Calm Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 39 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: None of the snark or accusations about me are fair or accurate, but I will note that I'm looking forward to watching this documentary that Radio West did an interview on the other day. Fred Rogers, pretty great guy. http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/sundance-2018-wont-you-be-my-neighbor If hope craved smooth acceptance, he would have been long gone from this forum instead of mostly acting like he delights in sharing his own and listening to others' way of thinking. 2
Calm Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I'm happy to do a little more exploring. I'm not sure how Quinn's books can address current assignments though, that's what I'm interested in. Its probably safe to say at this point that if the committee assignments are publicly accessible, that at the very least, this knowledge is not widely disseminated, or I would imagine that someone among this knowledgeable group would know about how to access the information. Most probably by telling us what committee assignments there are...easier to track them down if you know the name.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 45 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I didn't assume they are secret, I'm not sure where you are coming up with these assumptions of motive that you keep making about me. Very disrespectful. How am I blaming anyone, this is crazy talk. I'm asking if the committee assignments are public knowledge and posted anywhere. I personally haven't come across them, and I made the point that the Uchtdorf announcement of him taking on specific assignments is something that I can't recall seeing in the past, and that his status seems to have taken on an almost celebrity status within the hierarchy. Have you considered that, rather than his having "taken on almost celebrity status within the hierarchy," that the announcement might be simply to quell the hue and cry about his having been "demoted"? 2
hope_for_things Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 4 minutes ago, Calm said: Most probably by telling us what committee assignments there are...easier to track them down if you know the name. Ok, yeah, that would be helpful, good idea.
hope_for_things Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Have you considered that, rather than his having "taken on almost celebrity status within the hierarchy," that the announcement might be simply to quell the hue and cry about his having been "demoted"? I think its all interconnected. Celebrity is more of a creation of the culture than something the church leadership can control. Certainly the announcement could have been to try and respond to people. Its just an interesting thought I had the other day, this idea of him being a Mormon celebrity within a group of leaders that already have some measure of celebrity by virtue of their callings.
Sky Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 If there is no shame in serving as a Bishop or Stake President one day, but then possibly being called to teach the Sunbeams as your next calling, then shouldn’t serving in the First Presidency and then the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles be the same way? Isn’t this something that we pride ourselves on in this church? Serve with gladness wherever you are called? No one calling is necessarily better than another one? I’m afraid that some of us (and I include myself in this) tend to focus too much on the titles of the offices that certain men hold, and the power and prestige that comes with that office. But somehow I don’t think that is what Jesus would want. We need to be humble about wherever we may be called to serve! That means, in part, to not get too caught up in the title. That said, I get why some may be let down that Elder Uchtdorf is no longer in the First Presidency. He always made people feel loved and welcomed regardless of their current status or circumstances. Some people might think he was too loving and welcoming. He will be missed. But luckily, we will still get to hear from him in GC every six months! So take heart! 4
Scott Lloyd Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: I'm sad that he won't be speaking at GC as much as in the past. Each member of the First Presidency speaks twice: once in a general session and once in the priesthood or the women's session (which now will alternate from conference to conference). But each member of the Quorum of the Twelve speaks once at every general conference. So it's not like his exposure there is being greatly diminished.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 6 minutes ago, Sky said: If there is no shame in serving as a Bishop or Stake President one day, but then possibly being called to teach the Sunbeams as your next calling, then shouldn’t serving in the First Presidency and then the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles be the same way? Isn’t this something that we pride ourselves on in this church? Serve with gladness wherever you are called? No one calling is necessarily better than another one? I’m afraid that some of us (and I include myself in this) tend to focus too much on the titles of the offices that certain men hold, and the power and prestige that comes with that office. But somehow I don’t think that is what Jesus would want. We need to be humble about wherever we may be called to serve! That means, in part, to not get too caught up in the title. That said, I get why some may be let down that Elder Uchtdorf is no longer in the First Presidency. He always made people feel loved and welcomed regardless of their current status or circumstances. Some people might think he was too loving and welcoming. He will be missed. But luckily, we will still get to hear from him in GC every six months! So take heart! I agree with the above And I don't believe he was loving and welcoming to excess. The problem was that there was too much propensity among some to take his remarks acknowledging in general past mistakes as a license to speak evil of the Lord's anointed or to bash the Church. 2
Popular Post cinepro Posted January 23, 2018 Popular Post Posted January 23, 2018 (edited) 18 hours ago, Bob Crockett said: I wonder if the rank and file of the church believe that when a stake presidency is released, and old counselors do not come back as members of the new stake presidency, they are demoted. There's something in the NT about Jesus chastising the mother of two apostles lobbying with Jesus to have them sit closer to Him. If the high council and stake presidency worked on a strict seniority system they way the Q12 and FP do, it's very possible such a perception could develop at the stake level. As it is, I doubt many members could even name both counselors in their SP, let alone more than a few High Councilors. As for the Uchtdorf hubbub, I think it's a great thing. Apparently, the Church has found one leader out of 15 who has really connected to people. I can recall leaders who people liked because they told interesting stories during conference, or seemed witty, or "nice", but the connection some people feel with Elder Uchtdorf has obviously touched them at a deeper level. I think Church members say things about the Apostles because we know we're supposed to say them and it's all about respect for the office and calling (which is great), but for Elder Uchtdorf, we say them because we really feel it. Edited January 23, 2018 by cinepro 5
Scott Lloyd Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 (edited) 33 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I think its all interconnected. Celebrity is more of a creation of the culture than something the church leadership can control. Certainly the announcement could have been to try and respond to people. Its just an interesting thought I had the other day, this idea of him being a Mormon celebrity within a group of leaders that already have some measure of celebrity by virtue of their callings. I don't know that this is so unusual or remarkable. There have always been popular figures among the hierarchy of the Church. Elder Holland is quite popular at the moment. Elder Marlin K. Jensen was popular to a degree, especially among historians and academics. Elder Marion D. Hanks was popular in his day. So were Elders Paul H. Dunn, Hartman Rector Jr., LeGrand Richards, Neal A. Maxwell, and (before my time) Matthew Cowley. Edited January 23, 2018 by Scott Lloyd 2
pogi Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 19 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Do you have a system of some kind to compare the influence of these positions? Between correlation committee chair and second counselor in the First Presidency. I would argue that the correlation committee chair will have an overall greater influence on the minds of the members in general. They are the daily and weekly face of the church to the members, and not just a biannual speaker in conference.
Calm Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 49 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Each member of the First Presidency speaks twice: once in a general session and once in the priesthood or the women's session (which now will alternate from conference to conference). But each member of the Quorum of the Twelve speaks once at every general conference. So it's not like his exposure there is being greatly diminished. Towards the end he was talking three times, I think they were filling in for Pres. Monson. 2
hope_for_things Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 46 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Each member of the First Presidency speaks twice: once in a general session and once in the priesthood or the women's session (which now will alternate from conference to conference). But each member of the Quorum of the Twelve speaks once at every general conference. So it's not like his exposure there is being greatly diminished. This is a 50% reduction in the amount of speaking at General Conference at minimum. Interesting that he spoke three times at the last conference (women's, general and priesthood sessions). And he also won't be conducting any sessions in his new role, so that technically is another loss of visibility and speaking. I would say his exposure has been greatly diminished. 1
Stargazer Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 56 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I think its all interconnected. Celebrity is more of a creation of the culture than something the church leadership can control. Certainly the announcement could have been to try and respond to people. Its just an interesting thought I had the other day, this idea of him being a Mormon celebrity within a group of leaders that already have some measure of celebrity by virtue of their callings. I myself am uncomfortable with this celebrity thing in the Church leadership. I look with great suspicion upon anything that smacks of "cult of personality". Elder Uchtdorf's celebrity status, in and of itself, is sufficient reason, from my worldly, gentile point of view, for him to be legitimately reduced in position, so as to possibly decentralize his celebrity status. I'm OK with the "We Thank Thee O God, for a Prophet" thing, because he is the holder of all the keys, but other general authorities having "rock star" status? It grates on me. One thing that I worry about, possibly needlessly, is that some authority with celebrity status might let that celebrity go to his head, and lead some rebellion in the Church if things don't go the way he believes they should. Not that I think this is going to happen, but Satan is tirelessly at work, and we sometimes underestimate him, I think. My late wife really loved Elder Uchtdorf. At least partly because she was a native born German, and pleased to see a fellow German in a high leadership role in the Church. My opinion of Elder Uchtdorf is extremely high. I enjoy his talks immensely, and he is an extremely valuable leader in the Church. I hope now that he no longer shares responsibilities in the First Presidency, he will be more available to counsel with members in the Church as he visits worldwide, or in his new area of responsibility. Being in Europe now, myself, this means that his expertise will benefit us! So you guys get less of him, and we will get more! I understand your jealousy. 3
hope_for_things Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 41 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I don't know that this is so unusual or remarkable. There have always been popular figures among the hierarchy of the Church. Elder Holland is quite popular at the moment. Elder Marlin K. Jensen was popular to a degree, especially among historians and academics. Elder Marion D. Hanks was popular in his day. So were Elders Paul H. Dunn, Hartman Rector Jr., LeGrand Richards, Neal A. Maxwell, and (before my time) Matthew Cowley. I completely agree, there have been others in the past, and will be others in the future, this is human nature and it speaks to how different personalities connect to different people and in different ways. Perhaps its my use of the term celebrity that some people took issue with. 1
hope_for_things Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 37 minutes ago, pogi said: Between correlation committee chair and second counselor in the First Presidency. I would argue that the correlation committee chair will have an overall greater influence on the minds of the members in general. They are the daily and weekly face of the church to the members, and not just a biannual speaker in conference. Perhaps you have some insight into how the correlation committee works that you can share? I certainly don't have enough information for a realistic comparison.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: It is tiresome that you would make the automatic assumption that committee assignments are secret based on your own incompetence in use of the internet, and on the automatic assumption that I and others need to do your research work for you. As I already told you, I have never bothered to look any of that up, and see no reason to do so. Serious researchers and historians (such as Mike Quinn, for example) have no problem discovering such matters, and I would suggest that you turn to such sources if you want to understand the corporate functions of the Brethren. Stop playing the blame game, and deal with such issues in an adult, scholarly manner. 2 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I didn't assume they are secret, I'm not sure where you are coming up with these assumptions of motive that you keep making about me. Very disrespectful. How am I blaming anyone, this is crazy talk. I'm asking if the committee assignments are public knowledge and posted anywhere. I personally haven't come across them, and I made the point that the Uchtdorf announcement of him taking on specific assignments is something that I can't recall seeing in the past, and that his status seems to have taken on an almost celebrity status within the hierarchy. 1 hour ago, Calm said: When my head is back on straight, hope, after a sleep to counteract my early morn adventure...you and I can get together and see if we can find it ourselves. It will be an interesting measure of accessibility for the resources most Americans have at hand, since most won't have books and such...that is unless someone has done it already. If not, After google, if that is a bust, I can walk down the block to our local library that has carried other Quinn books, so might have it. This piece from the Religious Studies Center at BYU, though certainly dated (2011), gives the name of the then-current chairman of Missionary Executive Council (President Nelson) and the past chairman (Elder L. Tom Perry). It also lists the other members of the council. 2
hope_for_things Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 5 minutes ago, Stargazer said: I myself am uncomfortable with this celebrity thing in the Church leadership. I look with great suspicion upon anything that smacks of "cult of personality". Elder Uchtdorf's celebrity status, in and of itself, is sufficient reason, from my worldly, gentile point of view, for him to be legitimately reduced in position, so as to possibly decentralize his celebrity status. I'm OK with the "We Thank Thee O God, for a Prophet" thing, because he is the holder of all the keys, but other general authorities having "rock star" status? It grates on me. One thing that I worry about, possibly needlessly, is that some authority with celebrity status might let that celebrity go to his head, and lead some rebellion in the Church if things don't go the way he believes they should. Not that I think this is going to happen, but Satan is tirelessly at work, and we sometimes underestimate him, I think. My late wife really loved Elder Uchtdorf. At least partly because she was a native born German, and pleased to see a fellow German in a high leadership role in the Church. My opinion of Elder Uchtdorf is extremely high. I enjoy his talks immensely, and he is an extremely valuable leader in the Church. I hope now that he no longer shares responsibilities in the First Presidency, he will be more available to counsel with members in the Church as he visits worldwide, or in his new area of responsibility. Being in Europe now, myself, this means that his expertise will benefit us! So you guys get less of him, and we will get more! I understand your jealousy. I really agree with your concerns about the cult of personality. I do think that current church members put their leaders up on a pedestal and the distance away from regular interactions in regular settings with church leaders makes it difficult to show just how human these men and it really creates a false impression. I think they could do many things to change these false perceptions that have perpetuated in the culture. For one, more press conferences and unscripted settings would help. For two, they could stop with the "We Thank Thee O God, for a Prophet" songs, and standing for them to enter or leave, and the myths about these special interviews with the savior that all apostles go through. All kinds of mystique about their callings have been allowed to perpetuate, when these perceptions could easily be adjusted with some frank talk and transparency. 1
JulieM Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: Each member of the First Presidency speaks twice: once in a general session and once in the priesthood or the women's session (which now will alternate from conference to conference). But each member of the Quorum of the Twelve speaks once at every general conference. So it's not like his exposure there is being greatly diminished. It will be half as much as before (if your stats are correct above).
Calm Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 28 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: This is a 50% reduction in the amount of speaking at General Conference at minimum. Interesting that he spoke three times at the last conference (women's, general and priesthood sessions). And he also won't be conducting any sessions in his new role, so that technically is another loss of visibility and speaking. I would say his exposure has been greatly diminished. This is when stats don't help that much...numbers are so small, just adding one causes a huge jump in percentages and makes it seem really significant, but we are talking ten now instead of 20 minutes, maybe a half an hour, now 15. How many of you expressing disappointment are going to take the time to dig up older talks, talks you haven't heard, books to read to fill the missing time slot? 2
ALarson Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: This piece from the Religious Studies Center at BYU, though certainly dated (2011), gives the name of the then-current chairman of Missionary Executive Council (President Nelson) and the past chairman (Elder L. Tom Perry). It also lists the other members of the council. President Nelson was also on the Strengthening Church Members Committee (at least at one time....don't know if he was up until now). Edited January 23, 2018 by ALarson
Stargazer Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I really agree with your concerns about the cult of personality. I do think that current church members put their leaders up on a pedestal and the distance away from regular interactions in regular settings with church leaders makes it difficult to show just how human these men and it really creates a false impression. I think they could do many things to change these false perceptions that have perpetuated in the culture. For one, more press conferences and unscripted settings would help. For two, they could stop with the "We Thank Thee O God, for a Prophet" songs, and standing for them to enter or leave, and the myths about these special interviews with the savior that all apostles go through. All kinds of mystique about their callings have been allowed to perpetuate, when these perceptions could easily be adjusted with some frank talk and transparency. Are you so sure that the special interviews are a myth? I tend to think that the Twelve have a special relationship with the Savior -- and I would not be surprised if some rather personal acquaintanceship is involved. I would also not be surprised that they don't speak of it openly, and even deny that any such thing has happened to them, even if it has happened. Jesus told his disciples that certain things were not to be publicized, e.g. the Transfiguration, at least not right away. And there's an example in D&C 19:21, where the Lord is explaining some things about the Atonement and the true nature of "eternal" and "endless" punishment. He instructs Martin Harris through Joseph Smith to "show not these things unto the world until it is wisdom in me". But if these special interviews don't happen, then I'm fine with that, too. I see where one might prefer the myth be done away with, if myth it is. Have you ever read Elder Boyd K. Packer's GC talk "The Spirit Beareth Record"? There is in this talk the implication that what you call a myth might not be one. But of course Elder Packer never comes right out and says it. So, one can affirm, and another can deny, and what is one left with? That you'll have to let the spirit bear record about it! Q.E.D., I guess.
The Nehor Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, hope_for_things said: None of the snark or accusations about me are fair or accurate, but I will note that I'm looking forward to watching this documentary that Radio West did an interview on the other day. Fred Rogers, pretty great guy. http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/sundance-2018-wont-you-be-my-neighbor You are the hero we neither deserve nor need. Can we trade you out for Batman? Edited January 23, 2018 by The Nehor
pogi Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 43 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Perhaps you have some insight into how the correlation committee works that you can share? I certainly don't have enough information for a realistic comparison. As I understand it, the correlation committee is responsible for overseeing the function of all the programs, activities, doctrines, ordinances, meetings, etc. of the entire church. They also decide what goes in all printed and audiovisual materials of the church, and how it is presented. In essence, they are the propaganda department of the church. That is HUGE influence!
pogi Posted January 23, 2018 Posted January 23, 2018 55 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: This is a 50% reduction in the amount of speaking at General Conference at minimum. Interesting that he spoke three times at the last conference (women's, general and priesthood sessions). And he also won't be conducting any sessions in his new role, so that technically is another loss of visibility and speaking. I would say his exposure has been greatly diminished. 31 minutes ago, JulieM said: It will be half as much as before (if your stats are correct above). From the individual members perspective, it will only be a 25% reduction. Since they only only speak directly to the priesthood and relief society once every other year (with recent changes), it is really on 1 less talk, every other year from the individual members perspective. So his conference exposure has reduced by 1 talk every other year, but his overall influence has increased exponentially with his new calling as head of the correlation committee. Sounds like a net increase to me.
Recommended Posts