President Monson, President Eyring, President Uchtdorf

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Funny. The way you guys talk makes me think that you're thinking one can get away with more or less depending on who the prophet is.

Ha! Do you imagine that I'm patiently waiting for the day when a prophet gives me permission to wear a second pair of earrings or something?

Actually, yes I do. You want justification for your misdeeds.

Actually, you are quite mistaken. I've replaced Mormon dogma with quite another belief system and at this point in my life the opinions of whatever Mormon prophet are inconsequential. You may choose to consider that as proof of my stiff-necked and hard-hardedness. I consider it personal evolution.

And now you're back, do you believe there is no disagreement on doctrine?

Edit: I meant to add, disagreement between what entities? I took your first post to mean between the church and the rest of the world. Now it seems to mean within the church only, or within the first prsidency, maybe. What in the heck was your first post talking about? Mabe you could post the interview or something?

The context was could members remain in good standing and not believe the doctrine. The literal answer was "It depends." The contextual answer was no; the case being apostasy. Therefore, if one is trying to believe or wants to believe, there is no problem. But if one does not believe and/or teaches others not to believe, then one is in a state of apostasy.

Thank you for the clarification. I had taken it quite differently. I still don't agree, but at least now I know what I'm disagreeing with.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Okay, I'll bite. Please be specific here. Who do you think disagrees with who about what?

A few things come to mind immediately. First, I think there is a great divide between the principle church scholars and the church leadership regarding Book of Mormon issues -- primarily LGT vs. HGT. Like the battle that took place in the 60s/70s with regard to McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine," there is bound to be many closed door sessions regarding this. I'm certain most chapel Mormons don't even know about the LGT, so this trickles up to the administrative leadership in the church. I see most leaders as being administrators, not scholars, and I've been involved in a few meetings where there was this conflict.

So, the stage is set for the "no disagreement" claim to play itself out, since there is bound to be many "disagreements," even amongst the twelve (or 15).

Book of Mormon geography is not doctrine. And if you were in adminstirative meetings where this took up a lot of time, then whoever was conducting was not sticking to the agenda.

Oh, if you can show me where Book of Mormon geography impacts any area of the 3 fold mission of the Church, I would like to see that argument.

Was that the sum total of your "disagreements on doctrine" arsenal?

Careful now, Charity. You're going down the road where the only obvious answer is that there is no doctrine in the first place, and the tapdancing may become too strenuous for you.

[_solomarineris]

Elder Uchdorf in the FP! I like that choice very much.

explain why Packer should be overlooked?
I see no reason, unless Church is ready to unload/discard some some fundamental doctrines?

[_charity]

Careful now, Charity. You're going down the road where the only obvious answer is that there is no doctrine in the first place, and the tapdancing may become too strenuous for you.

Nonsense. The "doctrine" all concerns the salvific issues. Baptism by immersion by one holding the authroity. Layingon of hands by one authorized for the gift of the Holy Ghost. The sacraments of the Church. The temple covenants. The laws and ordinances of the gospoel.

Not where a piece of dirt is located.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Careful now, Charity. You're going down the road where the only obvious answer is that there is no doctrine in the first place, and the tapdancing may become too strenuous for you.

Nonsense. The "doctrine" all concerns the salvific issues. Baptism by immersion by one holding the authroity. Layingon of hands by one authorized for the gift of the Holy Ghost. The sacraments of the Church. The temple covenants. The laws and ordinances of the gospoel.

Not where a piece of dirt is located.

If the Book of Mormon has no basis in fact, neither does any of the rest of it. That was clearly taught when I was a Mormon, you know, back in the day before the church realized it had a credibility problem and was still willing to make unilateral statements like that. The tapdancing that goes on now is enough by itself to prove to any reasonable person that the church is built on falsity.

[_Sethbag]

Elder Uchdorf in the FP! I like that choice very much.

explain why Packer should be overlooked?
I see no reason, unless Church is ready to unload/discard some some fundamental doctrines?

I don't think there's ever been an acknowledged practice of Presidents of the church necessarily picking the most senior apostles as his Councilors. In fact, when J. Reuben Clark was chosen in 1933 as Second Councilor to President Heber J. Grant, he wasn't even an apostle at all. He was a High Priest. He served as 2nd Councilor in the First Presidency as a High Priest for a year, before he was finally ordained an apostle in 1934 so that he would still be an apostle when Heber J. Grant died, and have seniority from the date of his ordination, etc. But he actually spent the rest of his life in the First Presidencies of Heber J. Grant, George Albert Smith, and David O. McKay, and thus never served a day in the Quorum of the Twelve.

I think it's ridiculous to look at Monson's choice as "passing over" Packer, Oaks, or anyone else. The fact is that the incoming President picks the councilors he wants, and he picks them for his own reasons, and not because they "deserve" it, or are the most senior, or whatever.

When a ward is re-organized, do you suppose they always call the previous First Councilor to be the new bishop? Or do they always pick the Elders Quorum President, or the High Priest Group Leader? No, of course not. They pick whoever they want, and that guy picks whoever he wants as his new councilors. Nobody is "passed over" for these choices.

Monson didn't want Packer as one of his councilors. He wanted Eyring and Uchtdorf instead. So he's got them, and Packer stays as the Alpha Male of the Q12. That seems to suit him just fine anyhow.

[_charity]

If the Book of Mormon has no basis in fact, neither does any of the rest of it. That was clearly taught when I was a Mormon, you know, back in the day before the church realized it had a credibility problem and was still willing to make unilateral statements like that. The tapdancing that goes on now is enough by itself to prove to any reasonable person that the church is built on falsity.

You are right about one thing. If the Book of Mormon is false, everything else is.

There is no credibility problem, and the leaders of the Church have never thought there was, among the population that matters. And that population is the faithful, and those willing to accept the witness of the spirit. The gospel is going to all the world so that who will accept have the chance to hear the word of the Lord and obey Him. The Church has never taught that all will accept.

And quite frankly, if you have had an opportunity to accept and you rejected it, your opinion about it doesn't really matter. If you think there is tapdancing, you haven't been listening to leaders of the Church speak about the Book of Mormon.

[_harmony]

Monson didn't want Packer as one of his councilors.

Thank you, Pres Monson. Amen and Amen.

[_charity]

explain why Packer should be overlooked?
I see no reason, unless Church is ready to unload/discard some some fundamental doctrines?

He was not "overlooked." He is the President of the Quorum of the Twelve. That is a great responsbility. You see no reason, because you don't understand leadership in the Church. There will be no unloading or discarding of doctrine. I suggest you listen very carefully to General Conference in April.

P.S. Thank you whoever corrected my typo in the topic line.

[_moksha]

It is only natural that the President would want his councilors to be on the same wavelength to have a happy and harmonious First Presidency.