New First Presidency

[Kenngo1969]

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

Nope.  

 

 

[ttribe]

6 minutes 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?

The rhetorical questions here seem to assume infallibility.

[Calm]

3 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.

In my teens our stake president was released and then sustained as nursery leader (he laughed hard about that).  He was also a very wealthy, very experienced CEO.  

[Que]

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. 

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...

[CMZ]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.

And him knowing this would likely happen possibly explains his "upset" look.

[CMZ]

10 minutes ago, ttribe said:

The rhetorical questions here seem to assume infallibility.

President Oaks in the press conference today talked about how there is no doctrine of infallibility in the Church. But they also discussed how all were in agreement with the leadership changes. So I think a lot of people here feel very safe about that. Yes, some can talk forever about whether or not the changes were truly inspired, but personally I felt the Spirit confirming it when they were announced.

[kiwi57]

3 hours 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.  

 

Well, I suspect that your assumptions about conflict in the quorum proceed from no evidence.

[Kenngo1969]

The bishop whom I served (inexplicably, if you ask me ) as executive secretary said he received [fill-in-the-blank-with-appropriate-word-here] ... I'll call it inspiration ... that he was going to be called several months in advance.  While I didn't receive any inspiration on the matter, my brother and his then-wife (love you Rita!   See you soon! ) were trying to sell their house.  It was on the market for, if I recall correctly, several months without success.  I told him, "You know, Thomas, maybe there's a reason why you haven't been able to sell your house."  He said, "I know.  Rita and I have been thinking that, too."  Shortly after that, he was called into a bishopric.

What puzzles me about the attitude of the,"Oh, now-Elder-Uchtdorf-must-be-sooooo-unhappy-about-his-'demotion'"  crowd is why they think, somehow, if the Lord can give a rank-and-file bishop-to-be and a rank-and-file bishop's-counselor-to-be inspiration about what lies around the next bend, He cannot do the same thing with Apostles and Counselors in the First Presidency.

[ttribe]

4 minutes ago, CMZ said:

President Oaks in the press conference today talked about how there is no doctrine of infallibility in the Church. But they also discussed how all were in agreement with the leadership changes. So I think a lot of people here feel very safe about that. Yes, some can talk forever about whether or not the changes were truly inspired, but personally I felt the Spirit confirming it when they were announced.

I was more referring to the stark dichotomous nature of the post I quoted.

[HappyJackWagon]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

In my teens our stake president was released and then sustained as nursery leader (he laughed hard about that).  He was also a very wealthy, very experienced CEO.  

Stake Presidents usually serve for 9-10 years. After that a release is expected. No one would view the release as a demotion.

On the other hand, what if that SP had only been serving in the calling for 3 years when he was released. No health issues. He didn't move or divorce his wife. Just released and assigned to work in primary. Would that not be viewed as a demotion? I think it would

[Ginger Snaps]

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. 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

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

Could you post a link to this? I've not heard anyone else say he was upset. Do you have a photo of the particular part you think showed him as upset?

 

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Stake Presidents usually serve for 9-10 years. After that a release is expected. No one would view the release as a demotion.

On the other hand, what if that SP had only been serving in the calling for 3 years when he was released. No health issues. He didn't move or divorce his wife. Just released and assigned to work in primary. Would that not be viewed as a demotion? I think it would

my previous Bishop quit his calling, he served about 3-3.5 years. People were complaining about how the ward was run or not, he meant well but he didn't work well with others or "get" people. He is a retired pharmacist. I think he quickly found out that people, groups or individuals, are not like pills

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

The bishop whom I served (inexplicably, if you ask me ) as executive secretary said he received [fill-in-the-blank-with-appropriate-word-here] ... I'll call it inspiration ... that he was going to be called several months in advance.  While I didn't receive any inspiration on the matter, my brother and his then-wife (love you Rita!   See you soon! ) were trying to sell their house.  It was on the market for, if I recall correctly, several months without success.  I told him, "You know, Thomas, maybe there's a reason why you haven't been able to sell your house."  He said, "I know.  Rita and I have been thinking that, too."  Shortly after that, he was called into a bishopric.

What puzzles me about the attitude of the,"Oh, now-Elder-Uchtdorf-must-be-sooooo-unhappy-about-his-'demotion'"  crowd is why they think, somehow, if the Lord can give a rank-and-file bishop-to-be and a rank-and-file bishop's-counselor-to-be inspiration about what lies around the next bend, He cannot do the same thing with Apostles and Counselors in the First Presidency.

He may be thrilled about his demotion and people only think he would/should be upset about his demotion. Because, after all, it's a "demotion". People often get upset about those kinds of things but Uchtdorf may know this is a blessing in disguise. Even so, a demotion can be a little embarrassing.

[Glenn101]

1 hour 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.

Oh, I agree. I was just pointing out maybe a bit facetiously that no matter what the brethren may say, there will be those who read the inner minds of those apostles and "know" that they were really upset about the perceived demotion.

Glenn

[CMZ]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Stake Presidents usually serve for 9-10 years. After that a release is expected. No one would view the release as a demotion.

On the other hand, what if that SP had only been serving in the calling for 3 years when he was released. No health issues. He didn't move or divorce his wife. Just released and assigned to work in primary. Would that not be viewed as a demotion? I think it would

Nope. Not a demotion. And I know of similar instances.

[Glenn101]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

He may be thrilled about his demotion and people only think he would/should be upset about his demotion. Because, after all, it's a "demotion". People often get upset about those kinds of things but Uchtdorf may know this is a blessing in disguise. Even so, a demotion can be a little embarrassing.

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.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, they can err as well as the rest of the world!

[pogi]

54 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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?

I think people are reading too much into the hand pat thing.  I just watched the video to see what everyone was talking about.  First, Elder Uchtdorf did not look upset to me in the least.  He had a big smile on his face when they first panned over to him after announcing the first presidency and maintained a pleasant affect for the rest of the broadcast.  I really don't know what people are talking about there about looking upset.  Second, I see the hand pat as a gesture of acknowledgment, love and support for Uchtdorf and not as a pat of sympathy for demotion.  If you will notice, right after that, Elder Holland patted M. Russell Ballard on the hand after being called to the acting President of the quorum of the twelve (who knows, perhaps that was a sympathy pat too, as if to say "poor fellow").  No, if it was a "demotion" pat, why did he give the same pat to someone being "promoted"?   That is not all, President Nelson also patted the hand of President Eyring.  There were hand pats all over the place.  Let's not read too far into these friendly non-verbal gestures. 

Edited January 16, 2018 by pogi

[Duncan]

Something i'd like to know is how does Christ lead the Church exactly. Does he tell the Prophets what to do, look out for this or that, what's coming up on the horizon etc. or does he wait for what hits the fan and then the Church leaders ask for direction and help?or is it somehow both?

[Calm]

We will hear less from Elder Utchdorf since he will not be speaking multiple times in conference as happens with First Presidency members. 

He talked three times last Conference---Women's Session, Priesthood Session, and Saturday Morning; President Eyring spoke in the Sunday Morning Session and Priesthood Session as well as did the sustaining.

I don't believe any of the 12 talked more than once from a quick skim.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference?lang=eng

------

On another note, anyone know the comparison in travel between a member of the 12 versus a member of the First Presidency?  Does it make a difference (I am assuming it does as I would think the FP would be having more meetings and would need to be in SL more for their particular callings overseeing the Church).

Edited January 16, 2018 by Calm

[ksfisher]

25 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Stake Presidents usually serve for 9-10 years. After that a release is expected. No one would view the release as a demotion.

On the other hand, what if that SP had only been serving in the calling for 3 years when he was released. No health issues. He didn't move or divorce his wife. Just released and assigned to work in primary. Would that not be viewed as a demotion? I think it would

A former counselor in my stake presidency was released (and not at the end of the stake presidents time) and called as a stake scout leader.  The stake president felt that the need in scouting was great and his counselor was the best person for the job.  This counselor later went on to serve as stake president and is currently serving as a bishop (for the second time).  He's a wonderful example to me a someone who is willing to serve where he's needed.

Edited January 16, 2018 by ksfisher

[MDalby]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

Thanks to Scott, I went back and reread President Clarks 1951 conference address. 

In 1950 J Reuben Clark served as 1st counselor to President George Albert Smith. 
In 1951 when the First Presidency was restructured under President David O McKay, President Clark was called to serve not as 1st counselor but as 2nd counselor.

Here are President Clark's comments in that General Conference:

 

Quote

My brothers and sisters, I begin by bearing again my testimony that this is the work of the Lord, that Joseph Smith is a prophet, that those who have followed afterward have been his prophets, and that the one whom we have sustained is the ninth in regular succession, as a prophet, seer, and revelator to this Church and to the world.

I know that Jesus is the Christ, the Redeemer of the world. I know that he is the firstfruits of the resurrection 1 Cor. 15:20 and that by and through him we are redeemed from the Fall, and thus able to overcome the results of the Fall and get back into the presence of our Heavenly Father.

I thank President McKay for his kindly words about myself. I thank you for your sustaining votes, and I earnestly pray that I may be the beneficiary of your prayers as time shall go on, and that I may be able to do the things which I am supposed to do with an eye single to the glory of our Heavenly Father D&C 88:67

PLEDGE OF DEVOTED SERVICE

In the service of the Lord, it is not where you serve but how. In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, one takes the place to which one is duly called, which place one neither seeks nor declines. I pledge to President McKay and to President Richards the full loyal devoted service to the tasks that may come to me to the full measure of my strength and my abilities, and so far as they will enable me to perform them, however inadequate I may be.

May the Lord help me so to serve, to serve President McKay and President Richards and to serve the Lord, all for the advancement of his work. This I humbly pray in the name of Jesus. Amen.
(J. Reuben Clark, Jr., CR, April 1951)

Here are some comments from President Spencer W Kimball regarding President Clark's comments:

Quote

Clark “did more in his perfect reactions perhaps to establish in the minds of this people the true spirit of subjection of the individual to the good of the work, more than could be done in thousands of sermons” (D. Michael Quinn, J. Reuben Clark: The Church Years. Provo, UT: BYU Press, 124)

Quote

President Clark immediately took his place with the Apostles, without presuming to have any special function in the conference. President McKay called him from his seat with the Apostles to join in presiding at the first session and to conduct the second session. President Clark “made it beautifully clear that he conducted it by delegation, not by right when he said: ‘I conduct this Conference by courtesy,’ and never before did that word COURTESY mean so much,” wrote Spencer W. Kimball, then of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Elder Kimball added: “Brother Clark is magnificent!!”
(D. Michael Quinn, J. Reuben Clark: The Church Years. Provo, UT: BYU Press, 112)

https://jreubenclark.co/church-service

The brethren are humble followers of Christ and I don't believe for a minute that there is turmoil over "which of them should be greatest."

Edited January 16, 2018 by MDalby

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It was after having served as first counselor in the First Presidency and later, under a new Church president, being named second counselor, that Elder J. Reuben Clark Jr., gave his classic general conference address in which he said that in the service of the Lord, it is not where you serve but how you serve that matters.

I never really liked the emphasis that President Clark put on it by giving that talk. I don't know anyone who thinks that being called as a 2nd counselor when one was a 1st counselor is a "demotion" --- or even needs to be addressed. It seems to me that it bothered him, which is why he brought it up in the first place. In other words, why give a talk explaining that it's all right?

And, what is the difference other than cardinal number between assignments, status, etc. of the 1st and 2nd counselor? It's silly

But really, if a SP or bishopric 1st counselor were recalled as a 2nd counselor, no one would be horrified at the indignity of it all, or how humiliated he must be. No one would think about that at all. And in our stake, we regularly have men released from the bishopric and called into callings within the ward (I find this very odd myself, but I'm the only bishop in two different wards who has had his counselors intact over the term of the administration. While I find this practice bizarre and outside of my experience, the members of those wards don't find it shocking or embarrassing. And it isn't that any of them "couldn't do the job" or "were on the outs with the leader." It has been more a) wanting to rotate different men through, or b) to address perceived needs (such as Scoutmaster) that it was perceived only those men could meet). 

Anyone other than Gray or stemelbow read into President Uchtdorf's body language "discomfort, frustration, upset, etc." To be honest, I think this is more a mirror of how people themselves think, rather than a true read of how President Uchtdorf feels or thinks. 

 

[pogi]

6 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Something i'd like to know is how does Christ lead the Church exactly. Does he tell the Prophets what to do, look out for this or that, what's coming up on the horizon etc. or does he wait for what hits the fan and then the Church leaders ask for direction and help?or is it somehow both?

I think we see examples of both in history.