With President Monson’s passing, Russell M. Nelson will be called as the prophet of the LDS Church and will choose his two counselors. The prophet obviously has the most sway in policy and doctrinal decisions in the Church. But the First Presidency acts as a body, and the two counselors are considered to have considerable impact on decision making. Further, if the prophet becomes incapacitated, which sometimes goes for years at a time, then the counselors become very important.
Of course, there is speculation about who Pres. Nelson will choose as his counselors. My take on the buzz in the ProgMo world is that speculation is about 50-50, he will retain Pres. Eyring and Pres. Uchtdorf or that he will buck the system and choose someone new. Here are some of the comments I’ve seen online.
- I bet he picks Oaks for one of them.
- I think Nelson will put Ballard in the 1st Presidency
- I worry that Nelson will replace Uchtdorf with Bednar.
- I think he will bring his buddies Ballard and Bednar into the First presidency.
- Oaks will replace Uchtdorf
- I don’t hold out much hope that he’ll keep Uchtdorf and Eyring for counselors.
- If I had to guess I think Eyring will stay, but Uchtdorf will be out.
- It will be Uchtdorf and Bednar
The general idea here is that Uchtdorf is wildly popular in the ProgMo world and Eyring is seen as a moderate. Oaks and Bednar are viewed as hardliners. Some view Nelson as a possible hardliner. Especially with his statement in a Jan 2016 talk at BYU-Hawaii that the Nov 2015 LGBT exclusionary policy was a “revelation”. And then also his Feb 2003 Ensign article where he famously refuted the idea that God’s love is unconditional. It’s important to note, neither of these were done in general conference talks. And the unconditional love thing was challenged later in a conference talk by D. Todd Christofferson.
I personally have never viewed Nelson as a hardliner. The Divine Love Ensign article seemed like a weird outlier that he never seemed to build on. His talks have always seemed moderate and non-controversial. The Jan 2016 statement calling the Nov 2015 policy a doctrine…I have to admit I was extremely disappointed by that. I don’t know what to make of it. My optimist self will write it off as his attempt to show support for President Monson. He has never been the guy to address controversial topics on a regular basis. I’m still viewing him as a moderate. But I guess we will see. But I think we’ll have to wait a little longer. I highly doubt his counselor selection is going to be anything but a formality.
Ok, so let’s get into some data. This First Presidency reorganization will be the 11th time a new prophet has chosen counselors since the death of Joseph F. Smith in 1918.
The table here shows each prophet, and their counselors at the time of their passing.
Color Code:
Blue = that person became prophet
Green = retained in the new First Presidency
Red = you’re fired
We see 14 out of 16 times the new prophet retained a counselor he inherited from prior presidency. The two exceptions were Hugh B. Brown and Marion G. Romney. MGR was very old and not functional in his role as a counselor. That one was understood. HBB was a surprise. He was considered more on the liberal side of things, and with Joseph Fielding Smith as the new prophet considered to be on the conservative–hardliner side of things, it is believed that was an intentional snub. One time that has happened out of 16 possibilities.
One other noteworthy point is the asterisk for J. Reuben Clark. He was moved from 1st counselor to 2nd counselor by the new prophet David O. McKay. Some saw that as a scandalous move.
What I make of this is that I believe there is very low probability Russell M. Nelson does anything but keep Eyring and Uchtdorf in their same spots. If he does, there is a virtual certainty that will cause a roar of speculation. Especially if the move is a removal of the liberal Uchtdorf or the adding of the conservative Bednar.
Wheat & Tares 
Is anyone else skeptical about the involvement of the progressive/conservative concept in any serious way in the President’s selection of counselors? I just don’t see it – they are so well acquainted with each other and have so much more that’s important to them, like interpersonal issues and family issues, not to mention the experiences they have together that we don’t get to know about and the preeminence that each of them claims to place on the choice being revelatory rather than political. The way they talk about the decision is worlds apart from the way it’s framed here. Are they self-deluded?
When my youngest girls were told that President Monson had died, they first expressed sadness and then nearly in unison asked what would happen to President Uchtdorf. They were hoping he would be our next leader. They both are worried that the general women’s meeting will be even more boring without him. They said “He is one of the loving ones. Can we ask Elder Nelson to keep the same counselors?” If she must sacrifice President Uchtdorf, then my youngest wants a woman counselor in the 1st presidency. Ha!
Where did Elder Christofferson challenge the unconditional love article?
Gad – I think progressive / conservative tags on the GAs is less about politics and more about their overall view of the church and its future. So a hardliner/conservative like Oaks is going to see the goals of the church somewhat differently than a progressive like Uchtdorf. Those differences can come into play when choosing counselors. One leader might want counselors with the same ideology, but another might want a variety of ideologies.
That photo was meant to be ludicrous looking with a hatchet photoshop job, but at least with my bad eyes on a smartphone, it actually looked real, lol. So, sorry if anyone was clickbaited by the photo.
Gad, yes ReTx has it right, at least how I meant it. I am using liberal here to mean doctrinally or administratively liberal, ie less orthodox, less authoritarian, more progressive on social issues like possibly LGBT or female equality issues. And conservative to mean the opposite, more traditional in these areas. Think Packer vs Uchtdorf.
Sam, Elder Christofferson addressed it in this talk https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2016/10/abide-in-my-love?lang=eng
I meant “political” in exactly the sense you’re talking about: institutional and ideological, rather than governmental, politics. On the one hand, the chart in the post makes it awfully clear that there are patterns (and notable exceptions). On the other hand, we believe that God calls people. It’s a paradox.
I agree with Gadflown; I don’t see much that supports sorting the apostles into “conservative”, “progressive” or “moderate” bins, whatever that even means. It seems like political and social progressives like to do that. What evidence do you have that Uchdorf, for example, differs one little bit from Oaks on LGBT issues? His wonderful sermons don’t address it.
“As for me and my house” we’ve had a bellyfull of the hardliners. To a large degree, our spirits have been broken by them.
E. I would recommend that you read Dr. Greg Prince’s book Leonard Arrington/The First LDS Historian. It is one of the finest books I’ve ever read; and could not put it down. While the General Authorities certainly do put forward a unified front – in private session there is natural tension between Conservative, Progressive, Hardliner…etc. Just my take.
I just had a non-member friend ask me if Hatch was stepping down so he could be part of the first presidency.
My prediction (hope) is that Nelson will be put in so he gets his name on the list then in April conference retires for a younger more popular Uchtdorf. Perhaps even just call Uchtdorf.
Is it really credible when a 90 year old dies to call a 93 year old to replace him.
The new prophet is supposed to be capable of recieving revelation isn’t he?
The display near temple square that now says there are different versions of the first vision also say Joseph was exhausted by the experience. If recieving revelation exhausts a 14 year old, what would it do to a 93 year old? Would he survive the experience? If no why is he being put in that position. Let him retire in peace.
If we are to retain progressives (which includes 80% of millenials we need hope of change.
Geoff – I love your idea, but if E.Nelson were to pass on the presidency my guess is it would go to E.Bednar. Who is also very popular and younger. He just isn’t popular with the progmo crowd…
Seniority as of today after Nelson:
1-Oaks
2-Ballard
3-Holland
4-Eyring
5-Uchtdorf
6-Bednar
7-Cook
8-Christopherson
9-Anderson
10-Rasband
11-Stevenson
12-Renlund
Is Bedinar really as popular as Uchtdorf? Must be a different demographic.
It is a very different demographic, but the traditional members seem to love him (at least in my ward). Rick B’s list is probably a better way to guess what would happen in the unlikely event President Nelson passed. E.Holland is the next young-un at 77.
On sheer popularity, I’d guess it goes something like 1. Uchtdorf 2. Holland 3. Bednar. Bednar is extremely popular among the top 20% active-orthodox members. He’s a powerful speaker. I’m unorthodox and sometimes disagree with him, but he’s one of a handful that I most look forward to hearing speak.
I believe it unlikely that any change is made. If one were to be made, it is more likely that President Eyring be replaced based upon health or age concerns. I see a potential scenario where Holland is President, Uchtdorf 1st councilor and Bednar is Q12 president. This could be a long term leadership situation. A good mix from all angles.
I should clarify that this is for sometime in the future, not starting next week.
Oaks and Nelson are good friends and their wives are BFFs with each other and with Sherri Dew. I predict Eyring (1st counselor) and Oaks (2nd counselor). The President, especially a 93 ur old President needs at least one young person in the FP, so he may release Eyring too and put in Bednar or Christofferson.
If there is a change it may be Eyring being released bc I think his wife has Alzheimer’s and requires significant care.
I recall Nelson giving the “thee, thou, thy” talk more than once, which leads me to believe he’s not just traditional but Hyper Mormon traditional. Like – only listens to hymns – traditional. Which is concerning, but he’s also likely – keep the same FP counselors – traditional, so we’ll be fine.
When J. Reuben Clark went from first counselor to second when David O. McKay was sustained as prophet, President McKay said the following: “Sensing that Church members would question this change, President McKay . . . said that President Richards had been called as first counselor because he had served longer than President Clark in the apostleship. Emphasizing that this practice was not an “established policy,” President McKay simply said that “it seemed advisable” in the callings of Presidents Richards and Clark. As President McKay continued with his address, he spoke of the unity he felt with his counselors: “We do not want any member in this Church, nor any man or woman listening in to harbor the thought for a moment that there has been any rift between the two counselors who sustained President Smith in the Quorum of the First Presidency, and President Grant for the years that we were together with that inspired leader. Neither should you feel that there is any demotion. President Clark is a wonderful servant. . . . You should understand further, that in the counselorship of the Quorum of the First Presidency these two men are coordinate in authority, in love, and confidence, in freedom to make suggestions, and recommendations, and in their responsibility not only to the Quorum but also to the Lord Jesus Christ and to the people generally. They are two great men. I love them both, and say God bless them, and give you the assurance that there will be harmony and love and confidence in the Quorum of the First Presidency as you have sustained them today (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: David O. McKay retrieved 15 October 2011).” Then, “J. Reuben Clark, true to his nobility, when called upon by President McKay to speak before the newly sustained 1st Counselor, in true humility said, “In the service of the Lord, it is not where you serve but how. In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, one takes the place to which one is duly called, which place one neither seeks nor declines” (April 1951 Conference Report, 151). Then Elder Spencer W. Kimball recorded that by this declaration, Clark “did more in his perfect reactions perhaps to establish in the minds of this people the true spirit of subjection of the individual to the good of the work, more than could be done in thousands of sermons” (The Church Years, 124).” https://jreubenclark.co/church-service
I agree with Kristine that if there is a change it would be because Elder Eyring needs to have more time at home. In that case, I would like to see Elder Holland start his training in the First Presidency. (These are just personal thoughts and feelings.)
Speculation is fun and interesting but I highly doubt there will be new counselors. President Nelson will keep both counselors as long as they are healthy and able to meet the demands of the calling. President Eyring’s wife is not well so that could play into it but I doubt it. Often men pass away while serving as counselors in the 1st Presidency. I can see Elder Oaks taking over in a few years as age catches up to President Nelson. 94 this year in September.
Well we will know in 15 minutes or so. I love them all and any one of them with the mantle will be equal for the calling.
I know I am late to the party here but Elder Christofferson did not challenge the doctrine but clearly explained why we are counseled not to speak of “unconditional love.” He taught: “unconditional can convey mistaken impressions about divine love, such as, God tolerates and excuses anything we do because His love is unconditional, or God makes no demands upon us because His love is unconditional, or all are saved in the heavenly kingdom of God because His love is unconditional. God’s love is infinite and it will endure forever, but what it means for each of us depends on how we respond to His love” This was the exact same point RMN made. Elder Christofferson would not appreciate being accused of “challenging” President Nelson.