- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Someone mentioned that the only person to admit a mistake publicly (Uchdorft) was “demoted from the First Presidency”. I thought that was an interesting thought, but to really consider it a demotion, I think there would have to be precedent with brethren assigned to the FP staying there for life rather than being moved into a lesser role. Does history support the idea that a person called to the FP, and then moved to a non-FP role is a very rare occurrence? Even if rare, we can’t be sure it was a demotion, although we might wonder if it was in fact a form of punishment, or removal due to inappropriate behavior. I’d be sad if it was actually a demotion…
Thoughts? Is removal from the FP a rare occurrence after someone is called to the position?
I found this nice tidbit… Chronology of the First PresidenctIt has happened in the past, looking through the list. Before Uchtdorf, there was Hugh B Brown, who was called in the first presidency from 1961 to 1970. When David O McKay died in 1970, Joseph Fielding Smith became the new President, and Brown got a “demotion”.
Then back in 1901, Rudger Clawson was called to the first presidency, but wasn’t sustained until Lorenzo Snow died 4 days later. When fellow counselor Joseph F Smith became the prophet, Rudger Clawson was not selected for the first presidency.
And of course NONE of the counselors of Joseph Smith Jr or Brigham Young remained into the next presidency.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
So in total you have between 4 to 5 times it’s happened before Uchtdorf. Sidney Rigdon, John Willard Young, Daniel H. Wells, Hugh B Brown, Rudger Clawson (if we count him), and Deiter F Uchdorft, all served as first counselor, and were “demoted”. The only two I really suspect were for personal reasons was Hugh B Brown and Uchdorft.
A few other interesting tidbits I learned:
The first presidency can have a THIRD counselor. Who knew?
- While the twelve apostles wasn’t organized until 1835, Sidney Rigdon served in the first Presidency for three years prior. So… wouldn’t that make him Brigham Young’s senior?
This was covered a bit in this thread: http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=8715 ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=8715 You’re right, we can’t say for sure it was a demotion, and he was given some very high profile duties in the Q12 (missions and correlation). But the last time it appears to have happened was the release of Hugh B. Brown by Joseph Fielding Smith, and it appears there had been only one instance in the 20th century. Rare? Absolutely. I’m no expert on that era of church history, but it is clear the Brown and Smith (as well as HBL) butted heads, with Brown favoring ending the priesthood ban and questioning whether Smith should have been in the top seat considering his advanced age.
In my own mind, considering the conservative bent of RMN and DHO, if it was not a demotion it was at least a marginalization. The biggest downside for me is that we will hear from DFU less as a member of the Q12.
(Note I was typing at the same time as Dande)
dande48 wrote:The first presidency can have a THIRD counselor. Who knew?
Any of us who were around when GBH was called as “third” counselor to SWK because of the poor health of SWK, NET, and MGR.
Or for the real dinosaurs, those who were around in the later years of DOM, who I believe at one time had 5 counselors (mostly incapacitated). I remember Hinckley, not McKay.
DarkJedi wrote:
Or for the real dinosaurs, those who were around in the later years of DOM, who I believe at one time had 5 counselors (mostly incapacitated). I remember Hinckley, not McKay.
Wait… wait… HOLD ON. Are you telling me that the first presidency is NOT selected according to capability?!!
😯 *Mind-Blown*dande48 wrote:
DarkJedi wrote:
Or for the real dinosaurs, those who were around in the later years of DOM, who I believe at one time had 5 counselors (mostly incapacitated). I remember Hinckley, not McKay.
Wait… wait… HOLD ON. Are you telling me that the first presidency is NOT selected according to capability?!!
😯 *Mind-Blown*
Well, depending on your point of view, they could be called according to capability. They reached down a bit for Hinckley and he was very capable compared to his “peers.” Part of the reason he was beloved by so many was that he was the face of the church for a long time under both Kimball and Benson.
FWIW, I think they were very worried about Packer outliving Nelson precisely because they were worried about having someone incapacitated at the head of the church either immediately or in the near future after his call. I don’t think there has been an instance where the senior apostle is already incapacitated at the time of his call to be president. It looks like we’re OK for the foreseeable future, although I don’t think Eyring has a long way to go in that respect (but he’s not next in line either).
Yes, it was a demotion. However it doesn’t affect his seniority in line to become president. Uchtdorf is in rude health so he stands a good chance of getting back up there. It may not be a formal demotion, but it sure feels like one to me. I am planning on mourning the loss for many years to come. It can be justified in that the first in line has been put into the First Presidency, but like the Hamula & LGBT parents events, it was handled quite badly. I’m just glad it wasn’t Packer. Personality issues aside, Elder Oaks is the most likely next president, so it made sense to move him into the FP as the 1st Counselor. That wasn’t a historical given, by any stretch, but it made sense. Likewise, Elder Eyring was the 1st Counselor, so it made sense to drop him to 2nd Counselor. Uchtdorf was the 2nd Counselor (and the “junior apostle” of the FP), so it made sense to move him out of the FP. I would have loved to have had Uchtdorf stay in the FP, but it isn’t a demotion, given the practical situation, even if a big part of the reason was “fit” with Pres. Nelson. Otoh, it would have been a clear demotion if Eyring had been removed, given his “higher” counselor standing and apostle order, if Uchtdorf had remained. Few people stop to consider that aspect.
Old Timer wrote:
Personality issues aside, Elder Oaks is the most likely next president, so it made sense to move him into the FP as the 1st Counselor. That wasn’t a historical given, by any stretch, but it made sense. Likewise, Elder Eyring was the 1st Counselor, so it made sense to drop him to 2nd Counselor. Uchtdorf was the 2nd Counselor (and the “junior apostle” of the FP), so it made sense to move him out of the FP.
As usual you come out with reasonable explanations that make us think. Looking at it from our own narrow perspective, we see Uchdorft as an advocate for the disenfranchised, so any hit to his position in the church would be seen as an affront to us somewhat, and a demotion for him in speaking up.
But I see from your comments there are other considerations.
It didn’t seem to matter to President Monson who was next in line to be the prophet when he selected his counselors. What they did to Uchtdorf and those who desperately needed a beacon of light to look toward was disrespectful and cold. I also want to mention that many, many women loved Pres. Uchtdorf and please don’t tell me it was because of his looks. 🙄 He acted like he understood us; as if he just “got” us. Inactive people loved him. My husband once had a nonmember tell him that if Uchtdorf became prophet he might consider being baptized. Many going through a faith crisis were drawn to him.It doesn’t matter how you slice it to me, as Silent Dawning said, he DID represent the disenfranchised, those without a voice in this church. My heart felt empty today. I miss seeing him. It really doesn’t matter that he gets to talk once. Him being in the First Presidency made some of us feel like we were somewhat represented. Now that is gone.
I really don’t care about their snails pace, micro changes for the better. I will never have a voice in this church because of my gender and my different viewpoints. I don’t matter and I know it.
This post sounds very “poor me” but I do feel sorry for myself.
🙂 I
Quote:He acted like he understood us; as if he just “got” us.
Any man who can talk to girls from 8 to 80, again and again, did get us. I believe even if he didn’t fully “get” someone/something, he was willing to bridge a gap, open a space, something.
Like you – this is going to hurt for a long time. He really did make room for everyone.
Also, I believe the church would like to avoid having any particularly popular church leaders that are not the prophet. It can place the church in uncomfortable situations if a particular apostle (or other church leader) develops a strong following. The church has a long history and institutional memory of schisms. Quote:It can place the church in uncomfortable situations if a particular apostle (or other church leader) develops a strong following. The church has a long history and institutional memory of schisms.
True Roy. In this situation it would have been easy to create a schism.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.