Announced at 11:00 MST today.
- President: Thomas S. Monson
- 1st Counsellor: Henry B. Eyring
- 2nd Counsellor: Dieter F. Uchtdorf
New First Presidency
73 thoughts on “New First Presidency”
Comments are closed.
Thought-provoking commentary on life, politics, religion and social issues.
Hmmm…
No Packer.
That surprises me a bit.
Really? It never would have crossed my mind that he would be called. He’s too old. I thought Dallin H. Oaks would be called.
Yeah, but the appointment of a non-north american was probably overdue.
It’s not the first time. Anthon H. Lund was born in Denmark. John R. Winder and George Q. Cannon were from England.
Even so, by the time they called into the First Presidency, I think they’ve had enough experience that it doesn’t matter where they are from: they will have the experience and outlook to oversee a global church.
After watching the press conference, I have to wonder if President Monson is going to focus on a more international church, or rather a less American church.
Do you think President Hinckley was not focused on an international church?
No.
I think he did a lot to bring the church to the world (members and not alike), but I think his focus was on making the Church more public.
Am I the only one that is gobsmacked at how old President Eyring is! He’s 75! I had him in his early 60’s.
No. I thought the same thing. He seems younger.
I’m puzzled. Why did rick think President Packer would be called to the First Presidency?
Through sheer force of will I assumed Darth Packer would assume the throne…
But what does being called as a counselor in the First Presidency have to do with “assuming the throne” as you put it?
The “throne” in your analogy, would have to mean becoming President of the Church, would it not? Being a counselor to said President has nothing at all to do with one’s chances of becoming Church President. I can see no pattern in history of Presidents of the Church calling the next-most-senior Apostle as counselors. In fact, some counselors, such as J. Reuben Clark, have been called from outside the Twelve and therefore have had no apostolic seniority at all.
Both Hunter and Hinckley called the most senior apostle as a counsellor.
Which only means that sometimes it’s happened, and usually it hasn’t. It certainly doesn’t mean there’s a pattern of the most senior apostle being called to the First Presidency as a counselor.
I would say, Kim, that there has been a pattern of new Presidents of the Church re-calling counselors who had served under the previous President. That’s the trend demonstrated in the examples you gave. But I can’t think of an example of a new Church President calling the President of the Quorum of the Twelve into the First Presidency when he wasn’t already serving in the First Presidency before. (Not categorically saying it hasn’t happened; I just don’t know of it happening.)
I’ve been trying to figure out what forms rick’s basis for believing that President Packer is ambitious and desires to assume the Presidency of the Church.
So you’re saying he has no desire to be the President?
I thought the whole purpose was to strive to sit on the throne?
What throne?
No one in their right mind WANTS that sort of responsibility. Good grief.
No one does?
You’re telling me that every member of the seventy has no aspirations of being the prophet?
I have trouble believing that.
Well there might be a select few, but then as I said, no one in their RIGHT MIND would want to. And I can promise you that the Lord wouldn’t be calling them to such a high responsible position if they had such aspirations as they wouldn’t have the proper humility.
Pres Packer, I am completely positive, has no desire to be the Prophet. Some might not like his approach, but he is an apostle and prophet of God and he serves faithfully in his calling.
So you’re saying that “a select few” of the seventy aren’t “in their RIGHT MIND”?
This is sounding worse than my initial conjecture.
Rick, you’re putting words in Mary’s mouth. You’re the one who keeps saying that people aspire to become prophet, not Mary. She saying if anyone wants to be prophet, he doesn’t understand what’s involved, which isn’t the same thing as saying there are definitely people who want aspire to it.
Rick has a tendency to misinterpret what I say. I don’t know if this is deliberate or not.
“if anyone wants to be prophet, he doesn’t understand what’s involved”
Does that mean that the members of the seventy are uninformed about the highest office in the organization?
I guess what I don’t understand is how it’s possible that the members of any organization could both not want to be the leader and are the exclusive pool from which the leader is chosen.
This seems contradictory to me.
Only if they want to be prophet, as I already said.
Desire to be prophet isn’t a requirement to be prophet.
So why join in the first place?
If they have no desire, then why get in line to be eligible?
I don’t get where you’re coming from, rick. It’s not like these guys knock on President Monson’s door and asking, “Hey, can you make me a Seventy?” They’re asked to serve, they don’t request it.
If they never say ‘yes’ to becoming one of the seventy then they never run the risk of being appointed to a position of which they are a)uninformed and b)have no desire to hold.
If they do say yes, then they must have a modicum of intent for increased responsibility in the organization.
Not to mention the fact that for many of these men, they’ve engaged in behaviours which make them more likely to be selected. It’s not like they’re in the middle of something else and then they’re yanked into service as unwilling participants.
The risk is pretty low. Especially considering the second quorum have finite terms.
Or they’ve never said “no” to any calling that was extended to them.
Serving in the church is expected of its members. Considering that, I am not surprised people say “yes” when asked to be a seventy.
I would suggest that many of the church leaders who say they would never want one of the “Higher Callings” are displaying false modesty and only say so because it is culturally incorrect to aspire to one of those callings.
That’s a possibility. All I know is what I feel and what I have heard other say. That’s all I have to go on.
Ditto.
They aspire to serve. In whatever capacity they are asked.
So rick, is there some point at which you’re going to address the question I asked? What basis do you have for believing that President Packer covets the Presidency of the Church?
Personal speculation based on a completely non-professional analysis of his behaviours and descriptions of his behaviours to date.
Clear enough for ya?
Then I see a different Pres. Packer then you see, and I am not sure how you have come up with such a negative view of him (oh never mind, I can figure it out).
It’s primarily Mr. Packer’s attitude toward gay and lesbian people that offends me the most.
Oh, that and his stance on blacks in the church.
And then there are the anecdotes I’ve heard and read of his heavy-handed treatment of members and office staff at the COB.
Other than those issues, I’m sure he’s a swell guy.
I suppose I don’t know what his current stance is on Black members of the church. What has he said that offends you so much? And what exactly is his attitude towards gay members of the church?
And what about these issues (as well as being heavy handed) makes you believe he is vying for the presidency of the church?
I see him as an archetype of a big business suit.
These people generally aspire to ascend the corporate ladder – thus my assumption of his motive toward ascending to the highest seat in the church.
If you want to know his feelings on people of African descent, lamanites (as opposed to norindians), gay or lesbian people, feminists and intellectuals, there are plenty of websites that offer quotes from official church sources (as well as plenty from less reputable sources).
Google “Boyd K. Packer May 18, 1993” for a starter.
If I have time. It doesn’t worry me though, as I am sure much has been taken out of context, or if not, then it speaks of a personal bias he has and not everything about him.
I always wonder why some people need to pick apart everything little thing about the church, or church leaders. It’s puzzling.
Pres. Packer is against intellectuals? That’s news to me considering how often he expresses his love for his brethren of the Twelve, including some very intellectual individuals.
Or is “intellectual” a code word only to be deciphered by its coupling with “feminist”?
Have you not heard of the September Six, Bull Moose?
I wasn’t aware that there are only six intellectuals in the worldwide membership of the church.
My mistake.
It was an example, Bull Moose. I guess it wasn’t clear enough.
Kim, you were clear that it was the secret meaning of “intellectuals.” It was also clear that it was Rick’s secret meaning also, seeing how he kifed it from the wikipedia article on the September Six (“The September Six were six noted intellectuals and feminists expelled from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (also known as the LDS Church, or Mormons) in September 1993.”).
My point is that the Church’s discipline of six published individuals in no way indicates Pres. Packer’s feelings on “intellectuals” unless Rick (and you) assume that those six were the only intellectuals in the Church.
If Rick wants to make that argument, let him bring forward more evidence. Otherwise, it is too large of a leap to that conclusion.
The only one making the leap is you. Rick did not say that Packer has a problem with all intellectuals.
And I certainly don’t see what Wikipedia has to do with it. Are you saying Rick cannot know something without having read it in Wikipedia? That the only place Rick could have known about Packer’s “feelings on . . . intellectuals” was at Wikipedia? To say nothing of the fact that the article says little about “people of African descent, lamanites, gay or lesbian people”, which were also listed in Rick’s comment.
Kim, I really don’t like it when you play this game of changing what other’s say so you can knock down their “position” like a straw man. But, your site, your rules …
Firstly, I didn’t say that Rick said that Pres. Packer has a problem with all intellectuals (in fact, do a search for “problem” and you’ll see that your comment is the first place it’s mentioned. Please don’t put words in my mouth … um, comment box thingy.)
Secondly, Rick describes his issues as coming from Pres. Packer’s “attitude toward gay and lesbian people” (see his comment #37), which he extended in comment #40 to “feminists and intellectuals.” Yes, I made a leap, but it was not unreasonable, and if you were to ask Rick (Hellooo! Rick? Stop laughing and jump in here.) I’m sure that he would say as much, at least, that’s how he presented it. Do you disagree?
My problem is that Rick gave no evidence of any of Pres. Packer’s feelings towards “intellectuals,” unless you couple the use of “intellectual” with “feminist” which he did, and which is how most references to the September Six on the internet are worded.
Aside: Wikipedia? You caught me! I actually did say that the only place Rick could have known about Packer’s feelings on intellectuals was at Wikipedia! And I would have gotten away with it if it weren’t for you meddling kid!
I’ll rest on my point until refuted that the Church’s discipline of six published individuals says nothing about Pres. Packer’s feelings on intellectuals (to your comment in 43). And rick still hasn’t put forward anything that shows that Pres. Packer disdains “intellectuals” in general as he claimed (comments 37 and 40), unless “intellectuals” in this sense can only be interpreted by coupling it with “feminists,” a veiled reference to the September Six, as you ably point out and as is used in most internet sources.
I didn’t address Rick’s concern about Pres. Packer’s feelings about “people of African descent, lamanites, gay or lesbian people,” so thanks for bringing that strawman up at the end, Kim!
Your Janus-like positions really confuse me sometimes!
Kim doesn’t play games.
Straw man? That’s rich coming from you.
And feel free to lay of the condescending any time.