New First Presidency

[JLHPROF]

Just now, Duncan said:

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?

Polygamy is still a canonized doctrine of the Church.  That has never changed.
That is what we are to believe.  We are not to practice it in this life at this time.  What else is there to say?

[CMZ]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

But does the assistant hymn book coordinator have as much part?

Yes.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

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?

That you should go marry another wife immediately!!!!!

[hope_for_things]

35 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Yes.  That has happened any time the second-most-senior Apostle has been called as a Counselor in the First Presidency, and it is a relatively frequent occurrence.  Presidents Rudger Clawson (1918-1921), Joseph Fielding Smith (1950-1951), Spencer W. Kimball (1970-1972), Howard W. Hunter (1985-1988), Boyd K. Packer (twice, 1994-1995 and 1995-2008), and now M. Russell Ballard, respectively, all have served as Acting Presidents of the Quorum of the Twelve.

I'm thinking more narrowly here, when has a senior Apostle received a call to the first presidency for the first time, when they were the senior apostle.  I believe if I remember correctly that when Packer was acting quorum president that it wasn't because of a newly called apostle to the first presidency, it was because someone passed away in front of him.  

[Kenngo1969]

16 minutes ago, 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?  

So ... once a person is called as a Young Men President, he should then only be called as an Elder's Quorum President, then only be called as a Counselor in a Bishopric (or, once one has presided, is it a "demotion" to be called as a counselor ), then as a Bishop, then as a counselor in a Stake Presidency (or is that another "demotion"? ), then as a Stake President, then as a member of an Area Presidency, then as an Area President, then as a member of the Presidency of the Seventy, then as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, then as a member of the First Presidency, then as President of the Church?

Man, the powers-that-be are really screwing things up then, because my brother was a Stake President one week and a Gospel Doctrine teacher the next (slight exaggeration, perhaps, but not by much ...)

[hope_for_things]

32 minutes ago, CMZ said:

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.

As someone who considers himself an ally for my LGBT family and friends, I don't consider this an example of a more charitable statement.  

[CMZ]

Just now, hope_for_things said:

I'm thinking more narrowly here, when has a senior Apostle received a call to the first presidency for the first time, when they were the senior apostle.  I believe if I remember correctly that when Packer was acting quorum president that it wasn't because of a newly called apostle to the first presidency, it was because someone passed away in front of him.  

For his first time being Acting President it was because of the actual President of the Quorum of the Twelve (Gordon B. Hinckley) being called as President Hunter's first counselor. For his second time it was because of the actual President of the Quorum of the Twelve (Thomas S. Monson) being called as President Hinckley's first counselor.

[CMZ]

2 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

So ... once a person is called as a Young Men President, he should then only be called as an Elder's Quorum President, then only be called as a Counselor in a Bishopric (or, once one has presided, is it a "demotion" to be called as a counselor ), then as a Bishop, then as a counselor in a Stake Presidency (or is that another "demotion"? ), then as a Stake President, then as a member of an Area Presidency, then as an Area President, then as a member of the Presidency of the Seventy, then as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, then as a member of the First Presidency, then as President of the Church?

Man, the powers-that-be are really screwing things up then, because my brother was a Stake President one week and a Gospel Doctrine teacher the next (slight exaggeration, perhaps, but not by much ...)

I had a former stake president become the guy who changed the paper towels in the temple restroom. No, I am not making this up.

[Alan]

As far as I'm concerned, if the new presidency is more orthodox and conservative, that is a very good thing.

[Duncan]

2 hours ago, CMZ said:

I had a former stake president become the guy who changed the paper towels in the temple restroom. No, I am not making this up.

I wish our former Stake Pres. would become that guy! give him a shred of humility and regard for others!

Edited January 16, 2018 by Duncan

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

So saddened by losing Elder Uchtdorf in the presidency.  This is not a good sign for the progressives in the church like me.   Here is my suspicion on what just happened.  

1.  I think Elder Oaks "earned" this promotion through his vocal and ardent articulation on the LGBT topic and on women and the priesthood, and I think Nelson rewarded and promoted him accordingly.  

2. I suspect that Elder Uchtdorf was vocal behind the scenes with concerns about the LGBT policy and possibly other issues, and I think Nelson and others interpreted his concerns as disloyalty.  

This news today has me greatly saddened.  I see this as retrenchment and a move in the wrong direction.  

Thank you for your "suspicion."

Those of us who don't have suspicious minds will, of course, see things differently.

[hope_for_things]

17 minutes ago, juliann said:

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. 

 

Unfortunately that talk on priesthood I found many more negatives than positives from my perspective.  I think he tried to set clear boundaries, and in doing so tried to limit the influence of women and their access to priesthood in the future. 

I loved that we got to heard the press conference and the unscripted answers from church leaders.  The fact that they were awkward and made gaffes shows us that they are human and that they are old, which honestly are refreshing things to see and I think it illustrates just how human and regular these men are, they aren't super-humans as unfortunately many people seem to think.   It also exposed just how much a product of their generations and their insulated culture they are.  

[drums12]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Could God have had anything to do with President Oaks's call to the First Presidency?  Could God have had anything to do with former-President-now-Elder Uchtdorf's (re)-call into the Quorum of the Twelve?  

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!

With respect, I think there is abundant precedent for conflict in the highest quorums of the Church.  Just because the 12 and FP put up a united Front doesn't mean it's so.

[Kenngo1969]

One thing I think it would have been smart to do, during the initial announcement of the new First Presidency or at the press conference afterward, is to give Elder Uchtdorf some time (if he wanted it) to say something and (unless there's a rift in the Quorum of the Twelve or the First Presidency ) to express support for the new First Presidency.

I think such a course would do something to put to rest any notion of such a rift.  I would be surprised if Elder Uchtdorf didn't address it somehow in his upcoming Conference address.

[CMZ]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

As someone who considers himself an ally for my LGBT family and friends, I don't consider this an example of a more charitable statement.  

I understand. This topic has been debated endlessly here in these forums. And I realize there are some who feel, "As an LGB ally my love for them means they should be able to do as they feel." And I also realize that the prophets of God feel, "Because of our love for God's children we must teach the commandments that will bring the greatest happiness to individuals in the long run."

https://mormonandgay.lds.org/videos?id=3515393143142822367&lang=eng

As far as the "T" goes, keep in mind that President Oaks has said we need further education on that matter. It's a whole different thing from the LGB issue.

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, kiwi57 said:

Thank you for your "suspicion."

Those of us who don't have suspicious minds will, of course, see things differently.

sus·pect

verb

 

səˈspekt/

1. 1.

   have an idea or impression of the existence, presence, or truth of (something) without certain proof.

    

   I wasn't using suspect in the sense of thinking someone is guilty of a crime.  But I suspect you knew that anyway and were just taking a pot shot.  

 

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

So ... once a person is called as a Young Men President, he should then only be called as an Elder's Quorum President, then only be called as a Counselor in a Bishopric (or, once one has presided, is it a "demotion" to be called as a counselor ), then as a Bishop, then as a counselor in a Stake Presidency (or is that another "demotion"? ), then as a Stake President, then as a member of an Area Presidency, then as an Area President, then as a member of the Presidency of the Seventy, then as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, then as a member of the First Presidency, then as President of the Church?

Man, the powers-that-be are really screwing things up then, because my brother was a Stake President one week and a Gospel Doctrine teacher the next (slight exaggeration, perhaps, but not by much ...)

This is true.  First Presidency is a calling, not a priesthood office.  You cannot make a High Priest an Elder, but you can make a former Bishop a primary teacher.
Elder Uchtdorf still holds the exact same priesthood he did before this change.  He just has a different calling in the Church.

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, Kenngo1969 said:

One thing I think it would have been smart to do, during the initial announcement of the new First Presidency or at the press conference afterward, is to give Elder Uchtdorf some time (if he wanted it) to say something and (unless there's a rift in the Quorum of the Twelve or the First Presidency ) to express support for the new First Presidency.

I think such a course would do something to put to rest any notion of such a rift.  I would be surprised if Elder Uchtdorf didn't address it somehow in his upcoming Conference address.

I was thinking something similar.  In my local wards I like it when they let the outgoing counselors share a few words.  I think that would have been a nice gesture.  I also was hoping someone in the press would ask the question about how counselors are selected and specifically why Uchtdorf wasn't retained.  But that would have been a really gutsy question in this culture.  

[Kenngo1969]

9 minutes ago, CMZ said:

I had a former stake president become the guy who changed the paper towels in the temple restroom. No, I am not making this up.

Man they're really screwin' things up in your neck of the woods then, eh?  

 

 

[Kenngo1969]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

This is true.  First Presidency is a calling, not a priesthood office.  You cannot make a High Priest an Elder, but you can make a former Bishop a primary teacher.

Elder Uchtdorf still holds the exact same priesthood he did before this change.  He just has a different calling in the Church.

I would give you more than the single rep point I was able to give you for this post ... if'n ah could!  

Quoted for truth.

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, CMZ said:

I understand. This topic has been debated endlessly here in these forums. And I realize there are some who feel, "As an LGB ally my love for them means they should be able to do as they feel." And I also realize that the prophets of God feel, "Because of our love for God's children we must teach the commandments that will bring the greatest happiness to individuals in the long run."

https://mormonandgay.lds.org/videos?id=3515393143142822367&lang=eng

As far as the "T" goes, keep in mind that President Oaks has said we need further education on that matter. It's a whole different thing from the LGB issue.

Yes, good points.  And as for the T, I'm hopeful that change will happen in the future and that is a glimmer of hope.  As it is today, transgender individuals are discriminated against even more than LGB individuals are.  I know of people who are told they can't even attend classes with the gender that they identify with, actually barred from attending because of their gender identity.  There is much that needs to be done here in the future.  

[CMZ]

8 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

One thing I think it would have been smart to do, during the initial announcement of the new First Presidency or at the press conference afterward, is to give Elder Uchtdorf some time (if he wanted it) to say something and (unless there's a rift in the Quorum of the Twelve or the First Presidency ) to express support for the new First Presidency.

I think such a course would do something to put to rest any notion of such a rift.  I would be surprised if Elder Uchtdorf didn't address it somehow in his upcoming Conference address.

One could also watch (or re-watch) his talk from last Sunday night.

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

One thing I think it would have been smart to do, during the initial announcement of the new First Presidency or at the press conference afterward, is to give Elder Uchtdorf some time (if he wanted it) to say something and (unless there's a rift in the Quorum of the Twelve or the First Presidency ) to express support for the new First Presidency.

I think such a course would do something to put to rest any notion of such a rift.  I would be surprised if Elder Uchtdorf didn't address it somehow in his upcoming Conference address.

Even if there was what you insist on calling a "rift", Elder Uchtdorf has so much class and dignity, he would never speak about that.  There can be differences of opinions or beliefs and still a great love for each other.  I have no doubt he will express support for the new First Presidency when he has the opportunity to do so.

[CMZ]

8 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

One thing I think it would have been smart to do, during the initial announcement of the new First Presidency or at the press conference afterward, is to give Elder Uchtdorf some time (if he wanted it) to say something and (unless there's a rift in the Quorum of the Twelve or the First Presidency ) to express support for the new First Presidency.

I think such a course would do something to put to rest any notion of such a rift.  I would be surprised if Elder Uchtdorf didn't address it somehow in his upcoming Conference address.

And everyone is talking about how "Uchtdorf got demoted" while giving little to no mention of the fact that Eyring went from First to Second Counselor. This is the same thing that happened with J. Reuben Clark and a hue and a cry went up in the Church that President McKay had "demoted" President Clark. It was in response to that that President Clark gave his famous talk about how in the Church it doesn't matter where you serve but how. This is a good lesson for today.

[juliann]

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Unfortunately that talk on priesthood I found many more negatives than positives from my perspective.  I think he tried to set clear boundaries, and in doing so tried to limit the influence of women and their access to priesthood in the future. 

 

Then you missed the point. He made it ok to talk about. In my ward, we now talk about women having the authority of the priesthood without hesitation. Pres. Marriott then said, "We’ve heard it, but it’s hard to get it into our minds, to make that shift that the priesthood is not the men of the Church. Priesthood is the power of God, and we all work with that power." But if you aren't tuning into what women say, perhaps you aren't aware of how the discussion has bloomed.