JLHPROF Posted January 16, 2018 Posted January 16, 2018 3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: People are assuming Uchtdorf is someone "liberal" on the LGBT issue. I confess I just don't see that. Further I always find it interesting that Oaks is put as the conservative. Depending upon what one means by that I believe it was Oaks who pushed for most of the big changes in LGBT issues in the 90's including accepting that for many people it's innate. While Uchtdorf pushed for more grace rhetoric, I confess I see zero evidence of any theological liberalism from him. If anything there's more on Monson in terms of rhetoric. Yet it was Monson and Uchtdorf who arguably were the main leadership during the big political pushes on LGBT issues. I don't think it's as radical as that. Someone said to me, replacing Uchtdorf with Oaks is replacing Love Thy Neighbor with Keep My Commandments. 1
Rivers Posted January 16, 2018 Posted January 16, 2018 I just finished watching the First Presidency press conference. I really would have liked to see Dieter Uchdorf there answering those questions from the journalists. I’m kind of bummed he’s not in the Presidency anymore. 2
JLHPROF Posted January 16, 2018 Posted January 16, 2018 17 minutes ago, stemelbow said: And holds a lower level in the hierarchy, than he used to. Is the hierarchy the calling or the priesthood? 1
hope_for_things Posted January 16, 2018 Posted January 16, 2018 15 minutes ago, ksfisher said: "And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:" (John 17:22) "I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine." (D&C 38:37) "And the Lord called his people aZion, because they were of bone heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness" (Moses 7:18) I'm not aware of any of these scriptures ever being rescinded. And no, they don't me that we give up all personal opinion. But they do mean that when we go about the Lord's work we do it in unity. "And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand." (Mark 3:24-25) This is all the more reason for us to have public discussions modeled by our leaders of respectful disagreement. Instead we pretend that there is agreement and unity when it doesn't actually exist? If God wants us to become one, how does God want us to get there? Is it by pretending something that isn't real? Is it by ignoring the perspectives of others? It is through deference to authority? How would God have us become one of mind and heart? Personally I believe its through some of the things articulated in D&C 121, persuasion, long suffering, kindness, knowledge, without hypocrisy, and with patience and respectful dialogue, and trust and humility that we may be wrong. All these things could be modeled by church leaders, it would help families and wards and people everywhere to see mature leadership on this topic, especially in our increasingly polarized world.
Popular Post Guest Posted January 16, 2018 Popular Post Posted January 16, 2018 2 hours 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. I think we are overthinking this issue. This has happened many times, where someone would return to the "Twelve". Based on President Nelson's age, it would seem that a move for President Oaks, makes a lot of sense. Unless President Nelson plans to live to be 100+ years of age. This way, just as with President Monson, Elder Oak's will have already become a common fixture in the First Presidecy, when President Nelson passes on. Movement in the Quorum of the Tweleve and First Presidency as counselors are "lateral moves, not vertical". No one has been demoted. 6
Kenngo1969 Posted January 16, 2018 Author Posted January 16, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: I'm surprised by how upset Elder Uctdorf looks during the whole broadcast. There was a point or two when he seemed to have tried to brave a smile, but it really looked forced. The moment wherein Holland seemingly reaches over to console Uctdorf was a bit awkward looking. the humanness is quite palpable here. But Oaks and Nelson look as giddy as oaks did when he and Ballard announced they plan to answer the kids questions some months back. I think you're projecting. And even accepting (the giant assumption) for the sake of this discussion that any of the Brethren were thrown for a loop by any of these changes, the actual changes were made on Sunday, and I'm sure President Nelson has been thinking about when and how the First Presidency should be reorganized almost since President Monson took his last breath. Assuming the meeting where the changes were made took place at about the same time of day as the meeting in which they were announced did, that's about 48 hours to come to terms with them. Even considering some of the biggest possible changes and/or the worst possible news (depending on one's perspective), one can do much to come to terms with it in 48 hours. It's not as though the Fourteen met, President Nelson said, "OK, Brethren, this is how it's gonna be, now let's go have a meeting to announce the changes, with a press conference afterward!" Edited January 16, 2018 by Kenngo1969 3
JLHPROF Posted January 16, 2018 Posted January 16, 2018 12 minutes ago, smac97 said: Well, not really: There have been twelve instances, prior to Elder Echtdorf, of counselors in the First Presidency not being retained in that calling in the subsequent First Presidency. That seems like ample precedent. John Smith, Assistant Counselor to Joseph Smith, not retained as a counselor by Brigham Young Amasa M. Lyman, Assistant Counselor to Joseph Smith, not retained as a counselor by Brigham Young John Willard Young, First Counselor to Brigham Young, not retained as a counselor by John Taylor Daniel H. Wells, Second Counselor to Brigham Young, not retained as a counselor by John Taylor Brigham Young Jr., Lorenzo Snow, and Albert Carrington, Assistant Counselors to Brigham Young, not retained as counselors by John Taylor Rudger Clawson, called as Second Counselor to Lorenzo Snow, not retained as a counselor by Joseph F. Smith Hugh B. Brown, First Counselor to David O. McKay, not retained as a counselor by Joseph Fielding Smith Thorpe B. Isaacson and Alvin R. Dyer, Counselors to David O. McKay, not retained as counselors by Joseph Fielding Smith Marion G. Romney, First Counselor to Spencer W. Kimball, not retained as a counselor by Ezra Taft Benson Dieter F. Uchtdorf, Second Counselor to Thomas S. Monson, not retained as a counselor by Russell M. Nelson Thanks, -Smac But in the last century it has only happened three times. - Romney was for health - Brown was likely ideological - Isaacson & Dyer were in extra counselor positions (scripture states 3 members of the FP, they were numbers 4 & 5). Since Uchtdorf is neither ill nor occupying an extra position it is a break with tradition, just as Brown's was. 3
Popular Post smac97 Posted January 16, 2018 Popular Post Posted January 16, 2018 1 hour 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 ...) Our ward includes a former member of a stake presidency (2nd counselor). His next calling was (and still is) cubmaster (which he seems to enjoy very much). The former SP is now a Gospel Doctrine teacher. The former 1st Counselor is both the HPGL and a Course 13 Sunday School teacher. IOW, "demotion" happens all the time. I think using that word in this context is a little silly. Every year thousands of stake presidents and their counselors, and bishops and their counselors, and Relief Society presidents and their counselors, and so on are similarly "demoted" (that is to say, released from their callings), but that's a natural course of events. There is no negative connotation involved (such as is being suggested/implied in this thread re: Elder Uchtdorf). Thanks, -Smac 7
Glenn101 Posted January 16, 2018 Posted January 16, 2018 37 minutes ago, ALarson said: 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. Of course there are those who will be able to read Elder Uchtdorf's mind suspect that he really was putting on a "brave face" as he tries to adjust to his "demotion" and will not actually believe him when he tells us that he is happy to serve where the Lord wants him to serve. 38 minutes ago, CMZ said: 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. I have read posts by people over the years by people who have opined that J. Reuben Clark was only hewing the party line and did not, dared not tell us how he really felt. Of course I expected this discussion. I also, as another poster has noted, would not be at all surprised to hear Elder Uchtdorf address this issue soon, for all the good it will do. Glenn 3
hope_for_things Posted January 16, 2018 Posted January 16, 2018 17 minutes ago, Nevo said: President Nelson even referred to D&C 132 in the press conference. At first I thought he was inadvertently inventing scripture when he said that there's a verse in the D&C that says that "before the foundation of the world, women were created to bear and care for the sons and daughters of God. And in doing so they glorify God." It just didn't sound like anything I'd ever read. But it turns out he was paraphrasing D&C 132:63: "But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified." President Nelson evidently knows the Doctrine and Covenants better than I do. Wow, thanks, I also thought he was just making up a scripture. This is excellent quick research work. Now isn't Nelson sealed to two women, I know Oaks is. Is it fair to say that we might see renewed emphasis on the doctrine of polygamy under this new presidency? I'm not saying they will bring the earthly practice back, but they could continue the emphasis on eternal polygamy and on this as a doctrine that is still important, rather than a distancing from this idea that I believe we've seen in recent years.
JLHPROF Posted January 16, 2018 Posted January 16, 2018 5 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said: I think we are overthinking this issue. This has happened many times, where someone would return to the "Twelve". It has happened 12 times (thank you SMac). And in the past century only 3 times. And all three times we had a good idea of the reason. We don't know the reason yet for Elder Uchtdorf, so a little speculation is a natural response. 3
hope_for_things Posted January 16, 2018 Posted January 16, 2018 7 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said: I think we are overthinking this issue. This has happened many times, where someone would return to the "Twelve". Based on President Nelson's age, it would seem that a move for President Oaks, makes a lot of sense. Unless President Nelson plans to live to be 100+ years of age. This way, just as with President Monson, Elder Oak's will have already become a common fixture in the First Presidecy, when President Nelson passes on. Movement in the Quorum of the Tweleve and First Presidency as counselors are "lateral moves, not vertical". No one has been demoted. The question I had earlier about this idea is when has it happened in the past that the next in line person was called into the Presidency right when they reached the status of next in line. If this makes so much common sense, where is the historical precedent for this. Also, having a member of the Presidency go back to the quorum has been fairly rare in the 20th and 21st centuries. That's why its noteworthy. 1
Gray Posted January 16, 2018 Posted January 16, 2018 (edited) 44 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: People are assuming Uchtdorf is someone "liberal" on the LGBT issue. I confess I just don't see that. Further I always find it interesting that Oaks is put as the conservative. Depending upon what one means by that I believe it was Oaks who pushed for most of the big changes in LGBT issues in the 90's including accepting that for many people it's innate. While Uchtdorf pushed for more grace rhetoric, I confess I see zero evidence of any theological liberalism from him. If anything there's more on Monson in terms of rhetoric. Yet it was Monson and Uchtdorf who arguably were the main leadership during the big political pushes on LGBT issues. My feeling is that the "liberal ones" (relatively speaking) on this issue never give talks about "traditional marriage" and the conservative ones talk about it quite a lot. Generally speaking. Could be wrong of course. Edited January 16, 2018 by Gray
ksfisher Posted January 16, 2018 Posted January 16, 2018 7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: This is all the more reason for us to have public discussions modeled by our leaders of respectful disagreement. Instead we pretend that there is agreement and unity when it doesn't actually exist? If God wants us to become one, how does God want us to get there? Is it by pretending something that isn't real? Is it by ignoring the perspectives of others? It is through deference to authority? How would God have us become one of mind and heart? God has set up the council system to help us to become one. He invites us to" Counsel with the Lord in all thy doings, and he will direct thee for bgood" (Alma 37:37). The Council of the Twelve Apostles and the First Presidency counsel together. They all come with their diverse opinions. Through counseling together and by inviting the Lord to be a part of their counsels they come to know the Lord's will. 4
Tacenda Posted January 16, 2018 Posted January 16, 2018 2 hours ago, Duncan said: "Pres." Ballard and Pres. Eyring both looked stunned, I am quite sure Pres. Ballard was not anticipating that! What, they didn't already know? I'll have to watch the press conference again. I really like Pres. Eyring, he seems to be between a rock and a hard place.
Guest Posted January 16, 2018 Posted January 16, 2018 2 hours ago, hope_for_things said: In the long run all things are temporary at some level. I just can't view this specific change as positive from my vantage point its a negative change and a sign that at least in the short term, things are getting worse, not better. Usually when people talk about becoming more "conservative", they mean that the Church or others are resistant to change. Based on a number of people and comments here, they speak of change, and are resistant to it themselves. Quite the paradox, I would think. How would any of us know what is discussed behind the scenes, or closed doors? 3
Kenngo1969 Posted January 16, 2018 Author Posted January 16, 2018 12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: This is all the more reason for us to have public discussions modeled by our ... Personally I believe its through some of the things articulated in D&C 121, persuasion, long suffering, kindness, knowledge, without hypocrisy, and with patience and respectful dialogue ... Respectful dialogue is in Doctrine & Covenants 121? Hmmm. Musta missed it. Maybe there's a new edition? (I'm not saying respectful dialogue isn't important, or that it does not/should not occur in the Quorums and Councils of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but I do thin there's a potential problem in elevating it to the status of scripture ...)
Gray Posted January 16, 2018 Posted January 16, 2018 13 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: I think you're projecting. And even accepting (the giant assumption) for the sake of this discussion that any of the Brethren were thrown for a loop by any of these changes, the actual changes were made on Sunday, and I'm sure President Nelson has been thinking about when and how the First Presidency should be reorganized almost since President Monson took his last breath. Assuming the meeting where the changes were made took place at about the same time of day as the meeting in which they were announced did, that's about 48 hours to come to terms with them. Even considering some of the biggest possible changes and/or the worst possible news (depending on one's perspective), one can do much to come to terms with it in 48 hours. It's not as though the Fourteen met, President Nelson said, "OK, Brethren, this is how it's gonna be, now let's go have a meeting to announce the changes, with a press conference afterward!" Anyone can read Elder Uchtdorf's body language and tell he was upset. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted January 16, 2018 Author Posted January 16, 2018 4 minutes ago, Tacenda said: What, they didn't already know? I'll have to watch the press conference again. I really like Pres. Eyring, he seems to be between a rock and a hard place. Ding, ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding! Give that lady a gold star! "Tell her what she's won, Bob!" I would give you a rep point for this post, if'n ah could!
Guest Posted January 16, 2018 Posted January 16, 2018 4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: The question I had earlier about this idea is when has it happened in the past that the next in line person was called into the Presidency right when they reached the status of next in line. If this makes so much common sense, where is the historical precedent for this. Also, having a member of the Presidency go back to the quorum has been fairly rare in the 20th and 21st centuries. That's why its noteworthy. It may not make sense to many, but the last two Presidents of the Church, we're both serving in the First Presidency when the (then) President passed away. It is more common than one might think. There may be other examples, I just can't remember when or what they are. I am sure many here can give more examples, if there be any.
Popular Post Nevo Posted January 16, 2018 Popular Post Posted January 16, 2018 10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: It has happened 12 times (thank you SMac). And in the past century only 3 times. And all three times we had a good idea of the reason. We don't know the reason yet for Elder Uchtdorf, so a little speculation is a natural response. I speculate the reason was Elder Uchtdorf's abundant head of hair. 5
Kenngo1969 Posted January 16, 2018 Author Posted January 16, 2018 Just now, Gray said: Anyone can read Elder Uchtdorf's body language and tell he was upset. Projecting again. We already have the word of someone who saw Elder Uchtdorf on Sunday night, not long after the changes were made, let alone circa 48 hours later, when they were finally announced, and he made no such observation. 3
Kenngo1969 Posted January 16, 2018 Author Posted January 16, 2018 2 minutes ago, Nevo said: I speculate the reason was Elder Uchtdorf's abundant head of hair. Yep. Everybody in the current First Presidency was probably jealous, so they were thinking he needed to be taken down a notch or two and put into his place. I mean, they don't call him "The Silver Fox" for nothing! 1
Gray Posted January 16, 2018 Posted January 16, 2018 2 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: Projecting again. We already have the word of someone who saw Elder Uchtdorf on Sunday night, not long after the changes were made, let alone circa 48 hours later, when they were finally announced, and he made no such observation. Everyone who can read body language is projecting now.
Tacenda Posted January 16, 2018 Posted January 16, 2018 5 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: Ding, ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding! Give that lady a gold star! "Tell her what she's won, Bob!" I would give you a rep point for this post, if'n ah could! I won? Where's my gold Primary star, I'll stick on my forehead! No, but really Ken, what did I say? Usually I'm in trouble with you, lol! Or you may have been just a little sarcastic!
Recommended Posts