Thoughts on new First Presidency?

[ZealouslyStriving]

7 hours ago, Duncan said:

no, it doesn't mean what you mean to think it does. As I said who conducts a session has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with who will become the newest member(s) of the 1st Pres. I know there have been times when they had more than two counselors in the 1st Presidency. 

If you made good , thought out comments, maybe you would have a point. Have you thought about  learning critical thinking skills ? I get that you people shun that but hey, buck the trend

You just made the list!!

<Insert pic of Chris Jericho>

Edited October 5, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

You just made the list!!

Please don’t forward your naughty list to Santa. I have been so good this year.

[teddyaware]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

I had a positive view of him as President of BYU, did not seem rigid or legalistic to me at the time (nor later, but then I tend to like his style of speaking more than folksy).

I was wondering what the general view of him at BYU was, not sure how accurate AI can be with this (does it rely on the first sources it finds or seek more for a broader view?, after reading wiki, it seems heavily dependent on that), but it coincides with what I remember, though I don’t remember any rumors surrounding his release.

The only issues I remember during Oaks’ tenure were honor code and the gay underground rumors and some controversies with Jim McMahon.  And I don’t remember any of Oaks’ involvement (wiki says he was hands off with the honor code, left it to the dean of students which would explain the lack).  There was quite a bit of discussion and controversy with the honor code while I was there, including one memorable scandal.  Pants were allowed for women, but more dress denim only, no jeans (not till 1981, that was a joyous moment).  A woman showed up at the Testing Center wearing nice denim pants and whoever was processing students (probably an older student I think) didn’t allow her to take the exam as it didn’t pass their personal standard.  So she went to the restroom, removed her pants (had a coat that came down long enough) and went and took the test with nothing on her lower half (bare legs were not allowed with skirts if you worked for BYU iirc, had to be nylons or tights—it would be the only reason I would have had a pair, don’t think I have owned any since I left BYU—but I can’t recall if required for students in ‘78).  The student wrote the Daily Universe about the craziness (guys were getting in wearing jeans).

https://universe.byu.edu/2019/04/15/honor-code-changes-have-followed-controversies-1/#:~:text=One of its more notable,the no-pants episode followed.

There were also some occasions where male students were policing female students, making comments and putting notes in coat pockets or backpacks.  In these cases these women were not breaking the dress code, but were still seen as immodest and for some reason, the male students thought it was their duty to police women’s standards.  No doubt there were men getting dinged by women for hair too long, etc, but I don’t remember them.  I do remember hearing a lecture from another student in one of my psych classes on how it was the duty of men to ensure women’s purity with clothing standards, but he was not considered mainstream by other students.  Most of the men I knew when it was discussed thought the self appointed modesty police were jerks.

Because most students I knew saw Pres Oaks as a moderate at that time, I was rather surprised to find he became seen as conservative when an apostle.  I started out in physics and then switched to engineering on the advice of my dad (should have talked to a career counselor as he was out of date), so I remember the affirmative action efforts Oaks was promoting for less discrimination against women.  Didn’t like engineering and switched to psych after two years.

Have to say it always feels a bit disconcerting to see Pres Oaks in the last 20 years or so, his appearance when he was at BYU seems to have been imprinted on my brain, lol.

https://president.byu.edu/directory/dallin-h-oaks

I was not surprised when he was called as an apostle.  He carried himself with a natural sense of authority, imo.  Probably his confidence.  Mixed with a genuine sense of caring.

I recently viewed a random video that featured Dallin Oaks that popped up on my YouTube feed. As he began his remarks, he was wearing discernible amiable smile — rare for him — as he quipped that his wife was frustrated with him because she was always needing to remind him that he needed to “lighten up” and try harder to not appear so wooden and formal during his oratorical delivery. The audience actually laughed as he reservedly chuckled back in response. So at least President Oaks is aware of the perception that he’s “a stiff.” I’m also chuckling at the moment as I compare the warm and engaging delivery of our smiling, grandfatherly President Nelson with President Oaks’ “style,” if that’s what you can call it… When I consider the laugh riot that happened with Elder Oaks joked over my brother’s dinner table, it’s hard for me to square the two seemingly diametrically opposed personas. Nevertheless, I hereby predict that President Oaks will smile discernibly at least once during his Sunday morning conference session talk. 

Edited October 5, 2025 by teddyaware

[Benjamin McGuire]

17 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Which tends to reflect what you've said here. But one must also remember that who is selected as President of the Church depends entirely upon God's veto. If God didn't want Oaks as President, he wouldn't be there to become such.

I think that this is a challenge on a number of levels. We might ask the same about Joseph Fielding Smith who served as a General Authority as the Patriarch to the Church (not to be confused with the Joseph Fielding Smith who became the President of the Church. Patriarch Joseph Fielding Smith was a sexually active gay man. There has been some discussion in this thread about the problem of age and out leaders. Men generally don't get to be a certain age without starting to show signs of age-related issues. Working in the field that I do, there isn't much of a line between age related cognitive impairment and dementia. We have had several prophets with both age related cognitive impairment and actual dementia. And these kinds of things make me wonder what would actually constitute something that would encourage "God's veto"? Part of this, from my perspective, is the fact that there is certainly a strong belief in the LDS Church that God's veto wouldn't ever be necessary - because if God didn't want the most senior apostle to become the prophet, the easiest solution is for God to call him home prior to it becoming an issue. Or, perhaps we might see something like President Hunter's nine months as the President of the Church as evidence of such a veto? By the same token, there is nothing in scripture that requires the process that we use. There is no reference to prophetic succession in scripture. The LDS page that describes the process makes zero references to scripture. In theory, much like with Catholicism, just about anyone could be chosen to be the President of the Church. But in practice, we have a system that was created and set up and modified to meet certain objectives. Much of this process is aimed at removing uncertainty in the process (and preventing competing claims - as happened in the first apostolic interregnum). Further structuring of the process occurred (as I noted earlier) when Brigham Young made efforts to make his sons the most senior apostles at some future point by ordaining them as apostles at an early age (the youngest son he ordained as an apostle was only 11 years old). So we can say that this is all God's plan. And that God would take steps to prevent something He didn't want. But, we don't actually have any idea of what this would really look like, and we don't know how the Q12 would address this issue in light of the current system which has been relatively set in stone. This is from that link I provided above - the steps to choose a new prophet:

Quote

1: The First Presidency is automatically dissolved and the counselors return to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.
2: The Quorum—now numbering 14 and headed by the longest-serving apostle—assumes Church leadership.
3: The Apostles meet to receive confirmation from the Lord that the longest-serving Apostle will be the new prophet and President of the Church. Throughout the history of the Church, this position has always been filled by the most senior Apostle (as determined by length of service, not age).
4: The new Prophet seeks the Lord’s guidance on whom the Lord has chosen to be his counselors from among the remaining Apostles. These counselors will complete the new First Presidency.
5: The new President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (as determined by seniority), along with the rest of the apostles, sets apart the new prophet through priesthood authority.
6: If the new President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles is chosen to serve in the First Presidency, the next senior Apostle will become Acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.
7: Through revelation to the new Prophet, the Lord calls a new Apostle to fill the vacancy in the Quorum of the Twelve as its most junior member.
8: The Prophet’s name is presented to Church members in the next general conference for a sustaining vote. This means that the members recognize this person as the person called to fill the role, offer their support, and promise to do their best to follow what he teaches.

There is no option in here for variance (and don't misunderstand me, I think that should the Q12 decide to change this format, there isn't anything to stop them). The Q12 it says "meet to receive confirmation from the Lord that the longest-serving Apostle will be the new prophet." For a long time there was a clarification here - the longest serving in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. There was a long history up to President Kimball's presidency when we had apostles who were never made members of the Q12. This include two of Brigham Young's children. But there were others as well. We no longer do this. Apostles are always ordained and then called to the Q12 immediately so that seniority is always clearly established. And to get back to my point, we have never had the Q12 not confirm the most senior apostle as the prophet. And then in Step 8, we get the sustaining vote. This is a mere formality. The Church as a whole would never reject a prophet - and we have that secondary problem of the idea that not sustaining the prophet becomes an act of apostasy. Put into a question, do you think that we (as members) have an obligation to sustain the actions of the Q12?

I am not disagreeing with any of this by the way. I think that there is tremendous value in the LDS Church of establishing an orderly succession. But I am also really aware of the fact that at some point in time, we will have a succession crisis - caused because we have a President of the Q12 who is unable (for reasons of health) to do the job, and we have an acting President of the Q12 not caused because the President of the Q12 in in the First Presidency. Will the Church still pick someone to be prophet because they are the most senior member, even if they have severe dementia? Will they do so because the Church can be managed just as effectively by the Q12? What makes this increasingly likely is that we have gotten so much better at extending life expectancy (without necessarily extending that quality of life). We have had an average age for our apostles of just under 80 for several years now. Even though it periodically drops (President Nelson's death will do that), the overall trend is moving upward. Perhaps even in my lifetime we will see an emeritus status introduced for apostles ...

At any rate, the short version of all this is - I think that stating that they are there precisely because God wants them there is a sort of agreement that is aimed at answering all concerns (legitimate or not). I think that the system we have allows for incompetence in a leader (as we have seen historically). I think that it is better to recognize that the system allows for us to have fragile or impaired leaders because the system doesn't rely on that single individual for effective administration of the Church. Eventually there will be a correction to the system to address future problems.

[Peacefully]

I vote for Uchtdorf and Bednar because they need to be ready to take over since Oaks seems healthier than Eyring or Holland. I know Uchtdorf already served time in the first presidency but the world has changed since then. It would also give a good balance to the First Presidency, a bit of push and pull, if you will. Just my two cents:) 

Edited October 5, 2025 by Peacefully

[Okrahomer]

So impressed and inspired by Elder Johnson’s story of struggle between his testimony versus aspects of Church History.  He is certainly a faith-filled man. 

[Tony uk]

I am sure this must be a time of interest for all LdS. After the Presidency of President Nelson, who will be the next person in this position. Whoever is privileged to take an important, will have to follow on from whatever legacy has been left by their predecessor.

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I've been listening to Pres. Oaks' biography- I think you'd both be surprised how soft he really is.

While in Chicago he started a justice project where students aided in the defense of indigent persons. He also helped fight for judicial reform in laws that disproportionately affected minorities.

While clerking for the Supreme Court, he found himself agreeing with the liberal side much more often than he anticipated.

Apparently, the "sternness" we see is because of how seriously he approaches Church callings, but at home he's loads of fun. His kids make fun of him about it.

I encourage you to read or listen to it.

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

[ZealouslyStriving]

Matthew Holland is sounding very apostolic... Maybe a father and son in the Q12 again for a time?

[Calm]

58 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Matthew Holland is sounding very apostolic... Maybe a father and son in the Q12 again for a time?

Seems unlikely it will be anytime soon given he’s been a general authority for only 5 years.

[ZealouslyStriving]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

Seems unlikely it will be anytime soon given he’s been a general authority for only 5 years.

How long was Bednar a GA before he was called? He was very young when called as an Apostle.

[Rain]

3 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

How long was Bednar a GA before he was called? He was very young when called as an Apostle.

"Bednar has served in the LDS Church as a bishop (Fayetteville Ward, 1987), twice as stake president (Fort Smith Arkansas Stake, 1987–1991 and Rogers Arkansas Stake, 1991–1995), regional representative (1994–95), and area seventy (1997–2004)." Wikipedia

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

How long was Bednar a GA before he was called? He was very young when called as an Apostle.

Wiki has him called as an area seventy in 1997.

Added:  I appear to be a wee bit slow today, lol.

Edited October 5, 2025 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

10 minutes ago, Rain said:

"Bednar has served in the LDS Church as a bishop (Fayetteville Ward, 1987), twice as stake president (Fort Smith Arkansas Stake, 1987–1991 and Rogers Arkansas Stake, 1991–1995), regional representative (1994–95), and area seventy (1997–2004)." Wikipedia

So he was never even a GA Seventy before being called as an Apostle?

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

So he was never even a GA Seventy before being called as an Apostle?

Apparently not.  That surprises me even if Pres of Ric….BYUI.

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Rain said:

"Bednar has served in the LDS Church as a bishop (Fayetteville Ward, 1987), twice as stake president (Fort Smith Arkansas Stake, 1987–1991 and Rogers Arkansas Stake, 1991–1995), regional representative (1994–95), and area seventy (1997–2004)." Wikipedia

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).

[webbles]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

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).

That does appear to have happened.  I found the church news article about the new stake - https://www.thechurchnews.com/1991/9/21/23260256/elder-l-lionel-kendrick-of-the-seventy/

Quote

ROGERS ARKANSAS STAKE: (Aug. 11, 1991) Created from the Fort Smith Arkansas, Muskogee Oklahoma, and Joplin Missouri stakes. President - David Allan Bednar, 39, professor of management and associate dean at the University of Arkansas, former stake president and counselor, high councilor, bishop, and Young Men president, married Susan Kae Robinson. Counselors - David Joseph Harris, 37, farm manager of integrated poultry company, former high councilor, stake Young Men president, bishop and counselor, branch president, and Scoutmaster, married Lisa Marie Heaton; Samuel Crandell Dunn, 33, general accounting manager for Wal-Mart stores, former bishop's counselor, Young Men president, elders quorum president, and gospel doctrine instructor, married Mary Alice Price.

The Fort Smith Arkansas stake also got a new stake president at the same time and it is in the same article.

[Stargazer]

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

I've heard that most stake presidents serve for around 10 years (not sure if that's a new thing or not).

It's one of those "unwritten rules." 5 years for bishop, 10 years for stake president. Well, it might be written in some unpublicized manual, but not one that I am aware of.

Long time ago, a new bishop or stake president could expect to stay in that calling for a really long time, potentially for the rest of their life. When Spencer W. Kimball's father, Andrew Kimball, was called as president of the St. Joseph Stake based in Thatcher, Arizona, in 1898, he spent the rest of his life in Arizona, serving as stake president for 26 years. He didn't live there when he was called, but moved there in order to fulfill the calling.

[JAHS]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

It's one of those "unwritten rules." 5 years for bishop, 10 years for stake president. Well, it might be written in some unpublicized manual, but not one that I am aware of.

Long time ago, a new bishop or stake president could expect to stay in that calling for a really long time, potentially for the rest of their life. When Spencer W. Kimball's father, Andrew Kimball, was called as president of the St. Joseph Stake based in Thatcher, Arizona, in 1898, he spent the rest of his life in Arizona, serving as stake president for 26 years. He didn't live there when he was called, but moved there in order to fulfill the calling.

I have known a few Bishops who I suspect moved to another city so they could be released from the calling.

[Okrahomer]

20 hours ago, webbles said:

That does appear to have happened.  I found the church news article about the new stake - https://www.thechurchnews.com/1991/9/21/23260256/elder-l-lionel-kendrick-of-the-seventy/

The Fort Smith Arkansas stake also got a new stake president at the same time and it is in the same article.

This is where I'm from (on the Oklahoma side), and I can confirm as well.  My folks reported about the Tri-Stake Conference when the new Rogers Arkansas Stake was created  and the young man called to be Stake President:  "So impressed with this new young Stake President!  The moment he opened his mouth, we got the feeling that he is probably destined for higher callings in the Church."  Their impression has proven true over the years.

Edited October 7, 2025 by Okrahomer

[Navidad]

As a non-member I should not opine, but that has never stopped me. I vote for a counselor Elder Snow, former first seventy and church historian. He is a wonderfully Godly man and it is about time a historian gets recognized for their vital work. Besides if you understand the history of the Church, then you understand how it's doctrine has developed and morphed over the years. They are inter-connected.

Oh, and I always thought he looked like a leader of the Church, whatever that means. Elder Snow, former Church historian for counselor! 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

As a non-member I should not opine, but that has never stopped me. I vote for a counselor Elder Snow, former first seventy and church historian. He is a wonderfully Godly man and it is about time a historian gets recognized for their vital work. Besides if you understand the history of the Church, then you understand how it's doctrine has developed and morphed over the years. They are inter-connected.

Oh, and I always thought he looked like a leader of the Church, whatever that means. Elder Snow, former Church historian for counselor! 

I really like Elder Snow, but he is an emeritus general authority and at 75 is ten years older than the typical upper calling to the 12 range (I think one was 67, but most low 60s and 50s).

[Navidad]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

I really like Elder Snow, but he is an emeritus general authority and at 75 is ten years older than the typical upper calling to the 12 range (I think one was 67, but most low 60s and 50s).

Oh well, I am 76, so I guess that leaves me out! Just kidding, no disrespect intended. 

 

[Tacenda]

On 10/4/2025 at 8:11 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

If the order the were called on to conduct is a clue, it will be Erying and Bednar.

I'd love Eyring to be in there.

[Stargazer]

On 10/6/2025 at 8:55 PM, JAHS said:

I have known a few Bishops who I suspect moved to another city so they could be released from the calling.

It occurred once in my ward that our bishop who worked for Boeing in Seattle, he got promoted away from the area. Don't know if that was because he wanted an early release or not. I suspect not, since he seemed to enjoy the calling.