Elder Uchtdorf's New Callings

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

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. 

All of this talk of reduction in general conference speaking seems to me to be almost confusing the messenger with the message.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Towards the end he was talking three times, I think they were filling in for Pres. Monson.

But that wouldn't have been the case today. The women's session and the priesthood session will each be held only once a year, alternating with each other. So going forward, I can't see there being opportunity for a member of the First Presidency to speak more than twice -- unless the Church president elects to speak at two separate general sessions, which has been done in times past.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour 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 certainly agree that there should be no personality cult or false pedestals for Church leaders in any church, but that is really the fault of the yokels who falsely attribute celebrity status to them.  Should they go about being grumpy and stern, wearing hair shirts, etc., ignoring the Holy Spirit?  Should they be blamed for whatever charm and charisma they naturally have?  Is that what the Bible tells us about ancient prophets, apostles, and angels?

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

Ridiculous.  Did you even notice the frank talk by Pres Nelson at his press conference, Jan 16, 2018, online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8Cd3vcWYnc , at about 39:30,

Quote

“Every member needs to know the difference between what’s doctrine and what’s human.  We have both elements that we have to work with.  If you think our youth have a problem, think of how Heavenly Father must feel, because he’s worked with normal human beings ever since Adam.  And every one has been imperfect except his son Jesus Christ.  So, give your leaders a little leeway to make mistakes, as you hope your leaders will give you a little leeway to profit by your errors.”

You have a penchant for finding fault no matter what, and yet you cry to high heaven when anyone mentions your own foibles.  Why the double standard?

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

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.

I don't believe in literal visits by angels or spirits.  I also believe these experiences that people have are highly powerful and that there is little difference from the perspective of the person having the experience between something literal and objective, and something subjective and personal.  Don't know if that makes sense, I could explain more, but it might be a long conversation.  

All that said, I have heard enough quotes from church leaders that lead me to believe that many of the apostles don't believe in these kind of manifestations anymore.  Oaks at the Bosie rescue, a recent Q&A youth meeting (can't remember which person made the comment now), and there are older ones from the likes of Joseph F. Smith and others.  We don't live in a very supernatural kind of society these days, so spiritual experiences have been reduced to feeling peace and they seem to discourage the ecstatic visions and dreams of the past.  

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You are the hero we neither deserve nor need. Can we trade you out for Batman?

I'll be the Dark Knight if you agree to be Two Face.  

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

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!

 

 

Large influence for sure as a committee, but he's just one person on that committee, so how do you measure the influence of one committee member in a group like this?  

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

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. 

While your busy spinning the events, why stop at saying this is a net increase.  I have a better theory. 

I think that Uchtdorf is now controlling the presidency behind the scenes from his new position.  Since they couldn't make him president because that would have been too big of a break with tradition, they had to demote him to the quorum of the 12 in order to really promote him behind the scenes to making all the decisions of the president.  Nelson is just a puppet leader and Uchtdorf has now assumed control of the church.   

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Large influence for sure as a committee, but he's just one person on that committee, so how do you measure the influence of one committee member in a group like this?  

Seriously? the head of the committee is not just another member.   Chances are he is the one determine the agenda, what money is being spent where,  the current mission statement, what areas of focus, perhaps where research will get done.

[Stargazer]

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't believe in literal visits by angels or spirits.  I also believe these experiences that people have are highly powerful and that there is little difference from the perspective of the person having the experience between something literal and objective, and something subjective and personal.  Don't know if that makes sense, I could explain more, but it might be a long conversation.  

All that said, I have heard enough quotes from church leaders that lead me to believe that many of the apostles don't believe in these kind of manifestations anymore.  Oaks at the Bosie rescue, a recent Q&A youth meeting (can't remember which person made the comment now), and there are older ones from the likes of Joseph F. Smith and others.  We don't live in a very supernatural kind of society these days, so spiritual experiences have been reduced to feeling peace and they seem to discourage the ecstatic visions and dreams of the past.  

Very well.

I've been reading what you write here for some time, and I've found you to be very perplexing up until now.  But your statements in this thread have finally settled for me your outlook concerning the Church, and possibly religion in general. 

Not to make the thread about you, rather than about what you wrote, but I am curious.  Do you believe in God?  And if you do, what do you believe about God?  I'm not trying to argue with you over this, understand.  Just looking for greater understanding.

[Hamba Tuhan]

18 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think that Uchtdorf is now controlling the presidency behind the scenes from his new position.  Since they couldn't make him president because that would have been too big of a break with tradition, they had to demote him to the quorum of the 12 in order to really promote him behind the scenes to making all the decisions of the president.  Nelson is just a puppet leader and Uchtdorf has now assumed control of the church.   

This explanation makes as much sense as the one you've been endlessly pursuing in this thread thus far, and has as much supporting evidence. Now, if only you had included the same emoticon at the end of your other assertions about politically driven demotions...

[hope_for_things]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

Seriously? the head of the committee is not just another member.   Chances are he is the one determine the agenda, what money is being spent where,  the current mission statement, what areas of focus, perhaps where research will get done.

I have no idea how these committees work, how many people are involved, how much influence people have.  Does everyone on the committee get a vote, and do they have a process where a certain number of votes passes measures.   If you have more insight into how much influence a committee chair has on these committees please share, I'm totally in the dark on the dynamics within LDS church committees.  

[Rain]

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Fair comments Rain, thanks I think your thoughts on here are valid.  These topics can be complicated and there are people all over the spectrum who could have sensitive feelings on various topics.  Some of the challenge of interacting with many different perspectives is that people can get upset or feel offended and that can bring out the worst in others at times.  I've had multiple participants on this thread who have decided that personally insulting me is a fair tactic to employ, so obviously there is some sensitivity on this subject.  

I'm sad about the Uchtdorf change, I wish he was still in the FP.  I personally view it as a demotion.  I'm sad that he won't be speaking at GC as much as in the past.  His talk in 2013 was a Godsend to me at a time that I was severely struggling in the church and questioning everything, and it really helped me to feel like someone cared, like someone understood what I was going through and someone validated my experience.  Are my feelings different than some others, yes.  When others attempt to minimize my views on this issue how does that make me feel? 

So, you bring up some good thoughts on how people are sensitive over this topic, and I would just add that there are others like myself who have sensitivities as well, that if we are to take everyone's sensitive feelings into account, that we should be careful and respectful as much as possible of each other. 

I understand about being sad about Elder Uchtdorf.  I'm sad as well, but I'm also excited to hear more of elder Oaks.  Earlier in my life I really enjoyed listening to him because he laid things down in such a straight forward way.  Then life changed for me and I felt more of a connection to other apostles, like Elder Scott.  I find that as my life changes then the connection to conference speakers usually changes as well.  You would think that some speakers seem to fit more with certain problems, but that isn't always the case.  For example Elder's Kearon's talk on refugees really should have been a great one to me because I had just started working with refugee stuff, but while I thought it was nice it didn't really strike me.  Maybe that's because I already had the feeling inside of me.  So maybe, sometimes talks and speakers feel stronger in us when we need it most even though we don't know it yet.

Anyway, I have been disappointed with how you have been treated as well, though, while I don't excuse it, I do feel like some felt attacked in some way and now they are acting out in defense.  Maybe I would need to read it again, but if things had been said like you are saying them in this paragraph I think things might have gone a whole different way.  Hopefully it is not too late to change things, and some will treat you better and others will remember the feelings those who felt they had to defend.    

7 hours ago, cinepro said:

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. 

I have been able to list all three members in the stake presidency for some time now, though the last 3 years it helps to have a calling where I have worked with on of them and a high councilor. I would guess quite a few do remember the stake presidency counselors, but probably not the stake RS presidency - sadly I include myself as I  know only 2 of the 4. 

Edited January 24, 2018 by Rain

[pogi]

38 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

While your busy spinning the events, why stop at saying this is a net increase.  I have a better theory. 

I think that Uchtdorf is now controlling the presidency behind the scenes from his new position.  Since they couldn't make him president because that would have been too big of a break with tradition, they had to demote him to the quorum of the 12 in order to really promote him behind the scenes to making all the decisions of the president.  Nelson is just a puppet leader and Uchtdorf has now assumed control of the church.   

What you call "spinning", I call fact checking.  50% reduction in exposure is very different from 25% etc.  Just stating it as I see it, that's all.    

[JAHS]

Years ago I made up this "chain of command" of the church leadership. I don't know how accurate it is anymore.
Supposedly there are three Apostles that serve on each of 4 councils: Correlation, Missionary, Priesthood, and Temple/Family History 
It looks like Elder Uchtdorf has been called to chair two of these councils (Missionary and Correlation), so I am not sure of how things are divided up now.
But I can only imagine he is going to be one busy man.

[hope_for_things]

25 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Very well.

I've been reading what you write here for some time, and I've found you to be very perplexing up until now.  But your statements in this thread have finally settled for me your outlook concerning the Church, and possibly religion in general. 

Not to make the thread about you, rather than about what you wrote, but I am curious.  Do you believe in God?  And if you do, what do you believe about God?  I'm not trying to argue with you over this, understand.  Just looking for greater understanding.

If you have me figured out finally, can you share, as I think that could be helpful to me.    Many days I feel like I'm all over the map.  I think I would best be described today as a person that is comfortable with multiple perspectives and someone that isn't 100% certain on anything.  Most days I think I lean agnostic, however, I often do find peace and comfort in the ideas of a God, but that concept of God is not a old white guy with a beard, its more of an influencing power, yet not necessarily a God that directly interjects actions into the world.  The God that I perceive of is limited, none of the omni's, that kind of a God is to horrible to imagine for me as the problem of evil is just to great to conceive of a God that has the power to act and yet doesn't.  

I like to imagine that God is something that connects the universe and all life in someway that we don't currently understand, nothing supernatural, all mechanisms are natural in my mind, we just don't understand how everything works yet.  God is also an experience that we have evolved to perceive as humans, I recommend this book about the neuroscience around the God experience.  

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_1_15?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=how+god+changes+your+brain+by+andrew+newberg+and+mark+waldman&sprefix=how+god+changes%2Caps%2C224&crid=O8AQLM1W4J6T

All that said, I find some meaning in many of the mythic and metaphoric approaches to God.  None of the God as capricious judge and arbitrator.  I don't believe there is an afterlife, but I like hoping that everything we do here on earth has a greater purpose and if that includes an afterlife of some kind I will be pleasantly surprised.  

These are all just my beliefs today, they will likely change in the future, and my own beliefs 5 years earlier were quite orthodox as I was just on the precipice of going through a Mormon faith crisis.  At any rate.  I love life, and love people, service, family and goodness are the most important things to me, and that includes my still orthodox family and friends.  I try to be charitable to them as well, and I generally avoid these kinds of conversations with others unless they ask for my real opinion, which seems to be rare these days.  

Hope that helps

[hope_for_things]

26 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

This explanation makes as much sense as the one you've been endlessly pursuing in this thread thus far, and has as much supporting evidence. Now, if only you had included the same emoticon at the end of your other assertions about politically driven demotions...

Ha, you give me too much credit.  I have no political dog in any fights, just a regular Joe Schmo making observations on an obscure internet message board.  I'm a nobody.  

[Stargazer]

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

If you have me figured out finally, can you share, as I think that could be helpful to me.    

No, I don't think you need my perspective on this.   What you've written here pretty much matches my perception of where you're coming from.  

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Many days I feel like I'm all over the map.  I think I would best be described today as a person that is comfortable with multiple perspectives and someone that isn't 100% certain on anything.  Most days I think I lean agnostic, however, I often do find peace and comfort in the ideas of a God, but that concept of God is not a old white guy with a beard, its more of an influencing power, yet not necessarily a God that directly interjects actions into the world.  The God that I perceive of is limited, none of the omni's, that kind of a God is to horrible to imagine for me as the problem of evil is just to great to conceive of a God that has the power to act and yet doesn't.  

I like to imagine that God is something that connects the universe and all life in someway that we don't currently understand, nothing supernatural, all mechanisms are natural in my mind, we just don't understand how everything works yet.  God is also an experience that we have evolved to perceive as humans, I recommend this book about the neuroscience around the God experience.  

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_1_15?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=how+god+changes+your+brain+by+andrew+newberg+and+mark+waldman&sprefix=how+god+changes%2Caps%2C224&crid=O8AQLM1W4J6T

All that said, I find some meaning in many of the mythic and metaphoric approaches to God.  None of the God as capricious judge and arbitrator.  I don't believe there is an afterlife, but I like hoping that everything we do here on earth has a greater purpose and if that includes an afterlife of some kind I will be pleasantly surprised.  

These are all just my beliefs today, they will likely change in the future, and my own beliefs 5 years earlier were quite orthodox as I was just on the precipice of going through a Mormon faith crisis.  At any rate.  I love life, and love people, service, family and goodness are the most important things to me, and that includes my still orthodox family and friends.  I try to be charitable to them as well, and I generally avoid these kinds of conversations with others unless they ask for my real opinion, which seems to be rare these days.  

Hope that helps

It does help, and I thank you for your willingness to share!

And thanks for your book recommendation, too.

[juliann]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Large influence for sure as a committee, but he's just one person on that committee, so how do you measure the influence of one committee member in a group like this?  

Uhhhh.....have you not been on a committee? Even a ward council gives the leader/bishop the final word.  I find it rather silly to think that a man of his stature would ever be considered to be just one of the guys on a committee. 

[hope_for_things]

12 minutes ago, juliann said:

Uhhhh.....have you not been on a committee? Even a ward council gives the leader/bishop the final word.  I find it rather silly to think that a man of his stature would ever be considered to be just one of the guys on a committee. 

I have no reason to assume that ward committees operate in the same way.  This is just conjecture on both our parts.  I would love to hear some actual experiences from anyone that’s been involved.  

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'll be the Dark Knight if you agree to be Two Face.  

I prefer to think of myself as the Joker.....or maybe the Riddler.

[randy]

On ‎1‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 6:48 PM, hope_for_things said:

I don't get why people are sensitive to those that believe it was a demotion, or why you consider this a criticism of the church.  I think its just politics, and power dynamics and its present in every organization, and human nature.  Is it always fair, no, but its just the way the world goes round and we have examples of it throughout the history of the world and throughout the history of the LDS church.  

Hello All,  I have been fascinated with this thread.  I'm 60 yrs old, been a member since "65" and have served in a few Bishoprics over the years.  I gotta tell ya, I really didn't know there were "demotions" in the church, heck...I didn't even really  know it was POSSIBLE to be demoted in the Church.  Honestly...how does one become demoted in the Church?  How can simply receiving another calling or area of responsibility and stewardship be seen or construed as being demoted..as if we're "hired and fired"?  I'm truly trying to understand this point of view.  I was always taught, and I believe...that the Lord calls and the Lord releases.  In my mind its that simple. But then again, I'm pretty simple minded.  I am trying to also understand why some in the church would be losing any sleep over this, or suffering angsnt over it when Elder Uchtdorf obviously is not.  I don't consider myself sensitive over this, I am not dismissing other's feelings on it,  just trying hard to understand why it really matters at all.

I am reminded of Elder Anderson's talk "It's true isn't? What else matters?"  At the end of the day, that pretty well sums up my whole approach and attitude towards the church.  But again....simple minded I am.

 

Edited January 24, 2018 by randy

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't believe in literal visits by angels or spirits.  I also believe these experiences that people have are highly powerful and that there is little difference from the perspective of the person having the experience between something literal and objective, and something subjective and personal.  Don't know if that makes sense, I could explain more, but it might be a long conversation.  

All that said, I have heard enough quotes from church leaders that lead me to believe that many of the apostles don't believe in these kind of manifestations anymore.  Oaks at the Bosie rescue, a recent Q&A youth meeting (can't remember which person made the comment now), and there are older ones from the likes of Joseph F. Smith and others.  We don't live in a very supernatural kind of society these days, so spiritual experiences have been reduced to feeling peace and they seem to discourage the ecstatic visions and dreams of the past.  

CFR that General Authorities don’t believe in divine manifestations anymore. And let’s have direct quotes in context, not just vague allusions. 

[Mark Beesley]

1 hour ago, randy said:

Hello All,  I have been fascinated with this thread.  I'm 60 yrs old, been a member since "65" and have served in a few Bishoprics over the years.  I gotta tell ya, I really didn't know there were "demotions" in the church, heck...I didn't even really  know it was POSSIBLE to be demoted in the Church.  Honestly...how does one become demoted in the Church?  How can simply receiving another calling or area of responsibility and stewardship be seen or construed as being demoted..as if we're "hired and fired"?  I'm truly trying to understand this point of view.  I was always taught, and I believe...that the Lord calls and the Lord releases.  In my mind its that simple. But then again, I'm pretty simple minded.  I am trying to also understand why some in the church would be losing any sleep over this, or suffering angsnt over it when Elder Uchtdorf obviously is not.  I don't consider myself sensitive over this, I am not dismissing other's feelings on it,  just trying hard to understand why it really matters at all.

I am reminded of Elder Anderson's talk "It's true isn't? What else matters?"  At the end of the day, that pretty well sums up my whole approach and attitude towards the church.  But again....simple minded I am.

 

I’m with you brother. In order for Elder Uchtdorf’s reassignment to be considered a demotion, one would have to show that a calling to the FP constitutes a promotion, i.e. it somehow advances him ahead of his colleagues in the Quorum of the 12. But it doesn’t. He remains in the same place in seniority in the Quorum, and only advances closer to the office of the President through the death of those ahead of him in seniority. Being in the FP as a counselor gives no advantage in advancing to the higher office. 

[Kenngo1969]

5 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

I’m with you brother. In order for Elder Uchtdorf’s reassignment to be considered a demotion, one would have to show that a calling to the FP constitutes a promotion, i.e. it somehow advances him ahead of his colleagues in the Quorum of the 12. But it doesn’t. He remains in the same place in seniority in the Quorum, and only advances closer to the office of the President through the death of those ahead of him in seniority. Being in the FP as a counselor gives no advantage in advancing to the higher office. 

Brother Mark:

Long time no hear, Brother.  Good to Cyber-see you.  

P.S.: As I recall, a number of years ago, you made the very astute observation that whatever the health or the mental state of the Senior Priesthood holder on earth, as much as we might like to see him active and vigorous, out among the Saints, regularly addressing us, attending such high-profile events as Temple dedications, and so on, the only thing we really need the Senior Priesthood holder to do is to hold keys.  I alluded to your insight in commenting on President Monson's decline in health and recent passing.  I do so any time the subject (or related subjects) comes up ... (with attribution, of course).  

Edited January 24, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't believe in literal visits by angels or spirits.  I also believe these experiences that people have are highly powerful and that there is little difference from the perspective of the person having the experience between something literal and objective, and something subjective and personal.  Don't know if that makes sense, I could explain more, but it might be a long conversation.  

All that said, I have heard enough quotes from church leaders that lead me to believe that many of the apostles don't believe in these kind of manifestations anymore.  Oaks at the Bosie rescue, a recent Q&A youth meeting (can't remember which person made the comment now), and there are older ones from the likes of Joseph F. Smith and others.  We don't live in a very supernatural kind of society these days, so spiritual experiences have been reduced to feeling peace and they seem to discourage the ecstatic visions and dreams of the past.  

I have heard apostles who are still alive testify they are real and do happen.

You do know that one of the hallmarks of the Restoration was to bring back angels and visions and our scriptures are full of them right? Apostles saying they are gone is basically admitting another apostasy.

Edited January 24, 2018 by The Nehor