JAHS Posted January 16, 2018 Posted January 16, 2018 3 minutes ago, rockpond said: Yep... It's not hard to compare the messages from Pres Uchtdorf and Pres Nelson and see that they have different approaches. I agree with you that Pres Nelson likely selected someone who was more ideologically matched to him. Does he now go by Elder Uchtdorf or does he keep the President title? This is new territory. While we will still hear from Pres Uchtdorf in GC, it will be with less frequency. They all go by the title of "Elder" and so will Elder Uchtdorf. Since he is no longer in the presidency he would no longer be called "president"
CMZ Posted January 16, 2018 Posted January 16, 2018 5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I'm looking for silver lining, so could you please remind me of some of the more liberal things Oaks has said in the past? I'm struggling with this and could use a little pick me up. I see it as punishment because of the precedent for retaining counselors (yes with a few minor exceptions). The influence of a first presidency member vs someone in the quorum of the 12 is significant. Trying to watch the press conference but here's one thing for now: https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction I don't think we're going to find anything where he says it's okay to be in a same-sex relationship. But he does say to treat people with love and kindness. 3
JLHPROF Posted January 16, 2018 Posted January 16, 2018 5 minutes ago, rockpond said: Yep... It's not hard to compare the messages from Pres Uchtdorf and Pres Nelson and see that they have different approaches. I agree with you that Pres Nelson likely selected someone who was more ideologically matched to him. Does he now go by Elder Uchtdorf or does he keep the President title? This is new territory. While we will still hear from Pres Uchtdorf in GC, it will be with less frequency. Elder Uchtdorf.
Popular Post Nevo Posted January 16, 2018 Popular Post Posted January 16, 2018 I'm sad to be hearing less of Elder Uchtdorf at conference but I'm not unhappy about President Oaks's elevation to the First Presidency. His conservative bona fides are well established, I think, but his is not a zeal without knowledge. I hope he will be a moderating, steadying influence on President Nelson. I did appreciate President Nelson's invitation to the disaffected to return to the covenant path. BTW, my dream first presidency would be Holland, Uchtdorf, and Christofferson. Just saying. 7
CMZ Posted January 16, 2018 Posted January 16, 2018 10 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Anything is possible for sure. He could have had an upset tummy too. But my initial reaction is, he did not look happy about his demotion. Not a demotion. Him and his wife were very upbeat during the devotional they both spoke at on Sunday night and they both surely knew at that time that he was not called back into the First Presidency. 2
ALarson Posted January 16, 2018 Posted January 16, 2018 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: With respect, I think any notion of any sort of a rift in the First Presidency, in the Quorum of the Twelve, or in those Quorums unitedly is pure poppycock! You need to read more. There's well documented problems and differences that have taken place within the leadership of the church. Why would today be any different? I doubt there's a serious "rift" (I agree with you there), but differences of opinions or even beliefs regarding some issues are normal. I also think it's normal to choose counselors (who you will be working with closely) who are more on the same page as you are. This occurs on a local level too and it's understandable. Edited January 16, 2018 by ALarson
CMZ Posted January 16, 2018 Posted January 16, 2018 Nelson and Oaks are speaking about LGBT right now.
Kenngo1969 Posted January 16, 2018 Author Posted January 16, 2018 11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: I think it's poppycock to make assertions like these based on fuzzy feelings. You cannot put 15 men in a room talking about the gospel and find they agree on all points all the time. Such an idea is beyond naive. There may not be a rift (contention) but they still have minds. My assertion isn't based on "fuzzy feelin's." Thanks fer playin'! 1
stemelbow Posted January 16, 2018 Posted January 16, 2018 5 minutes ago, Derl Sanderson said: Forgive me if I find all this amusing. I have no idea what it means that this First Presidency will "undoubtetdly be more orthodox and conservative in its approach than the previous" (presidency). If this is a reference to LGBT issues being more liberally thought of by Elder Uchtdorf than President Oaks, let me say that I just viewed all of President Oaks' statements over on mormonandgay.org and I'm just not seeing it. And not that age is the final dictator of how things will turn out for Elder Uchtdorf, but I note that 77-year-old Elder Uchtdorf is preceded in the quorum by a 93-year-old, an 85-year-old, an 89-year-old, another 77-year-old, and an 84-year-old. I don't think we've heard "the last" of Elder Uchtdorf. Who knows what the Lord has in store for these brethren? I'm old enough to recall that when Harold B. Lee died, media coverage focused for the most part on the very prominent and very controversial Ezra Taft Benson. Spencer Kimball was given comparatively little notice, as most considered that his poor health wouldn't leave him as Church President for very long and thus his accomplishments would be minor. How'd that turn out??? (If you wonder, read the second volume of his biography, Lengthen Your Stride by Edward Kimball -- one of the best biographies written on any Church president). And then when ETB eventually became president and most were wringing their hands or rejoicing over his incredibly right-leaning political views, what became his hallmark and a major turning point in the history of our Church? His emphasis on the BOM. To me it's all amazing and wonderful and I look forward to trying to stay alive for awhile and see what the Lord will do next. Interesting. Is the Lord the one in charge of deciding which ones to take home, thus controlling which ones get promoted to President? If say, Oaks replaced Uchtdorf for not other reason than to get Oaks experience in the Q12, then what influence did the Lord have, really? Also, if it is necessary to get the next in line experience in the Q12 then one has to wonder why Monson rejected that in favor fo the 2 he selected, some years ago.
Kenngo1969 Posted January 16, 2018 Author Posted January 16, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, ALarson said: You need to read more. There's well documented problems and differences that have taken place within the leadership of the church. Why would today be any different. I doubt there's a serious "rift" (I agree with you there), but differences of opinions or even beliefs regarding some issues are normal. Mmm-kay. In one breath, you criticize my lack of knowledge ("You need to read more ...") Then in the next breath you agree with my assertion ("I doubt there's a serious 'rift' ...") Whatever, Dude! Edited January 16, 2018 by Kenngo1969 1
CMZ Posted January 16, 2018 Posted January 16, 2018 7 minutes ago, Derl Sanderson said: And then when ETB eventually became president and most were wringing their hands or rejoicing over his incredibly right-leaning political views, what became his hallmark and a major turning point in the history of our Church? His emphasis on the BOM. To me it's all amazing and wonderful and I look forward to trying to stay alive for awhile and see what the Lord will do next. Yes, people thought he was going to slam the uber-conservative hammer down. But he told people to read The Book of Mormon, to cast away pride, etc.
stemelbow Posted January 16, 2018 Posted January 16, 2018 3 minutes ago, CMZ said: Not a demotion. Him and his wife were very upbeat during the devotional they both spoke at on Sunday night and they both surely knew at that time that he was not called back into the First Presidency. What do you mean not a demotion? Moving down the hierarchical structure is exactly what a demotion is. Are you using the word demotion in a different sense then it means?
Popular Post CMZ Posted January 16, 2018 Popular Post Posted January 16, 2018 Just now, stemelbow said: What do you mean not a demotion? Moving down the hierarchical structure is exactly what a demotion is. Are you using the word demotion in a different sense then it means? Yes, absolutely I am using it in a different way. In the Church it doesn't matter where you serve but how. Individuals will feel an incredible peace come to their soul when they finally and fully grasp this. 7
stemelbow Posted January 16, 2018 Posted January 16, 2018 8 minutes ago, Nevo said: I'm sad to be hearing less of Elder Uchtdorf at conference but I'm not unhappy about President Oaks's elevation to the First Presidency. His conservative bona fides are well established, I think, but his is not a zeal without knowledge. I hope he will be a moderating, steadying influence on President Nelson. I did appreciate President Nelson's invitation to the disaffected to return to the covenant path. BTW, my dream first presidency would be Holland, Uchtdorf, and Christofferson. Just saying. you have weird dreams. Curious if you documented one such dream if some years later it'd be labeled a strange account compared to one that you might offer some time later, labeling it official? Don't worry. I don't know what's wrong with me, to say that. But I'm leaving it just to show my own weirdness just so you don't feel alone in your weird dreaming state.
stemelbow Posted January 16, 2018 Posted January 16, 2018 2 minutes ago, CMZ said: Yes, absolutely I am using it in a different way. In the Church it doesn't matter where you serve but how. Individuals will feel an incredible peace come to their soul when they finally and fully grasp this. Ok fine. The ward usher has as much a part as the President of the Church stuff.
ALarson Posted January 16, 2018 Posted January 16, 2018 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: Mmm-kay. In one breath, you criticize my lack of knowledge ("You need to read more ...") Then in the next breath you agree with my assertion ("I doubt there's a serious 'rift' ...") Whatever, Dude! I don't believe there is a "serious" rift. If that's what you meant, then I agree. Serious disagreement though? Sure (IMO, that's normal). However there have always been differences of opinions and even beliefs regarding certain issues. It's naive to assume they always agree on issues and there has been much written about this regarding past leadership (and some were serious disagreements too....). Edited January 16, 2018 by ALarson
ksfisher Posted January 16, 2018 Posted January 16, 2018 17 minutes ago, rockpond said: Does he now go by Elder Uchtdorf or does he keep the President title? This is new territory. At the young adult devotional Sunday night he was introduced as "Elder" Uchtdorf. That was also the title displayed on the TV screen.
Popular Post juliann Posted January 16, 2018 Popular Post Posted January 16, 2018 19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I'm looking for silver lining, so could you please remind me of some of the more liberal things Oaks has said in the past? I'm struggling with this and could use a little pick me up. He opened up the authority of the priesthood to women and the discussion continues. That was huge. And he made a stunning statement in a stake conference that built on that in my area that I won't repeat because we are told not to. Meanwhile, I'm beyond disappointed that Pres. Uchtdorf was removed. It was so hard to watch his discomfort as he sat there. I think it is a great, great loss. The press conference is....awkward. They are painfully avoiding questions, even to the point of not even responding to the "men" part of a white, American, male leadership question. It is back to "we" need "their" influence, as if we aren't a part of their "we." A reminder to address women only produced talk about mothers, daughters and wives type stuff with the "I love women." Women glorify God through childbirth was Pres. Nelson's last comment. 7
ksfisher Posted January 16, 2018 Posted January 16, 2018 26 minutes ago, Duncan said: not like in the past couple of days but a month ago or earlier Ok. I misunderstood what you had written. I should have google translated your Canadian into my Utahn! 2
CMZ Posted January 16, 2018 Posted January 16, 2018 13 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Interesting. Is the Lord the one in charge of deciding which ones to take home, thus controlling which ones get promoted to President? If say, Oaks replaced Uchtdorf for not other reason than to get Oaks experience in the Q12 [sic?], then what influence did the Lord have, really? Also, if it is necessary to get the next in line experience in the Q12 then one has to wonder why Monson rejected that in favor fo the 2 he selected, some years ago. Yes, it's not absolutely necessary at all the "next in line" be called into the First Presidency to get experience. There is in no doctrine whatsoever that says such must be the case. At all. But some prophet might see it as advisable to do such a thing in a given situation. In this case it could be because of President Nelson's advanced age? Then again, maybe not.
JLHPROF Posted January 16, 2018 Posted January 16, 2018 (edited) 8 minutes ago, juliann said: The press conference is....awkward. They are painfully avoiding questions, even to the point of not even responding to the "men" part of a white, American, male leadership question. It is back to "we" need "their" influence, as if we aren't a part of their "we." A reminder to address women only produced talk about mothers, daughters and wives type stuff with the "I love women." Women glorify God through childbirth was Pres. Nelson's last comment. They are doubling down on current Church teachings for sure. The blessings of marriage, family, etc. Suggesting Millennials would be happier marrying, and only marrying according to the Lord's plan. They aren't wrong, that's not what I'm saying. But there is a clear adherence to current teachings rather than a look towards any potential changes. But it really is an awkward press conference. Surprisingly so considering their collective experience with the press. Edited January 16, 2018 by JLHPROF
The Nehor Posted January 16, 2018 Posted January 16, 2018 14 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Ok fine. The ward usher has as much a part as the President of the Church stuff. But does the assistant hymn book coordinator have as much part?
Duncan Posted January 16, 2018 Posted January 16, 2018 Here's a question, 2/3 of the New First Presidency are sealed to two women, but we don't don't teach polygamy and ex people who engage in it, what are we to believe in regards to that? 2
Popular Post CMZ Posted January 16, 2018 Popular Post Posted January 16, 2018 10 minutes ago, juliann said: Meanwhile, I'm beyond disappointed that Pres. Uchtdorf was removed. It was so hard to watch his discomfort as he sat there. I think it is a great, great loss. One solution would be to watch or re-watch last Sunday night's devotional where, even though he already knew at that point that he was not called back into the First Presidency, he was still very upbeat. And, as others have pointed out here, he can still be called back into the First Presidency at some subsequent time. Just like how J. Reuben Clark went from First Counselor to Second and later back to First. 5
ALarson Posted January 16, 2018 Posted January 16, 2018 (edited) 13 minutes ago, juliann said: Meanwhile, I'm beyond disappointed that Pres. Uchtdorf was removed. It was so hard to watch his discomfort as he sat there. I think it is a great, great loss. The press conference is....awkward. They are painfully avoiding questions, even to the point of not even responding to the "men" part of a white, American, male leadership question. It is back to "we" need "their" influence, as if we aren't a part of their "we." A reminder to address women only produced talk about mothers, daughters and wives type stuff with the "I love women." Women glorify God through childbirth was Pres. Nelson's last comment. I love and agree with your entire post (and your perspective). But, I have not heard about the "I won't repeat because we are told not to" regarding a statement made in stake conference. Who has "told you not to"? (If you don't want to disclose that, I understand....just curious....). Edited January 16, 2018 by ALarson
Recommended Posts