New First Presidency

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't see a need for "protection" from those with differences in opinion.  Why should ideas need protection, if the whole concept of the best ideas are the most persuasive at the end of the day.  Protection is needed to shield people and institutions from having to account for their poor ideas that aren't persuasive.  

There are plenty of people with good ideas who needed protection from those who hated them.  We just celebrated one of them yesterday.  I am not suggesting that most harassment goes to that level, just using the example to demonstrate bad things do happen to some people who are public about their good ideas so assuming protection is only needed for people with bad ideas is faulty.

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

I was analyzing facial expressions from Elder Uchtdorf, but then I started looking at everyone else's expressions and had to laugh.  What do you make of these facial expressions?  They all held that exact same expression for what felt like a minute!  If Elder Uchtdorf is interpreted as being upset, President Nelson must be irate, President Oaks jsut wishes that he was somewhere else, and Presidnt Eyring...completely befuddled! 

No points left so you get a as well.

[kiwi57]

2 hours ago, Que said:

I recognize that this is my own experience and means nothing to anybody but me, but...

It seems to me like President Eyrings "normal resting face" has an expression that is somewhere between a grin and a "wow, what comes next?" expression. It seems to fit his cultural upbringing, his presentation when he speaks, his personality.

Elder Uchtdorf has a "normal resting face" expression that is more stern... which totally seems to fit his culture (based on my experience and years in Germany), and personality. When Elder Uchtdorf chooses to smile, it seems intentional and genuine to me. I did not get a disappointment vibe from him, and I saw the hand on the arm as an expression of brotherly support for a Quorum member, not a consolation.

Yes, it's something that many people have remarked upon. Germans just don't smile, unless they really want to.

2 hours ago, Que said:

Your mileage may obviously vary, but that is how I saw it.

Personally, I am so glad that the burden of leadership is on these men, and not me!!! I will happily follow them regardless of individual leadership styles and emphasis... and that is part of my own "covenant" relationship...

I get the feeling that some in this thread are looking for gnats to strain, but I understand they have their particular areas of extra concern...

Welcome to MDDB!

 

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

It is no  more clear to me that Uchtdorf was upset then it is clear that President Nelson was irate.  Facial expressions are not always "clear" indicators of feelings.  Elder Uchtdorf looked pleasant to me.  It is a funny exercise to watch the different facial expressions of the different Apostles in that video and guess what they are thinking and feeling.

Barring some kind of cognitive condition like the late Oliver Sacks had, it's really not that complicated or difficult to see.

Edited January 16, 2018 by Gray

[kiwi57]

2 hours ago, Ginger Snaps said:

Tangential, but can anyone identify the painting that was used in the announcements and was also behind the First Presidency in the temple this morning? It hangs in the initiatory of my local temple and I love it,  but I’ve never been able to find out who the artist is. 

Is that the "Go ye into all the world" painting? I think it's a Harry Anderson.

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I can assure you I had no intentions of the sort with my use of that word.  Would be nice to have the benefit of the doubt sometimes, I'm really not a bad guy.  

Fair enough.

While we're on the subject, how about we give the brethren the "benefit of the doubt" about the conflict you suspect imagine in the quorum?

[hope_for_things]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In some ways, yes.  In politics, for example.

But in many other ways, however, I think your assessment is very incorrect. 

Lots of people value their privacy. 

Lots of people value discretion. 

Lots of people recognize that "popular opinion" can be a less-than-ideal means of adjudicating difficult issues. 

This is why consumers want their banks and ISPs and computers and smartphones and government entities and medical and mental health providers and clergy and so on to protect private information, not publish it for examination by any particular reason, or no reason at all.  

This is why we have courts of law, rather than mob rule or arbitrary tyrants.  As an attorney, I have been involved in countless disputes in which sensitive and difficult issues have been raised and addressed.  "Public discussions and articulations of concepts" do not really factor into these efforts.  To the contrary, these matters are handled formally.  In controlled circumstances.  The parties are constrained by rules of evidence and procedure.  And there is a clear decision-making apparatus (the judge), and a clear mechanism for disagreeing with that apparatus (appellate courts).

You must concur with this to some great extent, HFT.  You have not published your real name on this board.  Or your home address.  Or telephone number.  Or email address.  Or social security number.  Or bank account number.  Or the results of your latest medical physical.  Or your pet peeves you harbor regarding your spouse or children.  This is not because you are obsessed with "secrecy."  It is because these things are none of our business.  You are right to not disclose such things in the public sphere.

So it is, I think, with many of the difficult topics that are addressed by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.

My observations of the trends of society are that people are more open to losing privacy and the expectations for privacy in younger generations has trended to expecting less privacy.  Different poll results in recent years have backed up my thinking on this.  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/most-americans-support-nsa-tracking-phone-records-prioritize-investigations-over-privacy/2013/06/10/51e721d6-d204-11e2-9f1a-1a7cdee20287_story.html?utm_term=.1d5911a7be39

I'm not saying many aren't concerned about privacy still, but I think the trend is going in the other direction as a whole.  

Your example about my personal life privacy vs. a public entity isn't a good example.  Also, the word secrecy seems more of an obsession on your part as you seem to wince at the idea of that word being used, when that is the exact word that early church leaders used to describe these councils and rituals, and it's a completely accurate usage of the word in this context.  

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

CFR, please.  Chapter and verse.

Meanwhile, I'm going to go with the principles set out by then-Elder Oaks in this 1987 article:

Feeling lazy because of your ticky tac use of the CFR rule here.  When I say something is a gospel principle, I didn't say that I'm going to prove my assertion through scriptural exegesis.  Although I'm confident I could find scriptural verses to support my idea, I see no need to do this just because I never made the claim.  I will quote the gospel of HFT, chapter 3, vs. 1.  "See that all your doings before the Lord are not hidden under a bushel, but that they shine forth as a beacon for the whole world to see to glorify God."   

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As to matters of church governance, I think the Brethren are quite correct in their practice of addressing sensitive and difficult issues in councils, not in the public sphere.  The former allows those quorums to seek the will of God, whereas the latter would essentially make discussions devolve into politicking and popularity contests.

I would argue that many of the issues already have components of politicking and popularity contests, just that these aspects are hidden from public view in the present, but its apparent that these elements have been a part of the past.  

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, yes.  But in the appropriate time, and place, and manner.  The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve presently hash things out in the temple.  Not on Facebook.  Not in the news media.  Not on YouTube.  

What they are doing is the best way to go.

Just curious, but do you ever consider that there could be improvements upon the status quo, or is that pushing things too far?

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I cannot imagine a more offensive way to characterize the discussions of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles - taking place in councils mandated by scripture, with attendant fasting and prayer, and in the temple - than claiming that such discussions are "hidden in the darkness."

The mind reels, actually.

Its honestly what I think is happening.  Have you ever noticed in the D&C just how many times the church and the saints are reproved for doing things incorrectly.  Its all over the place.  Means that people are messing up a lot, including church leaders.  Why is this concept so shocking, its all over in the scriptures.  

 

[Tacenda]

39 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Start about 2:11:30, and ends about 2:19:00.

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/president-nelson-press-conference-recap

They want to make a paean to divine womanhood.  She wants to complain about quotas.  They aren't remotely speaking the same language. 

She knows her readership.  Her readership demands smart@rsery.

They know the truth of women's place in this here world  ...  and what a hole is left in the lives of those who experience loss of wife, loss of mother ... loss of woman.  Weepy Hal tells us more about the worth of woman than anything the likes of Peggy Fletcher ever could.

Pres. Eyring is a sweetheart, I wonder how his wife is doing since he mentioned she couldn't be there.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

That was exactly my thought. I scrutinized all of them, looking for some semblance of what juliann, stemelbow, and Gray said was clearly evident. They all looked upset. Elder Bednar, anyone?

It is likely an extremely stressful time for all and all likely have new things on their plate they may be anxious to get to.

And instead of being able to do something, they get to sit and wait and most of the hour or so be quiet while hundreds of thousands, maybe millions by the time it gets spread around, eyeball them for the least hint of movement that betrays inner thoughts.

Maybe as they sat there mentally twiddling their thumbs, thoughts about projects and plans and needs popped into their heads and their faces revealed that because they are too tired to exercise their usual control.

Maybe some had upsetting news that had nothing to do with what was going on.  Maybe someone bruised a tailbone and sitting is difficult.  Maybe they got told they had an immediate oversea assignment and they were going to miss a grandchild's birthday they had planned on going to.  Maybe they are actually disappointed for themselves or others in the particulars of their new assignments.    Awkwardness and/or frustration could be the result of endless possibilities.

[Avatar4321]

2 hours ago, mnn727 said:

I must say, I am very surprised by this discussion. With a couple of exceptions, we're all LDS here.

My question to the LDS members "Is God in charge of this Church or not?"

If He is, then why try to second guess this?

 If He is not then why are we members?

I’ve been surprised at this as well. The Lord is at the helm. He calls who He calls where He calls them for as long as He calls them

[hope_for_things]

29 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

But surely we can look at their behavior. Both Monson and Uchtdorf were the leadership from the Prop-8 days onwards. I'm not quite sure how one can say Uchtdorf wasn't involved. Further there's nothing in Uchtdorf's rhetoric that suggests he disagrees. (Contrast this with say Brown) We do have Uchtdorf signing various First Presidency letters on LGBT that I think go against this reading of Uchtdorf as a theological liberal. Uchtdorf also, contra to some reports, has spoken on LGBT. 

 

I agree with your point that he was involved and signing off on these things.  I have no direct knowledge that he opposed any of the LGBT issues you mention, its largely supposition on my part.  I imagine him trying to soften language, and moderate the actions, but I have no direct knowledge of this.  I've heard he was out of town in 2015 when the November policy was leaked and that may have been a concern as it has been a large concern for many and is perceived as going the wrong direction in the church. 

But you're right that he signed off on other things, so I'm not exempting him from some accountability for these decisions.  Some people have different strategies for how they try to influence groups.  Ultimately he's accountable for the actions under his stewardship, but I'd like to think he was making every effort to soften and moderate.  

 

[hope_for_things]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yep.  It'd be John 6 all over again.

How is telling a falsehood "ideal?"  Polygamy manifestly was "commanded by God."

You might as well say "Ideally the Savior should have articulated that His remarks in John 6 were wrong."  After all, He said some things that "rub{bed} a lot of people wrong," too.

This is axiomatic.

I don't believe that men are privileged over women, or that women are privileged over men.  We are all, in the end, "equal in the bonds of heavenly things" (D&C 78:5).

So all of this is just an exercise in wishful thinking.  Got it.

Thanks,

-Smac

You like polygamy and think God does too.  I don't like it and think God doesn't like it either.  That's about all that needs to be said.  

[clarkgoble]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree with your point that he was involved and signing off on these things.  I have no direct knowledge that he opposed any of the LGBT issues you mention, its largely supposition on my part.  I imagine him trying to soften language, and moderate the actions, but I have no direct knowledge of this.  I've heard he was out of town in 2015 when the November policy was leaked and that may have been a concern as it has been a large concern for many and is perceived as going the wrong direction in the church. 

But you're right that he signed off on other things, so I'm not exempting him from some accountability for these decisions.  Some people have different strategies for how they try to influence groups.  Ultimately he's accountable for the actions under his stewardship, but I'd like to think he was making every effort to soften and moderate.  

But again that sounds like pure projection. What you'd like to be true. There's no evidence he was anything like this. My point is that what evidence we have points in the other direction. I'm not singling you out. I've seen this all over the place with people projecting onto Uchtdorf positions with zero evidence for them. It's fantasy.

The next step seems even more problematic. That Uchtdorf was released for these fantasy positions. That goes beyond wishful thinking into conspiratorial thinking.

I've no idea what really was going on. However the more likely answer is the simplest. Nelson was old and wanted someone he trusted implicitly - Oaks. He didn't want to do the McKay thing of a ton of counselors because that didn't turn out well. So he had to release Eyring or Uchtdorf. He picked Uchtdorf.

 

Edited January 16, 2018 by clarkgoble

[hope_for_things]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

There are plenty of people with good ideas who needed protection from those who hated them.  We just celebrated one of them yesterday.  I am not suggesting that most harassment goes to that level, just using the example to demonstrate bad things do happen to some people who are public about their good ideas so assuming protection is only needed for people with bad ideas is faulty.

Yes, protection from law breaking violent people.  I'm not suggesting that we suspend the laws against violent acts, I'm suggesting that we don't need to hide these kinds of discussions from the public.  I thought you were saying we need to protect the decision makers from any negative press by letting them make decisions behind closed doors without any feedback from the public. 

I believe it is the duty of a free society to articulate the best principles.  

[Avatar4321]

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

If that is the way one looks at it. Several people seem to be able to read Elder Uchtdorf's mind. I did not know that it was a science.

You didn’t take Uchtdorfology at BYU? It involves a lot of airplanes

[hope_for_things]

17 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Fair enough.

While we're on the subject, how about we give the brethren the "benefit of the doubt" about the conflict you suspect imagine in the quorum?

We have clues that these conflicts are present.  Why not just assume that these fallible humans are going to have disagreements and quit pretending otherwise and putting on a facade.   

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

But again that sounds like pure projection. What you'd like to be true. There's no evidence he was anything like this. My point is that what evidence we have points in the other direction. I'm not singling you out. I've seen this all over the place with people projecting onto Uchtdorf positions with zero evidence for them. It's fantasy.

The next step seems even more problematic. That Uchtdorf was released for these fantasy positions. That goes beyond wishful thinking into conspiratorial thinking.

I've no idea what really was going on. However the more likely answer is the simplest. Nelson was old and wanted someone he trusted implicitly - Oaks. He didn't want to do the McKay thing of a ton of counselors because that didn't turn out well. So he had to release Eyring or Uchtdorf. He picked Uchtdorf.

There is evidence, they are small evidences, but it doesn't mean they don't exist.  Saying there is zero evidence or that this is a fantasy is silly hyperbole on your part.  I'm sure you're aware of others who have this impression about Uchtdorf as well, are all these people who follow these issues completely mistaken? 

Do you have evidence that my perspective about Uchtdorf is inaccurate?  Its a matter of following the small clues and making reasonable inferences based on that evidence.  

Its not a conspiracy to have a counselor released based on disagreements in ideology, you are really stretching here. 

I'm admittedly speculating based on my limited observations, and you are too.  That you believe your speculative observations are rooted in solid fact and reason, while mine are the equivalent of conspiracy theories shows quite the hubris on your part.  

[Danzo]

35 minutes ago, Gray said:

Barring some kind of cognitive condition like the late Oliver Sacks had, it's really not that complicated or difficult to see.

Especially if that is what you want to see.

[smac97]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

You like polygamy

Tell you what: I'll tell you what I think, abstain from telling you what you think, and I'll ask that you return the courtesy.  How 'bout it?

Quote

and think God does too. 

I don't know what this means.

Wishful thinking aside, God had commanded His children, in certain limited circumstances, to practice polygamy.  It's not a matter of what I "like."  It's a matter of what God has decreed.

For the records, I am thrilled that polygamy is not currently practiced.  

Quote

I don't like it and think God doesn't like it either. 

I can respect that you "don't like it."

Nevertheless, the truth is that God mandated polygamy in the Bible and in modern times.

Quote

That's about all that needs to be said.  

In an exercise in wishful thinking, yes.  Otherwise, you'd need to actually account for the scriptural references to polygamy (if you want to persuade anyone of anything other than your personal tastes and preferences, that is).

I encourage you to read John 6.  It's a healthy reality check for all of us.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 17, 2018 by smac97

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, protection from law breaking violent people.  I'm not suggesting that we suspend the laws against violent acts, I'm suggesting that we don't need to hide these kinds of discussions from the public.  I thought you were saying we need to protect the decision makers from any negative press by letting them make decisions behind closed doors without any feedback from the public. 

I believe it is the duty of a free society to articulate the best principles.  

I am talking about targeting church leaders in inappropriate ways such as Kate Kelly did with her bishop when she gave his employer's name.  Encouraging others to harass people you disagree with or even hate.  Seen it happen too often with apologists and random members expressing their opinion.  I got a stupid death threat just because I was a moderator and made my reasons for my decisions public.  That doesn't count the endless hours (and I am talking over a hundred) dealing with a small number of posters who knew better than I did what I should be doing in my role including stuff that had nothing to do with them...and this was trivial stuff.  Something that actually matters would likely draw tons more unnecessary fire.

Then there is just the problem with contributing to gossip since ward issues are often about people's needs.  This would be huge, imo.

Edited January 17, 2018 by Calm

[pogi]

35 minutes ago, Gray said:

Barring some kind of cognitive condition like the late Oliver Sacks had, it's really not that complicated or difficult to see.

I must have some kind of cognitive condition then, because I, honest to goodness, don't see it.

[RevTestament]

22 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

We have clues that these conflicts are present.  Why not just assume that these fallible humans are going to have disagreements and quit pretending otherwise and putting on a facade.   

That is how gossip gets started. C'mon hft - you're better than this. Members of the Church shouldn't be speculating about such things. It is not a healthy example.

[CA Steve]

It's good to know that while everyone acknowledges that the new leadership is not perfect there will still be those who defend them as if they were.

[Gray]

13 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Especially if that is what you want to see.

Or if you're a regular human being who has seen and interacted with someone who is upset before.

[Gray]

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

I must have some kind of cognitive condition then, because I, honest to goodness, don't see it.

I don't think you have a cognitive condition. But perhaps there is a theological motivation to not letting yourself recognize his body/face language.