9 AM Press Conference

[Jeff Lebowski]

I saw this today. Interesting. I think it's highly likely that the presidency change is being viewed in a related way by the people that are closest to it. (I originally wrote similar way and changed it to related. I don't have a guess at how similar it is viewed--and the Hugh B Brown change was viewed even more dramatically I believe. But I feel very strongly it's not nothing.)

Two accounts of the reassignment of J. Reuben Clark from 1st to 2nd counselor:

(Spencer W. Kimball: Resolute Disciple, Prophet of God by Francis M. Gibbons)
---
The most significant change in the general leadership occurred on April 4, 1951, when President George Albert Smith passed away. ... a special council meeting was held to consider the reorganization of the First Presidency. All agreed there should be no delay. After the Brethren counseled together, David O. McKay was approved and ordained as the ninth President of the Church. Unexpectedly, he nominated Stephen L Richards as his first counselor and J. Reuben Clark as the second. Elder Kimball seemed to express the feelings of the other members of the council about this action and the response of President Clark, who had been the first counselor in the First Presidency for almost twenty years. "I was shocked. What fortitude and self-control, what self-mastery. How could any mortal take a blow like that and stand?"

--

(Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power by D. Michael Quinn)
--

In April 1951 McKay began his presidency by demoting J. Reuben Clark from first to second counselor. "How could any mortal take a blow like that and stand?" wrote Apostle Spencer W. Kimball of Clark. "But he did." Before the public announcement some apostles worried that "it will kill Brother Clark," and that "the people will not be reconciled" to Clark's demotion. McKay publicly denied that the change was a demotion or that there was "any rift" between them. However, church leaders and bureaucrats knew that Clark had been demoted because of the disagreements they had experienced for years as First Presidency counselors. It was not long before this tension became public knowledge. Nationally-syndicated newspaper columnist Drew Pearson interviewed prominent Utahns and published this assessment: "Today, at the age of 80, Clark is the most reactionary apostle in the Mormon church-so reactionary that when McKay became president he promptly demoted Clark from his place as No. 1 counselor." Years later McKay responded to a complaint about Clark's negativism with the comment: "How do you think I have gotten along with him? If I ever had any inspiration it was when I selected Stephen L Richards as my first counselor, against all precedent." For sixteen years McKay had been subordinate to then first counselor Clark, but "their roles of domination and subordination had been reversed." Now McKay was in charge.

So was McKay right or wrong to demote Clark?

Jay, let's suppose for the sake of argument that your conspiracy theory is true. I.e., this was not a move to promote Oaks, but rather a move to demote DFU. Do we have any hard evidence (or even soft evidence!) that there is some kind of idealogical/theological rift in the Q12 regarding DFU? Yes, he gives beautiful, inspiring talks, but is there any evidence that he was a force driving or resisting policy change in certain areas?

[beefytee]

I still can't believe President Nelson is 94. Although it's been discussed that 94 is still 94, he seems to be in as good of shape as any of the more senior apostles (above Uchtdorf).

Not that there is much difference, but... I don't believe he is 94 either. I believe he is 93 (DOB:September 9, 1924).
Obviously your point still stands.

I just saw that first few minutes and noticed that. It looked...really weird. I also immediately thought of my dad who had dementia. But then he talked and he seemed OK.

If the face is 'rehearsed', I'm not sure what he's going for, because it doesn't look good.

I just pulled up the press conference to see President Eyring's look. I laughed out loud. I love President Eyring, despite his inability to get through one talk with a dry eye. I don't think the look was rehearsed, but just the effect of aging and perhaps an unawareness of what he looks like.

The thing I noticed was how still he sat. He didn't move at all.

The lighting in there might have been bothering him. I'm guessing they had some pretty bright lights on them for the broadcast.

[beefytee]

One other thought on the choosing of Elder Oaks. I think that it is very plausible that Pres. Nelson wishes he would have gotten some experience in the First Presidency before becoming President and he is affording Pres. Oaks the opportunity that he never had.

[jay santos]

So was McKay right or wrong to demote Clark?

Jay, let's suppose for the sake of argument that your conspiracy theory is true. I.e., this was not a move to promote Oaks, but rather a move to demote DFU. Do we have any hard evidence (or even soft evidence!) that there is some kind of idealogical/theological rift in the Q12 regarding DFU? Yes, he gives beautiful, inspiring talks, but is there any evidence that he was a force driving or resisting policy change in certain areas?

1. It's not a matter of right or wrong in McKay demoting Clark. That's the wrong way to frame it. The issue at hand is whether or not these changes have any significance or not.
2. Please don't call it a conspiracy. It's not a conspiracy.
3. I think if I spent a lot of time researching this, I could make decent case. But for now, can we just use this logic. a. it's unreasonable to think they don't disagree on things, right? so there is some variation b. I think if you took vote across people who pay attention and asked who was the most hardliner-conservative Oaks would be in your top two or three of results. If you took vote on the most liberal-progressive-softy, Uchtdorf would likely be #1. Do you disagree? There must be a reason those perceptions are out there. Further, it's circular, but going into this there were many critics saying something like "I bet he drops Uchtdorf and puts in a hardliner like Oaks or Bednar." That's something, right?

Let me be clear. I am not trying to paint Uchtdorf as a Progressive and Oaks as a hardliner. I'm not suggesting there is anything but maybe slight disagreements on various stances. But I am strongly advancing the opinion that differences in viewpoints are likely the reasoning behind the change.

[Jeff Lebowski]

1. It's not a matter of right or wrong in McKay demoting Clark. That's the wrong way to frame it. The issue at hand is whether or not these changes have any significance or not.
2. Please don't call it a conspiracy. It's not a conspiracy.
3. I think if I spent a lot of time researching this, I could make decent case. But for now, can we just use this logic. a. it's unreasonable to think they don't disagree on things, right? so there is some variation b. I think if you took vote across people who pay attention and asked who was the most hardliner-conservative Oaks would be in your top two or three of results. If you took vote on the most liberal-progressive-softy, Uchtdorf would likely be #1. Do you disagree? There must be a reason those perceptions are out there. Further, it's circular, but going into this there were many critics saying something like "I bet he drops Uchtdorf and puts in a hardliner like Oaks or Bednar." That's something, right?

That sounds about right. Just a general perception and that's it.

Let me be clear. I am not trying to paint Uchtdorf as a Progressive and Oaks as a hardliner. I'm not suggesting there is anything but maybe slight disagreements on various stances. But I am strongly advancing the opinion that differences in viewpoints are likely the reasoning behind the change.

Seems like a correlation = causation argument to me.

[clackamascoug]

Oaks/Uchtdorf... Oaks/Uchtdorf... Why isn't any talking about Nelson? He's the senior behind the wheel driving 55 mph in the fast lane.

[jay santos]

That sounds about right. Just a general perception and that's it.



Seems like a correlation = causation argument to me.

So the point of disagreement is in whether Uchtdorf is materially different than Oaks in terms of being more Progressive, more liberal, less hardliners, etc? Or at least perceived that way by Nelson when making his decision? If you really believe that, OK. I don't have a lot of data to make the case. But I'm honestly shocked if someone that's paying attention to this like you feels this way.

[MartyFunkhouser]

So was McKay right or wrong to demote Clark?

Jay, let's suppose for the sake of argument that your conspiracy theory is true. I.e., this was not a move to promote Oaks, but rather a move to demote DFU. Do we have any hard evidence (or even soft evidence!) that there is some kind of idealogical/theological rift in the Q12 regarding DFU? Yes, he gives beautiful, inspiring talks, but is there any evidence that he was a force driving or resisting policy change in certain areas?

I agree there is no evidence of this whatsoever. I don't think this was a move to demote DFU in anyway. I don't think it was necessarily a move to even promote Oaks. I think it was likely Nelson choosing as his first counselor the person that he most aligns with, has the most experience working with, who he is most comfortable with, etc. That is why this should scare the hell out of anyone who actually wants the church to make progress, not because it silences DFU. I'd guess he is still prominent at GC and maybe even gets a few extra speaking assignments. He is good PR.

[Flystripper]

I agree there is no evidence of this whatsoever. I don't think this was a move to demote DFU in anyway. I don't think it was necessarily a move to even promote Oaks. I think it was likely Nelson choosing as his first counselor the person that he most aligns with, has the most experience working with, who he is most comfortable with, etc. That is why this should scare the hell out of anyone who actually wants the church to make progress, not because it silences DFU. I'd guess he is still prominent at GC and maybe even gets a few extra speaking assignments. He is good PR.

I think the church will move how it moves regardless of which one is in the first presidency. It really shouldn't be scary to anyone. The church moves slow and will continue to move slow whether it be the Silver Fox or That 70's Oaks (I think he looks like the dad) that sits on the shoulder or the President.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Interesting BCC essay by someone upset about the new first presidency.

https://bycommonconsent.com/2018/01/...rdest-calling/

Yet argues that one should can and should sustain without necessarily agreeing with a leader.

By treating each other as siblings-in-Christ—literally “brother” and “sister”—we feed the Body of Christ by turning us toward rather than away from each other, even when—especially when!—we are aggrieved.

Which brings me to sustaining votes, which seem to conflate consent and sustaining. Is it possible to not consent and still sustain? The answer must be “yes”. I may believe a person unworthy of a calling or ill-suited to a task, but withholding my love—making it conditional—is an abrogation of my duty as a sibling-in-Christ and a child of God. Moreover, while my concerns about any one individual may be well-founded and soundly reasoned, I’m not a heart surgeon; I can’t withhold my love with any sort of precision. In the Body of Christ, we are all connected, so when we don’t sustain one person, we necessarily deny those connected to that person some of the vitality of our sustaining love.

So I choose to sustain.

Sometimes—the best times—I sustain because of my abiding love for the individual I sustain. And sometimes—the lean times, the times when years of aching have brought me low—I sustain because of my abiding love for those caught up with me in the Body of Christ.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Interesting BCC essay by someone upset about the new first presidency.

https://bycommonconsent.com/2018/01/...rdest-calling/

Yet argues that one should can and should sustain without necessarily agreeing with a leader.

I don't necessarily agree with his rationale, but I whole heartedly agree with his statement.

The ability to disagree and maintain a sense of perspective on the big picture is ultimately what pulled me through to the other side.

[The_Tick]

I agree with the sentiment...but they are confused as to what a sustaining really is.

A sustaining isn't a vote of approval. Sustaining someone means that you will do what you need to do to help them succeed in the calling they have been given.

So whether you sustain or you don't....all it shows is how much you care about them being the best "(insert calling here)" that they can be.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Yeah, sustaining can mean a lot of different things I guess. Just thought it was an interesting perspective.

[The_Tick]

Yeah, sustaining can mean a lot of different things I guess. Just thought it was an interesting perspective.

I agree 100%. I've had Bishops before that I just didn't care for how they managed or operated the ward. But I still sustained them in the calling. Doesn't mean they didn't do great things...just not my style.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I don't necessarily agree with his rationale, but I whole heartedly agree with his statement.

The ability to disagree and maintain a sense of perspective on the big picture is ultimately what pulled me through to the other side.

I agree with the sentiment...but they are confused as to what a sustaining really is.

A sustaining isn't a vote of approval. Sustaining someone means that you will do what you need to do to help them succeed in the calling they have been given.

So whether you sustain or you don't....all it shows is how much you care about them being the best "(insert calling here)" that they can be.

OK, here is my takeaway from this. As we have discussed a few times, I think there is great value in associating with a group of fellow believers at church, even (or perhaps especially) if some of those folks are people you may not normally like or choose to associate with. Getting out of our comfort zone and learning to love people in spite of differences is good for us and can transform us. It seems to me that sustaining a leader with whom we may disagree on some issues and whose style we may not prefer, is basically the same thing. Learning to love and respect and support a church leader in such cases is what we should be doing as disciples of Christ. Yes of course I would have preferred to see DFU stay in the FP, but I don't expect my leaders to be perfect or a mirror of my likes and dislikes any more than I expect that from my fellow saints.