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.
Bull,
Do I really need to explain the most discussed (as least on the Internet) article by Mr. Packer?
It’s his talk to the All-Church Coordinating Council from May 19,1993.
It is my position that Boyd has personal problems with all of the groups I mentioned, with feminists and intellectuals being two distinct groups.
This applies to the groups, including intellectuals, as defined by Mr. Packer; the details of which I am not entirely clear on.
As an aside, what’s Wikipedia? :P
“The dangers I speak of come from the gay-lesbian movement, the feminist movement (both of which are relatively new)” – Boyd K. Packer, from the talk that gets under Rick’s skin, emphasis added.
Sure sounds like he is speaking about a particular subset of those groups, not all gays or lesbians, and all feminists, no?
“… and the ever-present challenge from the so-called scholars or intellectuals.” – Same talk.
I believe the following scripture provides the context for that statement about “so-called scholars or intellectuals”:
When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.
But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God. (2 Nephi 9:28-29)
Yes, but Rick, your premise is that Pres Packer is vying for the church presidency, seemingly based on these comments? Or was it something else he said that makes you believe this? I personally haven’t heard him say ANYTHING that leads me to believe he is dying to be the President of the Church. And he is an Apostle, not a member of the Seventy.
from #40:
“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.”
That still seems a rather flimsy reason, though no one can change a person’s perception about someone else unless they want to have it changed. How do you see him this way, because of how he dresses? His manner? Something else? Well, take ten minutes to talk to him personally if you ever get the chance and you will find out otherwise. Often the assumptions are exactly what they seem…they make an a**’ out of ‘u’ and ‘me’.
“Well, take ten minutes to talk to him personally if you ever get the chance and you will find out otherwise.”
Have you?
I’d be interested to know the details.
No, but then I am not the one who thinks he is an ‘archetype business suit’ trying to become president of the church (therefore making erroneous character judgments). But I have spoken to church General Authorities, personally, and have never been disappointed.
Your ability to assess his lack of ambition is equally retarded by your lack of experience with the man, as mine.
You choose to use your stereo-type for General Authorities, and I use my stereo-type of suits.
Until one of us has a personal encounter we can be, neither of us, certain.
Thanks for the condescension, Rick. As I have ascertained, whatever I say, whether it is a post, or a comment, for some unfathomable reason, you see the need to ridicule or make light of what I say ( see Blessings and God’s Time for example). Just because I decide not to condemn someone based on my own biases doesn’t make me stereotyping. I am not saying ALL general authorities lack ambition, I am saying that my personal experience has shown most not to be, and from my observations of Pres Packer, since I was a child, hearing him, on a regular basis, speak in conference and in other venues, having read his talks , I have never had the impression he is trying to become President of the church. I am certain he has enough to do with his own busy calling as an Apostle., to even aspire to presidency.
Condescension? You must be misreading my tone – it was not meant to be condescending. I only meant to point out that you have a positive bias and I do not and both of us are lacking first-hand experience with the man.
Making decisions based on your observation of his peers is as much an act of stereotyping as anything I’ve done in regard to Mr. Packer.
Yeah, ok. Except I am looking at the positive, and giving him the benefit o f the doubt.
Why would it be bad if he wanted the job?
I’m not sure why you would think that any ambition Mr. Packer may possess is a vice.
Holding the priesthood or holding any particular calling in church should not be a matter of personal ambition, because it isn’t the calling that makes a person, but how they desire to serve God. If Pres Packer had an ambition to ” be the president” that would be an ungodly ambition and one that would place him under judgment from the Lord. The Lord does not reward pride and sense of entitlement but has a tendency to knock that down. With good reason. The church, in spite of what some people might think is not a multi-corporation designed to reward the cutthroats and highest salespeople. Hardwork and service are rewarded by God, not by the church leadership. And no one should think he is more entitled to anything special because of who he or she thinks s/he is.
“no one should think he is more entitled to anything special because of who he or she thinks s/he is.”
So does that mean that some families are just more spiritual than others?
It seems that there is a consolidation of a small group of families that hold many of the high positions in the church. In fact every sitting member (with two notable exceptions being the two most recent appointees-Uchtdorf and Bednar), I believe, is related in some way to a previous LDS General Authority.
Is this simply by virtue of those families being more observant of God’s will?
Why would that mean that? I said, no one should think he or she is more entitled because of who he or she THINKS s/he is….not who they actually are.
Do you have examples?
I’m not sure what you mean.
Do you mean it’s ok to actually BE entitled as long as you don’t THINK you’re entitled?
Examples of relations? I could use familysearch.org to verify, but based on last/maiden names, it’s pretty evident that they’re related.
There were a lot less members of the church when it was first organised and so a lot of people have intermarried. Just like here in Southern Alberta everyone seems to be related. Hmm, come to think of it, in ancient days the Lord called fathers and sons to similar callings. Oh, and come to think of it, He gave His own son the top calling, that of Saviour of the world.
No, I don’t mean anything like that, all I am saying is that although someone THINKS they are entitled doesn’t mean they are.
No one is entitled to anything.
“But I have spoken to church General Authorities, personally, and have never been disappointed.”
Well, I hope you never have the opportuinity to be chewed-out by one. It quickly shatters the perfect image you have of them.
Regarding aspiring to callings and positions, there is actually scriptural precident for this. See Abraham 1:2,4.
I hope not either. I don’t have a perfect image of them (sigh, I wish people would get that. I am not saying they are perfect, only generally, hard working, trying-hard individuals).
I don’t see where that encourages ambition, only to serve in the capacity of priesthood authority.
That’s ok, not everybody sees things the same.
Well, since you asked, no. It’s not clear at all. It’s deliberately vague, as you already know. However, you have followed up by explaining that if I search the Internet, I’ll find gossip-mongering sites on which people will tell me that President Packer holds certain opinions. And even if he did hold such opinions, that would be no indication at all that President Packer desires greater power.