Video link at LDS.org titled “A Message from President Nelson.” The official announcement of President Nelson taking office is posted at the Newsroom, which notes, “He was sustained and set apart in the Salt Lake Temple on Sunday, January 14, 2018.” In this live blog post, the most recent entries are at the top. Quotations in quotes, summaries in plain text, my commentary (if any) in italics.
Eric Hawkins closes the news conference and invites Pres. Nelson’s large family to enter the room.
Q7 – Dan, KUTV reporter – What do you say to those who are leaving the Church because they feel the Church is not transparent about its history and because they have problems with early LDS leaders? Response by Nelson: I know your brother Art in Houston. Members should know the difference between what is doctrine and what is human. All humans are imperfect, so give your leaders some leeway to make mistakes. Don’t be offended by what may have been said or transpired in the past. Commandments aren’t restrictive, they are empowering and they liberate you from the bondage of sin and error. Stay on the covenant path. Response by Oaks: Looking back on LDS history, statements of one single leader do not represent the Church. We don’t believe in infallibility. Praises councils, acting under the leadership of the President. Some policies are doctrine, some policies are practices, but they all come out of councils. As to transparency, we have published many volumes of the Joseph Smith Papers, showing our dedication to transparency.
Q6 – Sam, KSL reporter – What message do you have for the next generation and those growing up now in the Church? Response by Nelson: Sam is a great friend. “How can the youth follow an old man?” “Age is a good thing. I hope you all live to be old people.” Response by Oaks: Elder Nelson says he has 116 grandchildren. Praises the youth and strength of Pres. Nelson, who often passes up the elevator to use the stairs at a brisk pace. Don’t underestimate the vitality and capacity of Pres. Nelson. He still skis. Response by Erying: Praises the optimism of Pres. Nelson as an example to the youth.
Q5 – from Brazil, what is the future of the Church in Brazil? Response by Nelson: Brazil is a seedbed of future leadership for the Church. More than one hundred stakes in Brazil and in Mexico. “In the year I was born, there were no members of the Church in South America.”
Q4 – Tad Walch, Deseret News – More than 1 in 3 Millennials don’t belong to a church. What can you do for the Millennials? Response by Nelson: They should appreciate the experiences of life as a gift of God. Response by Eyring: The press describes Millennials as doubters, but I meet our LDS missionaries and they are powerful, more so than in prior years. Rock solid faith. “It’s the best of times” with these Millennials. Response by Oaks: Praises marriage and notes young men and young women are stronger when they marry. He suggests marriage cures Millennial problems.
Q3 – Peggy Fletcher Stack, Salt Lake Tribune – LDS leadership is still white, male, and American. What will you do to bring women into decisionmaking in the Church? Response by Nelson: Notes that he knows Peggy’s parents and family. For diversity, look at the Seventies and the local leadership around the Church. “The Twelve and the Seventy are not a representative assembly.” “Someday there will be other flavors in the mix.” Response by Oaks: Don’t label yourself with ethnic labels, etc. We are all children of God. Shouted question: What about the women? Response by Nelson: “I love ’em.” My wife taught the kids and my daughters are now all grandmothers. “We have women in our councils” and serving in the temples. We need their voices and input. Response by Eyring: We need their influence. My four sons have all been bishops because of the positive influence of their mother. I do understand how lack of office and recognition does trouble some people but women have a lot of influence in the Church.
Q2 – in Spanish, what are the Church’s challenges for troubled places like Mexico? Response by Nelson: Our hearts go out to those in places with natural disasters. Prepare the people with faith in God and knowledge of God’s plan. Response by Oaks: We have many LDS leaders who have served in Mexico and speak Spanish. Many natural disasters in the Philipines, where there are 700,000 Mormons. Pres. Eyring: My father was born in Mexico. Latter-day Saints love their neighbors (reference to Helping Hands).
Q1 – How will you address LGBT issues? Response by Nelson: We know there are challenges with the commandments of God. “There is a place for everyone … to be with us in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” Response by Oaks: Commandments from God, a plan; as leaders we have a responsibility to teach love but also the commandments.
Pres. Eyring – Says nice things.
Pres. Oaks – Speaking distinctly, praises Pres. Nelson and Pres. Eyring.
Pres. Nelson – “I feel confident about the fundamental goodness of humankind.” Endorses humanitarian efforts by the Church and its members. The LDS gospel has answers to the challenges facing the world today. Temple covenants strengthen your family and protect you from the adversary. “Go forward with faith in Jesus Christ.”
Part Two: “First Presidency News Conference.” Eric Hawkins, LDS Director of Media Relations, welcomes all. A fairly small group in the room. Cuts to a view of Pres. Nelson’s large family, gathered in a separate room. After the FP speaks,
pre-selected media reps will ask questions. I’m guessing the questions as well as the journalists asking them were pre-selected. No gotcha questions in this well-planned media presentation.
Singing until 10 am.
Elder Christofferson closes this oh-so-brief presentation, reminding listeners to return at 10 am MST for a news conference with the new First Presidency. Wow, that was quick.
President Eyring, 2d Counselor – “The Lord has prepared and chosen President Nelson” to lead the growth of the Church and the spiritual growth of members of the Church. “This is the Lord’s true church.” Bears testimony to the keys that Pres. Nelson holds, passed down from Joseph Smith. “The best is still to come.”
President Oaks, 1st Counselor – Praises Pres. Nelson and Pres. Eyring. “I pledge my loyalty and support” to Pres. Nelson. Very brief testimony.
President Nelson – “Stay on the covenant path.” If you have strayed, “please come back.” “There is a place for you in this, the Lord’s church.” Bears testimony.
Elder Christofferson gives a brief welcome. President Nelson has chosen Elder Oaks as 1st Counselor and Elder Eyring as 2d Counselor. Elder Uchtdorf resumes his place in the Quorum of the Twelve. Elder Ballard becomes the Acting President of the Twelve (technically, Elder Oaks is the President of the Twelve).
Wheat & Tares 
As a gay member, I am struggling deeply with this . . . It will be/is already very difficult to feel wanted. It don’t know if I will be able to make it (stay active) throughout this year. Really having a difficult time this morning . . .
Brian: I support and embrace you. I’m sorry.
Even though it’s a largely bureaucratic gesture, I’m disappointed that President Uchtdorf has been replaced in the FP. I suspect we’ll be hearing less from him if only because each member of the FP almost always seems to speak during General Priesthood/RS meeting.
Very cagey of them. Now they have all of the more theologically liberal of the twelve boxed in. Ballard stays out of 1st presidency so he can knock down any dissent in the Quorum and Oaks controls everything from his seat next to Nelson. Did you see how Oaks was sitting so close to Nelson? Uchtdorf and Holland are surrounded and without power now, and (my prediction) the two vacancies are going to go to very conservative lackeys of Ballard and Oaks. Sad Day!
This is only the second time in the history of the church that a healthy functioning counselor has not be retained. The other one was Hugh B Brown who was released when Joseph Fielding Smithe became president. Both case involve popular , flexible and more “liberal” leaders being replace by conservative aging rigid presidents. It really is extraordinary even if not unexpected.
I am disappointed that Elder Uchtdorf is no longer in the First Presidency.
Gutted.
Hard not to see this as a shot across the bow of progressive mormons. In a broader sense, though, it’s a bit of a stiff-arm to the church at large, as Uchtdorf was undeniably one of, if not the most popular apostle in the entire quorum. And I agree with Laura about the new apostles. I hear a lot of talk about how the church will change when the old guard dies off, but if the two replacements are hardliners, which there’s every reason to believe they will be, it’s going to be a very long time before any kind of progressive critical mass in the 12 has the opportunity to form.
It’s interesting that Uchtdorf gets labeled “progressive”. Is that in word and deed? Did he have any say while in the FP these many years? Is he accountable for any of the policies that progressive Mormons hate?
I have always loved when Scout says, “He don’t say a picture of what!” to Atticus’ complementing Miss DuBose, “You look like a picture this afternoon.” (To Kill a Mockingbird — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmzg4KoPsUg ).
“The best is yet to come.” – but he don’t say when.
Wait, did Eyring answer a question about the importance of women by pointing out that all four of his sons have held the male-only position of bishop?
The cluelessness, it burns.
“Arrange their rocking chairs as you wish. It might be past time for decisive and creative leadership to save us……. They might sincerely believe that this is the way God wants his only especially true church to go. We are marching on the illusionary path to the top of the mountain while we are simultaneously rolling down the mountain with increasing velocity into a deeper chasm.”
(Hey, is it kosher to quote yourself?)
Retrenchment, one of the most common responses to external threats. And least effective.The die is caste. The sun is setting for big tent Mormonism. Get with the straight-jacket program or get out. Good-bye to all the Brian’s in the church, not just the gay ones either. Maybe U-dorf was never that progressive or effective and missed the opportunity. Maybe he did his best but that wasn’t good enough.
Regular church attenders stock up on the no-doz (or digital devices if young enough to know how to use one). The drum beat is already monotonous and won’t change.
Maybe I’ve missed something, but it seems to me that a “progressive” apostle is one who doesn’t say anything about gay marriage or women’s roles, and if that is the definition, doesn’t that apply to the whole former first presidency? Or is it also in the speaking style? For example, I think Elder Christofferson would probably be considered a conservative if he didn’t have a gay brother who vouches for him. I just don’t think there’s any evidence that there’d be a substantive difference in policy on gay marriage if the 1st presidency were Uchtdorf, Holland, and Christofferson (or Renlund, or whoever else is considered progressive). I think it’d just be a difference in style. Admittedly, style can matter, but still…
The one, synthesized message I take away from the actions and words of today:
vox populi non vox dei est
His ways are not our ways, apparently. This is going to be interesting.
Actually, the die is “cast,” unless you want to throw socio-racial shade on games of chance, which I suppose I’m open to.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
On the positive side, the reporters did ask about the relevant problems facing the Church: LGBT issues within the Church, lack of women in senior LDS leadership, Millennial doubt and disaffection, lack of transparency by the Church as to its history and early leadership. We haven’t had a real press conference since Pres. Hinckley, so this is a rather bold step for the new First Presidency. Even if they knew what the questions were going to be (I’m guessing they did), it is a challenge to publicly respond in real time to tough questions with media ready to report publicly on those responses.
On the negative side, it doesn’t seem like the responses really engaged with the questions or the issues. I wonder whether there will be some damage control from LDS Public Affairs in coming days, or perhaps a video response from Elder Christofferson posted online.
Totally agree, Martin, but it is largely a symbolic gesture. One that makes me sad.
You’re right though, Monson could have been seen as Progressive as Uchdorf according to his sermons.
The similarity to the JFSmith presidency in 1970 is strong. Then President Brown was well known as less conservative vs. President Lee who was very conservative. There is one big difference from that time. Hugh Brown went back to the middle of the Q12 with zero chance of becoming church president and a low likelihood of being back in the 1st presidency. Elder Uchtdorf has like a 40% chance of being church president and his odds are above 50/50 of being back in the 1st presidency. I could see any of the more senior apostles putting him back in, because he has the experience.
Also, I look for Elder Uchtdorf to get some extended travel assignments which were not easily done in the past few years.
Please provide a definition of “progressive Mormon”.
“Response by Oaks: Praises marriage and notes young men and young women are stronger when they marry. He suggests marriage cures Millennial problems.”
This more than anything else confirms for me that these old men do not understand the challenges faced by my generation. Lack of marriage is the effect, not the cause, of our challenges, and early marriage is in many ways a terrible idea in the new circumstances we find ourselves in. If they aren’t even able to understand that the world has changed so drastically and can only parrot the same advice that may have applied 50 years ago, how can they possibly have any credibility speaking to 20 year olds?
I’m largely agree with J. I stopped reading when he said marriage was the cure for millennials. I’m on the older side of millennials,
(and I tend to accept the theory that subdivides the group between older ones that grew up without cell phones and social media: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/millennial-divide-generation-split-old-young-financial-crash-internet-smartphones-a7704021.html), but I’m not broken and don’t need to be “cured” with marriage. I would certainly like a romantic partner, and at least my urges are heterosexual so I’m a better spot than many. But that answer shows no awareness of the challenges that millennials face, and doesn’t reassure me that they will offer answers to the challenges I face. So a fairly disappointing morning. I slept in and totally missed the conference, which pretty is pretty symbolic. Sadly, I just don’t get much out of their words any more because its the same platitudes that haven’t helped for years.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
A summary article has now been posted at the Salt Lake Tribune which covers a lot of the questions and answers I summarized above. Worth reading:
My big take away from the press conference was that everyone in Utah knows each other.
Well, it came off to be as a doubling down on conservationism. It’s going to be painful if the new focus on the youth is to get the married before they can leave the church. My 17 y/o is already sick to death of the pressure. Geez…
I’m with ReTx and J. This is simultaneously retrenchment and backsliding. Mormonism was never really a very big tent to begin with, but I definitely see it shrinking even more now. The cluelessness in some of the answers (some folks have already mentioned the marriage/millenials thing) makes me realize that we’re not going to see any real solutions to the very real problems confronting the church. It’s much more likely our leadership is going to double down on the tried and true “solutions” that don’t solve anything but instead exacerbate the problem. A sad day, but not an unexpected one.
One of today’s learnings: Don’t publicly admit that you drink Diet Coke.
This pilot has been grounded.
Brian, first comment or above, don’t go. Please. Many of us welcome gay members! We love your gifts and talents—yea, we need them!! We love your special ways of viewing life! We love you. And we love you openly, without reservation. Please don’t go and leave us with our same old selves…..
The level of duplicity in Nelson’s and Oaks’s responses to the question about the policy on the children of homosexuals was absolutely staggering. They were asked about how hurt members were by that policy. A policy, mind you, that Nelson has already declared to be revelation from god. And in response to the question, they had the temerity to call on the public to be patient with infallible men who are just trying their best and may make mistakes. This in response to a question about a policy they have already declared NOT to be a mistake. That is, frankly, unbelievable. I don’t see how anyone could find that level of dissembling and misdirection to be defensible. If you want to implement a policy that hurts people because you believe it’s god’s will, then at least have the courage to own it when pressed on it. This was shameful.
brjones, my thought when they said that was to wonder why they haven’t fixed some of these things if they know they are mistakes…?
I can’t say it helped me with any of my concerns and I feel I have more at this point, but taking a “wait and see” attitude and waiting to see who the replacements are. I think that will be very telling.
*fallible
Happy Hubby–I hate to be cynical, but if the new apostles are inspired/inspiring choices, I’ll eat my hat.
A hat made of delicious beef jerky, but I’ll eat it nonetheless.
brjones, I read those responses a little differently — perhaps because I haven’t been able to find any of the brethren other than RMN claiming the Nov 2015 policy was “NOT a mistake.” (Maybe your plural pronoun is misplaced. Maybe I just haven’t found what I was looking for and hoping not to find.) The FP’s “clarification” letter did not merely clarify but made a fundamental change in a part of the policy. That amounts to an initial admission of fallibility in the Nov 5 policy itself. Perhaps they could have fixed the thing further in 2016 if only RMN hadn’t tried to characterize it as a revelation. That gave them the additional problem that trying to fix it would significantly upset the many church members who seem to subscribe to infallibility. The members of the Q15 are after all not merely “prophets, seers and revelators”, but also caretakers of a large organization that includes members with a great variety of views with a majority of them seeming to be fixed on infallibility. We had plenty of warning in RMN’s 2003 Ensign article on non-existent “unconditional love” that he can sometimes overstate, misstate, misconstrue scripture, and come to conclusions that point in two different directions at once, just like the rest of us. Maybe that’s what the January 2016 speech was as it addressed the policy. Maybe he assumed some level of agreement among the Q15 that isn’t really there.
I read the comments of today as being (a) as close as DHO can get to an “apology” after his earlier statements on apologies, and (b) possibly emphasizing fallibility in order to pave the way for a future change to the policy. Maybe mine is a misreading. While I expect any further change in the policy would be too far in the future to please many of us, it is comments like those of today from 2 members of the FP that can begin to teach many more that they have misconstrued the meaning and/or application of the common mantra that the prophet(s) cannot lead the Church astray.
I would like to be more hopeful than I am. Maybe tomorrow.
BrJones – you have perhaps stated better my concern with the answers given at the press conference.
“Members should know the difference between what is doctrine and what is human. All humans are imperfect, so give your leaders some leeway to make mistakes. Don’t be offended by what may have been said or transpired in the past. “
When I hear this answer, it is so evident that leaders are speaking out of both sides of their mouth. When they are delivering a conference talk or a new policy, they are automatically speaking as prophets and everyone needs to get in line and obey. There is no way to believe that current leaders are speaking at a GC as weak and fallible “humans”. To speak out with a differing opinion is equivalent to “not sustaining” or “evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed”. However, if you want to point out PAST (aka dead) Presidents who taught as DOCTRiNE something over the pulpit at a General Conference that the church no longer emphasizes or agrees with, then the leader was just being human and imperfect. You can’t do the same with a current leader.
The scriptures are pretty clear when the Lord is speaking through his prophet or servant. The servant announces that the Lord has a message. The words are credited to the Lord. Unlike with current leaders, we are supposed to pretend that whatever they choose to personally emphasize as leaders is absolute revelation. The notion that we believe in the infallibility of current prophets is completely obliterated by the doctrine that we must “Follow the Prophet. He won’t lead you astray.”
Oh wait, give it 50 years and you will find out that they did lead you astray. It’s like shifting sand.
I wonder if the reason for removing Uchtdorf from the First Presidency is that Nelson was envious of the former’s luxuriant head of hair.
Is this the most follicularly challenged FP we’ve ever had?
My view of the temple and its actual necessity in God’s eyes has changed a lot. I need other reasons to stay in the church.
If we’re heading into a time of constant temple drumbeat, I may go crazy or “starve” for something/anything else.
On the other hand, if this means the female temple experience will be changed, I’ll be heartened.
JR, you make some good points. I will say, though, that it’s hard to take anything approximating an apology or genuine request for patience with fallible men at face value when it seems like the only time that old trope is rolled out is when there’s widespread public dissatisfaction with something the brethren have done. Additionally, I don’t think there’s any reason to assume today’s questioner was referring to the initial part of the policy that was subsequently tweaked. Could any reasonable person think that people were simply upset by the initial policy, but not the existing policy? The brethren know how upset many members are about the policy as it stands, so I’m not sure how reading the tweak to the policy as an apology of sorts helps anything, since the finished policy was and is offensive to so many members. Yet instead of answering a simple question about members’ feelings about a significant policy change, Nelson and Oaks both retreated into vague generalities and platitudes (and wildly self-serving ones at that) without remotely answering the question. It’s noteworthy, I think, that neither of them said a single solitary word about the policy in question, and Oaks actually managed to lapse into a self-congratulatory non-sequitur about how great he and his colleagues have become at responding to complaints from the church. Jan hit the nail on the head on this issue. 99.99% of the time, the authority and constructive infallibility of these men is asserted in no uncertain terms. Yet the .01% of the time they feel some heat from the membership or the public at large, they insist that they are mere mortals struggling to find their way (while simultaneously intimating the membership is unreasonable and uncharitable for refusing to be more patient with them in their difficult task). It reminds me of the old Phil Hartman Caveman Lawyer bit from SNL. If they want to be accorded such latitude, perhaps they should be more charitable and humble in the way they approach their prophetic mantle in real time.
I am not really sure that the reshuffling of the top leadership really does anything significant. The influence of the leadership, both on the membership and non-members, is pretty minimal. I see a greater influence on the church comes from external (outside the top leadership) sources – such as the ordain women movement, historical and doctrinal issues raised by over the internet and other sources, the general irreligious movements in western society, etc….
I cant really remember anything significant happening to the church as a result of changes to the first presidency. Some individuals may be effected, such as the introduction of the Nov 5 policy and other ridiculous policies, but generally the church just plods along irrespective of who is in the top seat.
The political machinations of the top leadership of the church still continue regardless of who is in what quorum. What will be of interest is who fills the vacancies in the 12. This will have more long term impact than the reshuffle.
Just my thoughts….
In my view, “The Church” took a VERY HARD turn “to the right” today; to the old ways, to the days gone by and to the ultra conservative. I perceive that the organization has been bleeding membership for the past few years now….the actions today may very well signal something more like hemorrhaging; in the days and weeks ahead. I, for one, have had all that I can stomach from lawyers masquerading as spiritual leaders. This just turns my stomach.
I read it much as you do left. In HP last sunday we had lesson (not discussion) on the proclamation, the teacher testified that it is scripture, and no discussion was allowed. More of this to come I suspect. Oaks particularly has so much invested in opposing gays, and Nelson claims about the pox being revelation. Not much hope that real revelation will be asked for.
Even though my wife and children and I have stopped attending church during the past year, I feel a deep sadness today with the announcement of the new first presidency. I’m surprised how much I’m feeling affected by the release of Elder Uchtdorf and a sense of hopelessness for the church. Let me try to share what is going through my mind today…
My brother-in-law was beloved as a gospel doctrine teacher in his ward (at least by most). You know the kind: the teacher that would really research the material and the history surrounding the given scripture and put the whole thing into the context of when and perhaps why the scripture was written. Members loved him. Except one or two. And that one or two complained enough to the bishop of a “teacher using quotes and material not listed in the official lesson manual.” I’m sure the Bishop was a fine person, but the Institution of the church and its training of its leaders takes over in these situations, and you know the rest of the story…my brother-in-law was released soon enough without explanation and has never had a teaching calling since then. What a loss to the ward….
I watched my mother as I grew up serve the downtrodden, make visits to the elderly (which she dragged me along to as a kid, and I hated it.) For a few years she welcomed a Muslim family from Iran to live in our finished basement apartment until they got up and running here in the United States. But my mother had a way of not making the correct comments in Sunday School about polygamy and the role of women in our LDS doctrine, and despite years of faithful activity in the church, the Institution of the church made sure she never was called to leadership positions. What a loss…
Don’t read too much into the following about how I feel about myself. I learned years ago I’m not special. But I tried really hard in a stake presidency to make a difference and create a big tent Mormonism for our stake. A place where young women felt equal to young men (I have daughters), a place where gay members felt safe (I overcame my homophobia during the years I worked in Los Angeles and my boss was gay and was one of the kindest people in the world), a stake where women leaders felt empowered to actually lead (I’ve shared on this blog before the things my confident and intelligent wife has struggled with in a church that doesn’t allow her to thrive other than as a mom), and you know the rest of the story. Great feedback from most members of my stake during those years, but the Institution of the church weeded me out. When a new stake presidency was formed I was released as a counselor and a very conservative counselor took my place and piece by piece that new stake presidency undid my feeble efforts as those leaders have been well trained to do. All wonderful guys and my friends.
And you all know the kind of leader that President Uchtdorf has been. For me, he was my hero. The leader who represented to me what I think Christ would say if he truly had aspostles on the earth today. My friend at work who also left the church last year with his family asked me last week if Elder Uchtdorf would be replaced. I told him that would be impossible – no way! It’s only been done when Hugh B Brown was released from the first presidency because he supported the end of the priesthood ban for black members (or when a presidency member was too sick to continue on very well). And you know the rest of the story…the Institution of the church takes over and weeds out those who threaten its control and do not toe the unwritten line (and say what shouldn’t ever be said such as “past leaders have been wrong”).
A feel a deep sadness today. I just don’t recognize this church anymore as beIng led by revelation and releasing President Uchtdorf without a plausible explanation (what was offered was very weak) was another nail in the coffin for me.
I’m excited for the church. Yes, there are many problems, but the church is doing very well and moving forward. As a TBM I see things different than those who label themselves as PM. I’m not sure what a progressive Mormon hopes for. It appears they want to scuttle the scriptures and move with every wind of change that society favors.
Questions: Do PM believe the church leaders are led by Jesus Christ?. How are PM different than a TBM?
I have to say, not surprised by this particular reshuffle. I expected President Nelson to retain one counselor from Monson’s presidency and felt Oaks was a likely replacement.
Some surveys show current LDS youth are more rigid in some of their beliefs than older generations.
While some have expressed hope and optimism in more broad views among leadership—I’ve been more pessimistic.
Frankly, the idea that the status quo will result in more members dropping out of church activity merely supports last day predictions and provides comfort to those who don’t doubt or ever question.
I didn’t watch, but based on the summaries, I learned two things today:
1. Oaks (and presumably Nelson) admit that church leaders are fallible.
2. Especially Uchtdorf.
I saw several people in social media predict this move, but I certainly didn’t expect it.
I see Uchtdorf as representing a church that accepts and forgives people with greater compassion and grace. I wouldn’t at all call him a progressive mormon, but he does make many people feel more welcome.
I’m still processing how I feel about the change, but I certainly don’t feel good about it. I look at this more and more as an outsider, so after the initial shock I had to analyze why I care so much.
I realized that even though I now distance myself from a little from church, this change will heavily influence my family. My children, brothers, sisters, nieces and nephews will all listen and hear more from Oaks about his pet topics of unchanging marriage doctrine, and less of Uchtdorf’s focus on grace, love, faith, and hope. Uchtdorf’s focus has been different and unique from other leaders, and now he has lost some of his influence and opportunity. His message is unpresidented; it no longer carries the weight of the first presidency. It makes me sad.
Frankly, I preferred Uchtdorf’s talks over Oaks’ or Nelson’s. I felt like Uchtdorf’s focused less on shame and guilt and more on positive messages. And I actually worry about harmful messages some people internalize – messages that I used to infer – from Oaks and Nelson.
I just watched. I thought President Nelson seemed loving and sweet. My impression is that he truly loves everyone he locks eyes with. I can’t help loving him. I also appreciated President Oaks. I think he’s a Vulcan, like me. We have our strengths and our weaknesses. Doing his best but I disagree with many things he has said re LGBT people. He seems not to “get” a lot of things relating to LGBT issues. But I do feel that the Lord is in charge. For some reason he wants a Vulcan who is seemingly kind of clueless re LGBT issues in the First Presidency. I love and sustain President Oaks.
Brian, you are wanted. I hope you are able to stay. I believe only Jesus Christ can give the strength needed in some situations to stay. I am praying for you and every other gay Mormon.
Pres. Uchtdorf will always shine wherever he is. I’m thankful we have a treasure trove full of his wonderful talks.
Does anyone else think oaks was appointed because he is now the most senior apostle. Despite Nelson’s skiing ability, he is still 93, and If he was to pass away, Oaks would take his place as president. I believe this reorganization was primarily to give him some time in the first presidency to prepare for when his time comes. Sorry if someone else mentioned this, I read most, not all of the comments.
Rockwell, I see plenty of precedent for Uchtdorf’s message of grace, love, faith, and hope. Wasn’t that the heart of what Jesus taught? And then Paul focused on that, and plenty of others.
And that’s what concerns me… I imagine we’ll get more of the Church of The Family of LDS, instead of more clarity about Jesus’ love or His example. We’ll fail to build on that precedent of preaching compassion and acceptance.
I like that Uchtdorf’s and Monson’s main messages were general enough to be flexible—when in doubt, err on the side of showing mercy or being a selfless neighbor, and then the other questions won’t be as problematic. It’s hard for me to imagine Nelson and Oaks taking a similarly generalizable approach when recent history sees them so focused on specific causes.
Uchtdorf and Holland focus on grace and mercy- saints are thirsty for these messages as most of our time is spent in deep works and discipleship. Oaks is an academic and strict disciple who contextualizes everything as a balance of (as he said today) the law and love. It’s difficult for the weather weary to digest philosophy and I think that’s why we’re hearing so many groans on this thread as Uchtdorf is replaced by Oaks. The internet – blogs and talk downloads- give us a clear data – the saints are starving for messages of love, forgiveness and grace, not dogma and paradoxes, not religious liberty. Small wonder, recent policies are harsh, times are getting worse. It isn’t hard to see why apostles who talk about their own struggles with depression or offer lifesavers of forgiveness are so popular.
Well, buckle up buttercups, according to an lds actuary over at Zelophehad’s Daughters, after Nelson will be Oaks, then Holland, then a long (decades long) tenure with Bednar. Bednar is the discipleship guy- the protege of Stephen R Covey and successful habits. He’s a master of self discipline and obedience. I’m anticipating that time as being with an athletic trainer of obedience. (I’ll probably get a lot of thumbs down for that comment, he is popular.)
Interestingly, Oaks, Nelson have an connection-they were both introduced to their second wives by Sherri Dew. I understand that Wendy Watson Nelson, Kristin Oaks and Sherri Dew are long-time friends who dine either together or have Sherri over several times a week. I need to re-check, but I think Sherri and Wendy and have even shared an investment and vacation property together in Heber. Sherri Dew has led an online forum where Wendy and Kristin have spoken about celestial marriage in context of their marriages in spiritual polygamy. These are bright women- singles who married late in life after careers as academicians and business people. I suspect that a great deal of influence is yielded at those dinners by these women with the apostles, especially Wendy Watson Nelson, the sex therapist who has strong opinions about LGBT not fitting into her framework of spiritual intimacy and “co-creative love”. President Nelson has been head-over-heels in love with her since their brief courtship and marriage shortly after his wife and the mother of their 10 children passed. The first talk he gave in conference after their marriage is a love-letter to her and an expounding of and testimony of spiritual polygamy.
Mortimer, With some background in academic study of philosophy and as a lawyer, I have sometimes thought DHO was more lawyer and appellate judge than academic. His talks have sometimes seemed to me like appellate briefs or appellate court opinions arguing the best he could for a position or a court decision, rather than like attempts to analyze or “balance” in the ways some academic philosophers have tried to do. It would be interesting to see a review of his talks and his court opinions, etc., to see if there is any significant reality to that impression. But I haven’t the energy, or sufficient interest relative to other time demands, to do any such review and analysis. Perhaps I’m merely one of the “weather weary … starving for messages of love, forgiveness and grace, not dogma and paradoxes, not religious liberty.” In any event, I prefer seeing obedience to Christ growing out of love for and faith in Him and conviction as to His desire for us to love one another, than out of “commandments” or out of browbeating on institutional rules of behavior or out of “faith” in the Church or its GAs. Of course, even responding to DHO and some other leaders as if they were browbeating could be as much or more a function of the weather-weary listener’s perception of tone as it is of the speaker’s intention or what is actually said.
Question: I’ve seen several reports in addition to Mortimer’s that Elder Bednar is “popular.” Is he is popular with many of the same members with whom Elder Uchtdorf is popular? As I’m not one of Elder Bednar’s fan club, maybe I’m just not one who can readily see the overlap between their groups of groupies.
JR,
Quite right- DHO approaches topics legally rather than academically- a fine, but accurate distinction.
I too think obedience stems from a love of God, but I cannot completely discount the route that many take using obedience and self-discipline to find that love. Not only is discipline (root word of discipleship) a proven path to enlightenment in many faith traditions- including Mormonism, but necessary at times when we are called to walk by faith. There’s a recent post on the bloggernacle of Mother Terrsa’s decades long dark night of the soul wherein she clung to obedience and hope alone, feeling bereft of God’s Love and association.
In the stage of life I find myself, I bristle at obedience-based leadership and mandates. Nonetheless, I have to force myself to pause and remember that I was born in the covenant and grew up with the benefit of that very structure which I cannot now discount as contributing to my current grace-based phase. I see parents intellectually scoff at obedience-based church positions, leaders, or lessons, and I can’t help but think that these are oftentimes necessary developmental stages for most to traverse, especially in the first third to half of life.
Regarding your question, I don’t know. Bednar’s talks are frequently accessed online, and ZD was able to pull hits, but I assume only the church could crunch which Ip addresses accessed which combinations of articles.
An interesting shift I’ve noticed and I picked up on yesterday is framing everything in terms of covenants. This has been going on for a while, but I anticipate it being the main focus of Pres. Nelson and the Church for the years to come. Everything will be framed in terms of being on or off the covenant path. I think this also lends itself to a heavy emphasis on obedience and conditional love, God will only bless/love you if you are keeping your end of the bargain or trying to cure your material breach of the contract. From my study of Church history, this is a big doctrinal shift from what has been taught in the past.
Jared–I can’t speak for all progressive Mormons, but for me, I believe that the prophets and apostles are good men who are sincerely trying to do God’s will and sometimes receive inspiration and are sometimes driven by personal ambition or opinion (this would be the reason why they have gotten some doctrines and policies wrong, Adam-God Doctrine and Priesthood ban). In 1926, Heber J. Grant received a letter from Ms. Claude Perry where she asked if the apostles still had visitations from Christ. His response was “I know of no instance where the Lord has appeared to an individual since he appeared to the Prophet Joseph Smith.” He was the Church President at the time. If you notice, when there are powerful testimonies, they don’t ever actually come out and say they have seen Christ, the statements could be taken either way. In 1907 Apostle Francis Lyman told Apostle Anthony Ivins “The twelve are special witnesses of Jesus Christ and should be able to testify that he lives as if he had been seen by them.” My response to your question is that I believe that Christ is at the head of the Church in the way that we should all be striving to live his teachings and emulate his example. I believe all indications are that the prophets and apostles do not have personal visitations or interactions with Christ the way many members believe they do.
Mortimer, I’ve no objection to obedience and self-discipline or walking by faith. By themselves, however, they all beg the questions – obedience to what or whom, discipline in what activities to accomplish what goal, and “faith” in what or whom. It may well be that some find love through obedience to duty and to “commandments”; there are certainly reports of that experience. There are others, however, who only find God’s love upon rejecting others’ perception of duties and commandments and/or upon abandoning depressing and paralyzing attempts at complete or perfect obedience to others’ expectations. For those, I’m not convinced that “obedience-based leadership and mandates” were helpful, either at home or at church.
Perhaps those very differences in temperaments and experience are reasons why the Church as a whole needs both Uchtdorf and Oaks (naming them here as symbols of teaching styles and content and not only as individuals). I suspect no one can be exactly the right leader/teacher for everyone.
felixfabulous-
Thanks for answering my question. I was expecting a different answer to my question about what does a progressive Mormon believe. I’m comfortable with your definition. I would add that the Savior’s nearest to His apostles and prophets has a lot to do with the faith of church members.
I have been unofficially out of the church for a couple of years now, but I still found myself feeling so let down at the demotion of Bro. Uchtdorf. While the new 1st Pres. and the other apostles obviously love the church, they seem attached solely to *the institution*. Bro. Uchtdorf is the only one who reliably seems like he loves and is attached to *the members*.
Also, I feel sorry for my still-active YSA kids who–if yesterday was any indication–will continue to have marriage shoved down their throats, whether they’re ready or not, and whether they’ve found someone wonderful or not. And they’ll be taught to feel guilt and shame as long as they stay unmarried.
I feel sorry for my daughters who will continue to be told, as I was for 5 decades, that the main way they contribute to the world is through birthing and raising boys to be church leaders.
I feel sorry for myself because my parents and siblings will get more messages that justify them in criticizing and preaching to me, since in their views, I’m off “the covenant path.”
Yesterday felt like retrenchment, like a committment to fundamentalism for the foreseeable future.
And I am thankful to Bro. Monson for calling Bro. Uchtdorf as a counselor so we could regularly hear messages of love for a few years. Even if it didn’t last for long.
As for the question of defining progressive Mormons/Mormonism, I think the differences within the group are greater than the differences between groups. The best way I know of to define any group is a qualitative approach—talk with as many group members as you can, and hold on loosely to any patterns you notice in their experiences.
For me, being unorthodox/progressive means that I see truth claims as relative instead of absolute. Those claims can be 100% true for the person who makes them and still be untrue for others. The difference comes from lived experience. Being unorthodox means I recognize that a lot of promises made by the church or its leaders in their official roles haven’t come true. I recognize the pain that comes from those broken promises and I still can believe that the people who made them really believed in them.
IShouldSleepNow might be exactly right about this. If I were God, that would be a compelling reason to shake up the Presidency.
Jared – If you are interested in exploring the root differences between liberal/progressive and traditional/conservative, you might read Jonathan Haidt’s book called the Righteous Mind. He has some fascinating research and theories on the innate moral systems that create difference between the two types of people.
Obedience…. the First Law of Heaven… We all agree that we must obey the commandments… The problem is that we do not have a uniform consensus within the LDS Church as to what those commandments are. Jesus and the Pharisees debated the spirit vs. the letter of the law. That debate lingers on. During my time in the LDS Church, I have heard statements such as : 1. Drinking caffeinated beverages is a violation of the Word of Wisdom. 2. Only white bread can be used for sacrament. 3. Priesthood holders blessing and passing the sacrament must wear white shirts and ties. 4. Sacrament trays must be passed from one person to the next using only the right hand. 5. Men must be clean-shaven to enter the Temple. 6. Women must wear dresses to enter the chapel or the Temple. 7. Lessons must be taught verbatim from the authorized manual. 7. Prelude and postlude music must be straight from the hymn book. 8. Organists must play the notes exactly from the hymn book with no embellishments. 9. Mission farewells must not occur during sacrament meeting because being called on a full-time mission is really no different from an assistant librarian calling. Those rules, guidelines or whatever they are, have some merit. But the problem is that some members elevate handbook-type rules, or the “unwritten order of things” to the same status as the stone tablets that Moses brought down from Mt. Sinai. I am absolutely fine with members who choose to live their lives in such strictness. The real problem becomes when these well-meaning people start judging others according to their strict understanding of “the commandments,” or when they complain about others to the bishop or SP. (Yes, extremism and judgment can go both ways). And, in my lowly opinion, the first law of heaven is discernment. Adam and Eve were given two contradictory commandments in the Garden of Eden, to multiply and replenish the Earth but not partake of the forbidden fruit. Setting aside some hypothetical gymnastics , they could only obey one by disobeying the other. Thus even in their child-like state, their first task was to develop and exercise discernment.
Gosh, timirvine999, you left out 1a. Drinking herbal tea is a violation of the Word of Wisdom. 1b. Gorging on meat in the summer is not a violation of the Word of Wisdom. 2a. The white bread used for sacrament must have its brown crusts cut off. 3a. Priesthood holders passing the sacrament must carry the tray with the right hand and keep the left hand behind the back with the elbow at a 90 degree angle. 8a. Brass and percussion instruments (and guitars) must not be played in the chapel – certainly not in sacrament meeting. 10. Funerals must include preaching the resurrection and plan of salvation and should not include stories about the deceased. 11. Seeing an R-rated movie is a sin. 12. Skipping “Mutual” (YMYW) is a sin. 13. Men must not wear earrings. 14. Body piercings in excess of a single pair of earrings for women only are sinful. 15. All females’ shoulders must be covered. I’m sure I’ve missed many more.
JR,
Good points. I think your argument comes into play with adults and youth more so than children. CTR to a child is simplistic, often consequence-based rather than philosophical. It seems we’re talking about different stages of Fowler’s, or even Philip McLemore’s stages of spirituality (described in Mormon Matters podcasts 327-228).
Mortimer, You are likely right for most.children, but the consequences anticipated by children are sometimes seen by them as merely imposed by an authority and not natural to to their choice of action or inaction. There are also children whose experience learning obedience to a verbally and emotionally abusive authoritarian parent often perceived as arbitrary does not teach them love. The verbal or emotional abuse need not be extreme or intentional to have the effect of teaching them they are not loved by either such a parent or by God. Again, “obedience” is an insufficient and sometimes destructive teach in the school of love. It’s usefulness depends entirely on the question to whom or to what and on how that whom or what is perceived.
Q1 – How will you address LGBT issues?
I would have thought this question could have been answered with a review of direction the church has actually TAKEN on LGBT issues, rather than an emphasis on worthiness—which is a universal issue and not unique to LGBT members or associates. Could they not have mentioned the support of anti-discrimination pertaining to employment and housing? The support of the recent LOVELOUD concert? The donation to the Utah LGBT center? If I could think of these things just from recounting the recent new over the past couple of years and I am neither an LGBT activist who tracks these things or a General Authority who is in the midst of this work, would it be unreasonable to think that the Chief Apostle at a media event could not highlight one of these things?
In at least one ward today the priesthood lesson was on Oaks’ recent conference talk about the proclamation. Discussion focused on not being gay, not condoning gayness and gay marriage, and everyone patting themselves on the back for not being gay. There was previous little talk about showing love to those “suffering this affliction”. I don’t speak up in these situations when I disagree with what people are saying, for Reasons, but this is exactly the kind of message I don’t want my kids to hear.
It could be a coincidence, but it seems likely this topic was chosen specifically because Oaks is in the new presidency. And we are likely to hear more talks on his pet topics both in general conference and in classes.
re: em
I agree Uchtdorf’s messages were precedented, but they are now unpresidented (spelling intentional)
The noting that they know the reporters or their families is so weird to me, like a verbal tic. I wonder if they are either trying to 1) sound personable and friendly / approachable, or 2) demonstrate that they don’t have dementia and can recognize familiar faces. It really is odd when you point it out like that.
This “covenant” stuff has my spidey senses tingling. Now, where else are we hearing that word thrown around a lot? Oh yes, among the evangelicals. The Trump-supporting, women subordinating, gay rehabilitating evangelicals. What a strange coincidence!