New First Presidency

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

She asked a good question. What, are you going to disagree with a prophet of the Lord? 

How is USU78 disagreeing with a prophet of the Lord?

 

[Tacenda]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

How is USU78 disagreeing with a prophet of the Lord?

 

I should have put a less threatening wink at the end. Pres. Nelson said that Peggy asked a good question.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

 

He wasn't the only one to detect a double entendre there.

[CMZ]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

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.

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

Whatever President Clark felt inside his words in general conference were still the truth. And he still ended up becoming First Counselor to David O. McKay later on. And in the eternities it doesn't matter.

[CMZ]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

Then it shows that "tradition" does not always be upheld. How refreshing and un-Pharisaical.

[JLHPROF]

39 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

if you think president Nelson is rewarding or punishing anyone with position changes you don’t really understand how this works.

I don't think this.
I do think that his personal preferences and approach to the gospel played a part in his choices.

[CMZ]

57 minutes ago, Gray said:

Anyone can read Elder Uchtdorf's body language and tell he was upset.

Please watch the devotional from last Saturday night and read his priesthood session talk from last April conference. They will each add a lot of insight and counterbalance to your argument.

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, CMZ said:

Then it shows that "tradition" does not always be upheld. How refreshing and un-Pharisaical.

Agreed.  Tradition doesn't have to be upheld.
But when it isn't there is usually a good reason.

As in D&C 43:4.  Tradition states that the senior apostle always becomes the President of the Church.  But D&C 43:4 also allows for a President to appoint a different successor.
I would imagine there would have to be a very good reason to do that.

[Duncan]

1 hour 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. 

oh, they knew ahead of time but both Pres. Eyring and now Pres. Ballard both had that, stunned look on their face! like, great my friends can go out and play and i'm stuck in a rotten meeting!!

[CMZ]

39 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

President Nelson did seem to set a theme when he talked about "the covenant path" in the first broadcast in the temple.  I also heard him say something that we each need to be "square" with Heavenly Father (in the press conference).   I have felt that for the past several years, a greater emphasis has been placed on each individual member to have a relationship directly through the Holy Ghost to their Heavenly Father (and Savior) in order to be led by personal revelation.

Yes, I wanted to speak to that. He said don't get offended but be square with the Lord. We can discuss forever why Uchtdorf was "demoted" (he wasn't) but our personal relationship with Heavenly Father is more important. President Nelson was in effect saying, "Don't let these little administrative things bother you. They are not the same as your individual standing with the Lord."

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, CMZ said:

Whatever President Clark felt inside his words in general conference were still the truth. And he still ended up becoming First Counselor to David O. McKay later on. And in the eternities it doesn't matter.

Elder Uchtdorf was not the only one to receive a "demotion" -- if you want to call it that -- this time. President Eyring went from being first counselor to being second counselor.

I don't believe the Brethren are as petty as some would be so quick to assume. There is truth in what President Nelson said today relative to it taking decades for an apostle to move from the junior chair to the senior chair and that he thereby gainslearning and preparation for the future. In that time of seasoning, I have to think that petty jealousies are rooted out of their breasts.

Edited January 16, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[mnn727]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Ok fine.  The ward usher has as much a part as the President of the Church stuff.  

What Ward has ushers? and why?

As long as they both magnify their callings, that's all the Lord asks.

[CMZ]

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

oh, they knew ahead of time but both Pres. Eyring and now Pres. Ballard both had that, stunned look on their face! like, great my friends can go out and play and i'm stuck in a rotten meeting!!

I have a good anecdote related to that that I'll relate later on when I have the time. But it's about someone being soooo sure that some leader was demoted because of what they deemed to be an upset look on their face.

[CMZ]

I have a little more minor insight into all of this gained from the stake conference I attended this past weekend but will have to relate it later on.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

But in the last century it has only happened three times.

- Romney was for health

CFR.

Quote

- Brown was likely ideological

CFR.

Quote

- Isaacson & Dyer were in extra counselor positions (scripture states 3 members of the FP, they were numbers 4 & 5).

Yes.  And yet they were still not retained.

Quote

Since Uchtdorf is neither ill nor occupying an extra position it is a break with tradition, just as Brown's was.

There is also an trend/tradition to have the next-in-line apostle be a counselor in the First Presidency prior to becoming the Presiding High Priest.  Pres. Monson was.  Pres. Hinckley was.  Pres. Lee was.  Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith was.  Pres. McKay was.  Pres. Joseph F. Smith was.  Pres. Snow was.

7 out of 15 prophets have served as a counselor in the First Presidency prior to becoming the Presiding High Priest (I am excluding Joseph Smith, since he was the founding prophet, and hence could not have served as counselor).  If Pres. Nelson predeceases Pres. Oaks, that will mean that 8 of 16 prophets will have served as a counselor in the First Presidency prior to becoming the Presiding High Priest.  

How do you account for that "tradition?"

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 16, 2018 by smac97

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, CMZ said:

Please watch the devotional from last Saturday night and read his priesthood session talk from last April conference. They will each add a lot of insight and counterbalance to your argument.

What would that have to do with Elder Uchtdorf being upset in the press conference?

[smac97]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't see the two things as mutually exclusive.  Why not have public disagreements on topics, its not without precedent in the history of the LDS church, reading about early church history it was common.  Councils can happen, and so can honest dialogue in public.  

I think there is plenty of "honest dialogue."  I don't understand, however, why publicizing it would be preferable to the status quo.  Could you elucidate?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

36 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It was evident from the way the press framed their questions -- how will the Church address [LGBT, millennials, women, Mexico, Brazil, etc.] from a social and economic perspective -- that the world has a tendency to divide people into interest and special interest groups.

Okay.  I was not speaking of "the world," though.  I was speaking of the members of the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CMZ]

10 minutes ago, Gray said:

What would that have to do with Elder Uchtdorf being upset in the press conference?

First of all we don't know that he was upset and, if so, why. He also spoke in April about how things like this don't matter:

 

Quote

Almost two decades ago, the Madrid Spain Temple was dedicated and began its service as a sacred house of the Lord. Harriet and I remember it well because I was serving in the Europe Area Presidency at the time. Along with many others, we spent countless hours attending to the details of planning and organizing the events leading up to the dedication.

As the date of the dedication approached, I noticed that I had not yet received an invitation to attend. This was a bit unexpected. After all, in my responsibility as the Area President, I had been greatly involved in this temple project and felt a small amount of ownership for it.

I asked Harriet if she had seen an invitation. She had not.

Days passed and my anxiety increased. I wondered if our invitation had gotten lost—perhaps it was buried between the cushions of our sofa. Maybe it had been mixed up with junk mail and thrown away. The neighbors had an inquisitive cat, and I even began to look suspiciously at him.

Finally I was forced to accept the fact: I had not been invited.

But how was that possible? Had I done something to offend? Did someone just assume it was too far for us to travel? Had I been forgotten?

Eventually, I realized that this line of thinking led to a place in which I did not wish to take up residence.

Harriet and I reminded ourselves that the temple dedication was not about us. It wasn’t about who deserved to be invited or who did not. And it wasn’t about our feelings or our sense of entitlement.

It was about dedicating a holy edifice, a temple of the Most High God. It was a day of rejoicing for the members of the Church in Spain.

Had I been invited to attend, I would have done so gladly. But if I were not invited, my joy would not be any less profound. Harriet and I would rejoice with our friends, our beloved brothers and sisters, from afar.

If he now has personal feelings of being upset then he individually just has to remember what he said in April. And that's a big "if."

Edited January 16, 2018 by CMZ

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Please don't paint us all with a broad brush.

I, for one, think some of the comments I have seen here unseemly (and I have only see a few).

Same here.  The General Authorities are not candidates for political office, but they seem to be being treated as such.  And measured against each other, such that the calling of Pres. Oaks is a "demotion" for Elder Uchtdorf. 

Nobody suggests that a stake president, or a bishop, or a Relief Society President, upon being released, is being "demoted."  It would also be inappropriate for members of that ward or stake to publicly express disappointment and displeasure at the calling of the new stake president or bishop or Stake President.  That would be, as Scott aptly puts it, "unseemly."  It cheapens the meaning of service in the Church.  It converts the calling of a person into an office devoted to service to the calling of a person into an office for power and recognition. 

I have never met Elder Uchtdorf, but I can't imagine that he would be pleased that members of the Church publicly speculating in such unseemly ways.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 16, 2018 by smac97

[HappyJackWagon]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

CFR.

CFR.

Yes.  And yet they were still not retained.

There is also an trend/tradition to have the next-in-line apostle be a counselor in the First Presidency prior to becoming the Presiding High Priest.  Pres. Monson was.  Pres. Hinckley was.  Pres. Lee was.  Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith was.  Pres. McKay was.  Pres. Joseph F. Smith was.  Pres. Snow was.

7 out of 15 prophets have served as a counselor in the First Presidency prior to becoming the Presiding High Priest (I am excluding Joseph Smith, since he was the founding prophet, and hence could not have served as counselor).  If Pres. Nelson predeceases Pres. Oaks, that will mean that 8 of 16 prophets will have served as a counselor in the First Presidency prior to becoming the Presiding High Priest.  

How do you account for that "tradition?"

Thanks,

-Smac

You're suggesting that something that happens less than 50% of the time is tradition?

If your info is correct would then mean that Benson, Hunter, Kimball (among many others) weren't in the First Presidency.  That is hardly a tradition. Nelson can choose whomever he likes as his counselors but that doesn't mean it isn't unusual to demote a previous 1st counselor to 2nd, and release the other counselor all together. That's not tradition.

[HappyJackWagon]

Some on this board seem to think it is unseemly to position Uchtdorf's exit from the First Presidency as a demotion. But if Uchtdorf viewed it as a demotion, isn't it a demotion regardless of what Pres. Nelson said about it.

It seems that Elder Holland attempted to show some kindness as he patted Pres. Uchtdorf's hand after the demotion. It would seem that Elder Holland recognized that it could be a hard thing for Uchtdorf to go from First Presidency back into the Q12. Why would he think that unless it was likely that Uchtdorf, Holland, and others in the leadership also viewed it as a demotion. If they recognize it as a demotion, what is the harm when we also recognize it as a demotion?

[mnn727]

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?

[a_little_taller]

Demotion - poor choice of words. I'm positive Elder Uchtdorf doesn't see it that way.

Check out his General Conference Address from April 2017 entitled "The Greatest Among You."

“The members of the Church are gracious to the General Authorities. They will treat you kindly and say nice things about you.” Then he briefly paused and said, “Dieter, always be thankful for this, but don’t you ever inhale it.”

"We accept callings with grace, humility, and gratitude. When we are released from these callings, we accept the change with the same grace, humility, and gratitude."

"In the eyes of God, there is no calling in the kingdom that is more important than another."

Edited January 16, 2018 by a_little_taller

[Kenngo1969]

Why do we doubt President Nelson's word on the matter (especially when, it would seem, he's in a unique position to know) that at least part of the reason for Elder Uchtdorf and President Oaks, respectively, receiving their current callings is because they have been given assignments as part of those callings for which, he says, they're uniquely qualified?

But ... Nah! ... it's gotta be politics!  President Nelson hates the touchy-feely Elder Uchtdorf, while, on the other hand, he loves the hard-liner, President Oaks.  Yeah!  That's it!