Comments on: New First Presidency

By: ltbugaf

ltbugaf — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 04:33:25 +0000

Personal speculation based on a completely non-professional analysis of his behaviours and descriptions of his behaviours to date.

Clear enough for ya?

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.

By: JM

JM — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:16:14 +0000

That's ok, not everybody sees things the same.

By: Mary Siever

Mary Siever — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:09:42 +0000

I don't see where that encourages ambition, only to serve in the capacity of priesthood authority.

By: Mary Siever

Mary Siever — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:07:26 +0000

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).

By: JM

JM — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:07:23 +0000

Regarding aspiring to callings and positions, there is actually scriptural precident for this. See Abraham 1:2,4.

By: JM

JM — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:03:14 +0000

"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.

By: Mary Siever

Mary Siever — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 23:09:16 +0000

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.

By: rick

rick — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:35:32 +0000

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.

By: Mary Siever

Mary Siever — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:23:56 +0000

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?

By: rick

rick — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:17:59 +0000

"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?