DiscussMormonism.com

RockSlider wrote:Yes, the most Christlike of us all, setting a bad example, must go!

https://www.lds.org/bc/content/ldsorg/c ... nner_2.jpg

I know an employee of LDS Inc who has been at Uberdork's house.

He is a Grade A prick. Then again, I am sure they all are to the common folk.

The move is rare enough to raise eyebrows. Certainly signals a political realignment. I didn't see anything in the press conference in terms of body language though. No idea what people are talking about there.

I really don't know what the big deal is.

- Doc

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:I really don't know what the big deal is.

- Doc

In any other organization with a more fluid leadership structure it would not be a big deal. Considering the fact that it has been decades since *anyone* was removed from the First Presidency, it is.

Markk wrote:I have to wonder if this (old school core doctrine) plays a role in the decision? Does Nelson and Oaks feel that DU is too "main stream"? Does he really understand core LDS thought?

moksha wrote:They did have religious differences. In the press conference where Brady McCombs of the Associated Press asked, "How do you plan to approach LGBT issues?", President Nelson gave a long indirect answer in which he mentioned the considerations of Love vs the Law.

Uchtdorf was more of a love guy (like Jesus) while Nelson and Oaks are more law guys (like the Pharisees). That could have caused friction in the First Presidency. Thankfully Nelson did not put Uchtdorf through the indignity of having the members choose between Uchtdorf and Barnabas at the April General Conference.

I have to believe this is one reason GA typically are white Utes. Mormonism abroad is more intertwined with mainstream Christianity terms and understandings. DU talk on grace a while back really shows his disconnect from core LDS thought, and I believe this is something the old guard is well aware of.

I will say the press conference was such an embarrassment it drowned any inkling of hope I might have had for the Church and these men. I don't know that any of the questions were directly responded to. They either hate other people that much or they simply aren't capable (maybe a combo of both).

I'm losing all patience for any notion that these men are trying their best to do good (the last thread that has kept me around so long).

JLHPROF wrote:Oaks (85) is the likely successor to Nelson (93). It makes sense to give him First Presidency experience prior to that happening.

The bigger surprise was the removal of the very popular Uchtdorf and the retention of Eyring. Eyring has a sick wife to care for and is much older. I personally think President Nelson and Elder Uchtdorf have ideological differences. The new First Presidency is definitely more orthodox and conservative than the previous one.

That may create minor PR issues, or it may not. Time will tell.

I would really like it if you would start a separate thread and explain to all of us HOW exactly you maintain belief. This is a sincere request. What do you build your faith on exactly? To me the church is so demonstrably not what it claims to be. The Book of Mormon is a work of fiction. Mormon prophets have no more insight into life than any other educated human and perhaps even less because of the fact that they cling to empirically false beliefs such as the creation myth and their self-dilutions of having special magical powers. So JLHPROF How do you do it.

Here's to calling two more white men from the Wasatch front to replace the vacancies.

Exiled wrote:Here's to calling two more white men from the Wasatch front to replace the vacancies.

Nelson already tipped his hand in his press conference when asked about diversity in church leadership. He said look to the local leadership as a sign of diversity...suggesting that one shouldn't look to the 12 as a place to find diversity. So yes I think he's tee up the announcement for yet 2 more rich American white guys.

Markk wrote:Elder Uchtdorf is very popular to many in that he preached that man can't earn their salvation (exaltation/godhood), and that it is by grace. I have a "friend" that hangs onto that, and ignores quote after quote, even from Monson, that man must earn becoming a God by merit and duty in accordance to eternal law.

I have to wonder if this (old school core doctrine) plays a role in the decision? Does Nelson and Oaks feel that DU is too "main stream"? Does he really understand core LDS thought?

Yeah. I'm wondering how Pres. Nelson understands diversity. Does he realize he just removed the little diversity that was once present in the FP?