize there are differences of opinions among the membership and it isn’t to anyone’s benefit to alienate the more “progressive” members. Hopefully, President Oaks understands this. He probably has all types of members in his own family who remind him of this. 

Edited October 3, 2025 by Peacefully

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

That seems to happen often. I remember how afraid many memberswere when when Ezra Taft Benson was about to be the next president, imagining what might happen to the church with him in charge. But he fooled everyone when his main message was about how important the Book of Mormon is to our faith.

He didn’t fool everyone. He just stopped with the political rhetoric and gave up his own personal political ambitions.

The worrying wasn’t irrational.

Edited October 3, 2025 by The Nehor

[sunstoned]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

He didn’t fool everyone. He just stopped with the political rhetoric and gave up his own personal political ambitions.

The worrying wasn’t irrational.

I think he tempered with age.

[The Nehor]

38 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

I think he tempered with age.

I think a lot of it came from being called on the carpet by President Kimball and made to apologize to the Twelve. He did but it was somehow not satisfactory so he was made to do it again before all the General Authorities.

It if funny at the current time to remember that then Elder Benson clashed with Dallin H Oaks over hirings at BYU and suspected Oaks of being too liberal. Also Elder Oaks had clerked at the Supreme Court for a Justice that was at the heart of several of the more colorful/insane John Birch Society conspiracy theories.

[ZealouslyStriving]

59 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

I think he tempered with age.

Nope, the warnings had been issued, it was up to the people to heed them or ignore them. He just moved on to the next phase of his ministry.

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Nope, the warnings had been issued, it was up to the people to heed them or ignore them. He just moved on to the next phase of his ministry.

You must believe all the baseless conspiracy theories put out by the John Birch Society or you will burn in hell!!!!!!!

Interesting approach to the gospel.

[longview]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You must believe all the baseless conspiracy theories put out by the John Birch Society or you will burn in hell!!!!!!!

Interesting approach to the gospel.

Pres. Benson never was a Bircher.

Do you know how many actual conspiracies were concocted in just the Book of Genesis alone?

Does it surprise you how many conspiracy theories from 10 to 30 years ago have panned out to be proven facts?

[teddyaware]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You must believe all the baseless conspiracy theories put out by the John Birch Society or you will burn in hell!!!!!!!

Interesting approach to the gospel.

You put believing Latter-Day Saints into an impossible quandary: When the following most dire prophetic warnings of a destructive worldwide conspiracy in the last days comes to pass, according to you the members of the church will have to ignore the warnings of the existence of this very real conspiracy to destroy freedom throughout the world in order to avoid being mocked, cancelled and derided by the worldly wise who stand at the windows of the great and spacious who mistakenly think they possess greater wisdom and insight than do the prophets of God. But as for Yours Truly, their mockery has zero effect because I know for a surety that Moroni’s prophetic warning is being literally fulfilled as I write.

I suppose that when Moroni’s prophetic warning that the murders of the Lord’s latter-day prophets is fulfilled, the mockers at the windows will boldly proclaim that it’s their own fault for peddling such fantastic and baseless garbage. Nevertheless, there are other prophetic warnings that attest to the fact that the day will come when those who once arrogantly ignored and mocked the prophets will feel humbly constrained to confess to the whole world that the prophets were right and that they were wrong, all because they allowed their foolish pride to lure them into the devil’s webs of deception.

23 Wherefore, O ye Gentiles, it is wisdom in God that these things should be shown unto you, that thereby ye may repent of your sins, and suffer not that these murderous combinations shall get above you, which are built up to get power and gain—and the work, yea, even the work of destruction come upon you, yea, even the sword of the justice of the Eternal God shall fall upon you, to your overthrow and destruction if ye shall suffer these things to be.

24 Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation, because of this secret combination which shall be among you; or wo be unto it, because of the blood of them who have been slain; for they cry from the dust for vengeance upon it, and also upon those who built it up.

25 For it cometh to pass that whoso buildeth it up seeketh to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries; and it bringeth to pass the destruction of all people, for it is built up by the devil, who is the father of all lies; even that same liar who beguiled our first parents, yea, even that same liar who hath caused man to commit murder from the beginning; who hath hardened the hearts of men that they have murdered the prophets, and stoned them, and cast them out from the beginning. (Ether chapter eight)

Edited October 4, 2025 by teddyaware