- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
With all the gradual changes going on, what are the chances that the Bretheren stop ordaining the most senior apostle as president? If for example, the most senior apostle is in poor health, couldn’t they potentially leapfrog him? Unknown wrote:With all the gradual changes going on, what are the chances that the Bretheren stop ordaining the most senior apostle as president? If for example, the most senior apostle is in poor health, couldn’t they potentially leapfrog him?
Doctrinally they could, but they won’t. There is to much tradition on it being the senior apostle.
I had heard that apostles are counseled against keeping journals. Does anyone have a source or confirmation of that?
Roy wrote:I had heard that apostles are counseled against keeping journals. Does anyone have a source or confirmation of that?
No source but I have heard that as well.
The no keeping journal info. came from Elder Mattson. I can’t remember if it was in his MormonStories Podcast or the New York times article, but he was the one that said they have been asked not to keep a journal. I found it ironic since President Hinckley’s biography was written largely from his journals. hawkgrrrl wrote:I’m not sure why Holland gets so much the love. There is a thinly veiled anger to him that really is quite off-putting…
It’s the same reasons Elder Bruce McConkie and Brother Brigham got so much love. Those who are convinced of the “one true church” approachlovethe guys who are willing to get up and speak with force and a lot of emotion. It reinvigorates them and makes them feel alive in the faith! convert1992 wrote:So that means there is good news and bad news. The good news is that not so much depends on one man as is commonly assumed which should allay your fears of succession (remember ETB and how he didn’t undo anything Kimball did?). The bad news is, the way the Church is actually governed makes it extremely conservative and very likely to keep falling behind the times until perhaps one day it’s a tiny organization publishing writings no one reads. I hope that does not happen but the only way to stop it, I am afraid, is for faithful members (not exmos) to take the initiative and start changing our beliefs on our own.
I work for a state University and see the same thing. The board of regents really makes all the decisions; and they make the decisions and approvals for
EVERYTHING. It is really frustrating when you are trying to design for the people, but the school is run by a bunch of old people. Getting things approved is really slow and really difficult even for the simplest things. Things will continue to change slowly but surely just as they always have. It is just very frustrating for us. We live in an age when agile systems thrive. I hope that the church can find a way to become more agile so it can bear the burden of the information age and growing disinterest in apologetics.
Knowledge of the gospel and scripture has never been a criteria for leadership in the LDS church. It has and always will be a meritocracy based on ability to motivate and get things done. J. Golden Kimball once said that his calling was based more on relation than revelation and at one time that was likely true but now it comes down to being able to put programs in motion and get acceptable results. Brigham Young made it very plain to a group of bishops once that he didn’t want them up preaching what the believed was doctrine but just stick to managing their ward’s affairs. By the time someone reaches the 12 or the First Quorum of Seventy they’re expected to be able to speak and that’s fine but as had been noted, some are better at it than others and some take themselves more seriously than others. For us it’s better to listen and weigh what is said and not so much who said it. On Own Now wrote:convert1992 wrote:not everyone in the Church actually understands the Gospel, but the apostles do
Did you hear Elder Bednar’s talk in GC about tithing? He didn’t seem to understand the scriptures he was quoting. I believe that the 12 are excellent practitioners, but, I don’t think of any of them as very knowledgeable on any theological level.My apologies for not being more clear. We are talking about two different things. I meant that there is a certain construct that is referred to in our Church as “the Gospel” and the intention is for LDS leaders to understand this construct. Many bishops do (but many don’t), most SP’s do, most Patriarchs do, and nearly all GA’s. It is a construct that has certain elements that are uniquely Mormon, and therefore many converts don’t get it.
What you are talking about is a broader understanding of the meaning of Biblical concepts taken correctly in context. Mormonism has taken the Bible and used it to justify its own peculiar theological system that–regardless of how inspired it is, and I do think it is–can be said to be largely a creation of JS’s mind.
Would the FP change with a new president? I’m trying to recall a counselor that has been released and called to serve in the 12 again. It seems likely that Ucktdorf will be in the FP for a long time. By the way, there was a senior missionary who served at the institute I attended in college who was sure the second coming would happen once Bednar became President.
On a side note, when I first became active Bednar was my favorite speaker, I thought he did a good job of getting to the point. In one conference he said, “if there is anything we see, hear or do that distances us from the Holy Ghost, we should cease seeing, hearing, or doing these things”. Not really a new message, but it was worded very clearly and motivated me to change a few things in my life for the better that I didn’t really consider as sins, for example I deleted my myspace account, back before Facebook took off, because I realized I wasn’t left with a feeling of peace once I logged out. Anyway, I still like some of what he says in conferences but feel like he has sort of a cold delivery.
DarkJedi wrote:(On edit I have decided to point out here that it doesn’t necessarily matter to me because I think they generally lack revelation anyway – I don’t believe any of the presidents since Joseph Smith have actually had a revelation.
I have to agree with DarkJedi on this one. When people have had extraordinary spiritual events, it’s hard to keep it a secret even if you are not shouting it from the rooftops or divulging the details (and there are many good reasons for not divulging details)–because it is so transformational and life-altering. D&C entries give us plenty of evidence JS experienced a lot and probably more than is commonly understood. With contemporary leaders, they don’t even say they experienced something but can’t talk about it. It’s always limited to a generic discussion of the small still voice (remember Bednar’s talk). Anything else is too sacred to even mention, which naturally leads one to ask whether it even exists (eg, Lord appearing in the Holy of Holies) or if they don’t have it and don’t want people to know.
Pres. Packer is a good example of someone whose one sledgehammer topic (sexual matters) has overshadowed his many messages that are moderate – progressive. If he could lay off the sex talks, I wouldn’t mind him being President at all – especially for a short time. I don’t see the new apostles continuing to be from the Inter-Mountain West, especially since the last few haven’t been. I have some concerns about the possibility of getting more hardliners from other countries, but I am certain the top leadership knows we can’t retrench into the past. I don’t see the current acceptance of historical openness changing one bit no matter who the next Presidents are, for example. That would be stupid, and they aren’t stupid.
I actually think Pres. Uchtdorf is more representative of the group in many ways than most people think. I don’t sense any organized pushback against his messages, even from the more obviously conservative apostles. They might preach in a more black and white way from a more conservative position, but I don’t think they oppose what he says. He’s just the best voice for those messages.
I don’t mean that to be all peaches and sunshine, as if there aren’t serious issues that might derail what I see as progress. Perhaps the best example might be the advocacy / pressure approach of some members, which conceivably could backfire and cause resistance to things that otherwise might happen more naturally.
We’ll see.
Unknown wrote:Would the FP change with a new president? I’m trying to recall a counselor that has been released and called to serve in the 12 again. It seems likely that Ucktdorf will be in the FP for a long time.
It can happen. The last time was in ’85 when ETB became the President, and he moved Marion G Romney back to the 12. However that was clearly a health issue. MGR was basically incapacitated at the time. In fact, though he was the senior member of the Q12, Howard W Hunter was made the Acting President of the Q12.A prior interesting time, though not a release from the FP, occurred when David O McKay became the President. The FP had been GAS, JReuben Clark 1st Counselor, DOM 2nd Counselor. But when DOM became president, he called Stephen L Richards as 1st Counselor and demoted JRC to 2nd counselor.
Technically, the FP is dissolved upon the death of the President, so only if they are called again, do they keep that calling. For example, when BY died, there were three counselors in the FP, one of whom was his son John W Young. When BY died, the FP was dissolved and the Q12 ruled the Church. Three years later, when John Taylor became the president, he called one new counselor (George Q Cannon), kept one from BY days (Joseph F Smith) and didn’t recall two of them, even though they were still living (John W Young and Dan Wells).
It would be surprising if DFU were removed from the FP, but it is possible.
Curtis wrote:
I don’t see the new apostles continuing to be from the Inter-Mountain West, especially since the last few haven’t been. I have some concerns about the possibility of getting more hardliners from other countries, but I am certain the top leadership knows we can’t retrench into the past. I don’t see the current acceptance of historical openness changing one bit no matter who the next Presidents are, for example. That would be stupid, and they aren’t stupid.I agree they’re not stupid and we can’t be open and suddenly pull down the pages and go secret again. That would be very bad for the image of the church, I think. But looking at the current Q15 only Bednar and Uchtdorf are not from the Mormon Corridor, and one could argue that Bednar might as well be because he’s from what might be called a side hall (California) and does have pioneer type heritage on his mother’s side. I realize that’s 13% more from outside the MC than there were 20 years ago, and that is a step or two in the right direction.
Curtis wrote:I actually think Pres. Uchtdorf is more representative of the group in many ways than most people think. I don’t sense any organized pushback against his messages, even from the more obviously conservative apostles. They might preach in a more black and white way from a more conservative position, but I don’t think they oppose what he says. He’s just the best voice for those messages.
I’m not so sure. Sometimes a few of them have talked about how some of their discussions in the weekly meetings are very intense. I’ve never heard any of them openly disagree with each other, though, and they always toe the party line to a great degree anyway. GC is not a place for debate and debate doesn’t happen there or after conference (except by the likes of us). Likewise, there hasn’t been a Poelman-like redo of any talks by any apostles ever that we know about, they are free to say what they think apparently. I’m not saying they don’t agree with Pres. Uchtdorf but it’s apparently not kosher to say so even if that’s the case. It would certainly be bad for the church if such open debate or criticism were allowed. I’m just not sure the silence is a mark of approval in this case, but I hope it is, and I do believe the FP is united in the kinds of things Pres. Uchtdorf says. Honestly I think he has an eloquence the other two lack, and thus is the voice. That said, I actually think the same about BKP – like you I do like much of the other (non-sexual) stuff he says, and he often tackles tough topics with a finesse no one else there seems to possess.
Commenting on “Does Uchtdorf serve as counselor in the next presidency” conversation, I think he does. The new president is free to choose anyone else he desires (in the early days they weren’t even all apostles), and there have been some breaks in more recent tradition where they have not kept the counselors. I think Pres. Uchtdorf is well liked by the membership in the same way Pres. Hinckley was liked in his many years as counselor (and mostly doing the work of the president). Therefore, I think he will be retained as a counselor as will Pres. Eyring. Not to get off topic–this question is related to the trend of leadership and not the issue itself–but it puzzles me how there was a consensus (or was there?) of the apostles to mount the Prop 8 campaign. The older ones can be forgiven for thinking that it’s still the 1970s and that the ERA fight would be replicated. After the debacle, I remember Elder Ballard getting up in GC and commenting on the pain it caused some members. That made me wonder whose idea it was. As a priesthood holder in my ward pointed out, it just made the gay rights movement more determined and probably hastened gay marriage. And then as we found out during the presidential election, it really didn’t buy us any loyalty or gratitude among the hard-core Christian right who still hate Mormonism. Are we underestimating the social conservatism of the apostles, or did Prop 8 reflect the influence of the Old Guard whereas a younger generation would’ve understood American society better?
Sorry, DJ, I wasn’t very clear. I meant that the newer apostles all lived as adults outside the Utah Inter-Mountain area. In doing a little research a little while ago, I was surprised to learn that only four of the current 15 apostles spent their adult lives in Utah. Further, the lower half in rank are divided pretty evenly between those who were raised in Utah and those who were raised outside of Utah. Also, the entire First Presidency and the top four apostles (and Elder Hales) did not serve missions, due to WWII; interestingly, every current apostle who has served a mission served outside the United States.
The clearest similarity is that they tend to have graduated from college in Utah, with many of the newest apostles getting advanced degrees from prestigious schools across the United States.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.