New First Presidency announced (Oaks, Eyring, Christofferson)

[sock puppet]

Do they really think members are obtuse. They have repeatedly said they have the answers to life's problems.

His exact words were:

We do not have answers to all of the world's problems.

That isn't surprising. What isn't surprising is that the critics are already coming out against the newly called prophet.

Regards,
MG

Given Dallin's long and storied history of intolerance and being dogmatic, criticism should not surprise anyone

[Chap]

Do they really think members are obtuse. They have repeatedly said they have the answers to life's problems.

His exact words were:

We do not have answers to all of the world's problems.

That isn't surprising. What isn't surprising is that the critics are already coming out against the newly called prophet.

Regards,
MG

The world's problems are problems I face in my life. Thus, in many countries the question whether me and my family will be alive next week definitely depends on problems on a world scale. For those of us who live in countries that (for the moment) are not directly touched by war, the future of my kids is dependent on whether the world as a whole can manage to stop destroying the earth's life support system.

People who kid themselves that they can shut the door of their house and keep the world out in ANY country (even including a bit of the US like Utah) are in for a rude awakening. I'd expect that a person who claims to be a deity's unique channel of direct communication with humanity would show some awareness of that.

[Tom]

Two things come to mind when I think of Todd Christofferson:

1. Christofferson’s canned 2015 interview with Michael Otterson regarding the then-new Policy of Exclusion. Christofferson had apparently been invited forced by senior church leaders to defend the policy.

2. The story related by Christofferson to begin his November 2006 general conference address, titled “Let Us Be Men.” Christofferson said:

Years ago, when my brothers and I were boys, our mother had radical cancer surgery. She came very close to death. Much of the tissue in her neck and shoulder had to be removed, and for a long time it was very painful for her to use her right arm.

One morning about a year after the surgery, my father took Mother to an appliance store and asked the manager to show her how to use a machine he had for ironing clothes. The machine was called an Ironrite. It was operated from a chair by pressing pedals with one’s knees to lower a padded roller against a heated metal surface and turn the roller, feeding in shirts, pants, dresses, and other articles. You can see that this would make ironing (of which there was a great deal in our family of five boys) much easier, especially for a woman with limited use of her arm. Mother was shocked when Dad told the manager they would buy the machine and then paid cash for it. Despite my father’s good income as a veterinarian, Mother’s surgery and medications had left them in a difficult financial situation.

On the way home, my mother was upset: “How can we afford it? Where did the money come from? How will we get along now?” Finally Dad told her that he had gone without lunches for nearly a year to save enough money. “Now when you iron,” he said, “you won’t have to stop and go into the bedroom and cry until the pain in your arm stops.” She didn’t know he knew about that. I was not aware of my father’s sacrifice and act of love for my mother at the time, but now that I know, I say to myself, “There is a man.”

I remember well the curious video clip accompanying Christofferson’s talk showing a woman operating an Ironrite.

Watching that talk 19 years ago, I said to myself, “Isn’t that a man who chose to skip lunches for a year rather than save his wife needless suffering by doing the ironing himself?”

[malkie]

Two things come to mind when I think of Todd Christofferson:

1. Christofferson’s canned 2015 interview with Michael Otterson regarding the then-new Policy of Exclusion. Christofferson had apparently been invited forced by senior church leaders to defend the policy.

2. The story related by Christofferson to begin his November 2006 general conference address, titled “Let Us Be Men.” Christofferson said:

Years ago, when my brothers and I were boys, our mother had radical cancer surgery. She came very close to death. Much of the tissue in her neck and shoulder had to be removed, and for a long time it was very painful for her to use her right arm.

One morning about a year after the surgery, my father took Mother to an appliance store and asked the manager to show her how to use a machine he had for ironing clothes. The machine was called an Ironrite. It was operated from a chair by pressing pedals with one’s knees to lower a padded roller against a heated metal surface and turn the roller, feeding in shirts, pants, dresses, and other articles. You can see that this would make ironing (of which there was a great deal in our family of five boys) much easier, especially for a woman with limited use of her arm. Mother was shocked when Dad told the manager they would buy the machine and then paid cash for it. Despite my father’s good income as a veterinarian, Mother’s surgery and medications had left them in a difficult financial situation.

On the way home, my mother was upset: “How can we afford it? Where did the money come from? How will we get along now?” Finally Dad told her that he had gone without lunches for nearly a year to save enough money. “Now when you iron,” he said, “you won’t have to stop and go into the bedroom and cry until the pain in your arm stops.” She didn’t know he knew about that. I was not aware of my father’s sacrifice and act of love for my mother at the time, but now that I know, I say to myself, “There is a man.”

I remember well the curious video clip accompanying Christofferson’s talk showing a woman operating an Ironrite.

Watching that talk 19 years ago, I said to myself, “Isn’t that a man who chose to skip lunches for a year rather than save his wife needless suffering by doing the ironing himself?”

I'm pretty sure I heard that talk. At least I read it. And I had a similar feeling, Tom. If I were Elder Christofferson I would have kept that story to myself, rather than think it showed a great example of a "man".

[MG 2.0]

His exact words were:



That isn't surprising. What isn't surprising is that the critics are already coming out against the newly called prophet.

Regards,
MG

The world's problems are problems I face in my life. Thus, in many countries the question whether me and my family will be alive next week definitely depends on problems on a world scale. For those of us who live in countries that (for the moment) are not directly touched by war, the future of my kids is dependent on whether the world as a whole can manage to stop destroying the earth's life support system.

People who kid themselves that they can shut the door of their house and keep the world out in ANY country (even including a bit of the US like Utah) are in for a rude awakening. I'd expect that a person who claims to be a deity's unique channel of direct communication with humanity would show some awareness of that.

From his tone and situational context I think he was specifically addressing the world's political schisms.

As it is, leaders/prophets have constantly and consistently given counsel having to do with principles, if adhered to, which will help people live lives of righteousness and service to their fellow man...and thus achieve happiness in their own lives.

The proliferation of temples supports this vision of supporting members to be the best they can be and create strong family bonds.

My point in my previous post is that it didn't take long for critics to paint a picture of President Oaks that will comfortably hang in their gallery.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

...

My point in my previous post is that it didn't take long for critics to paint a picture of President Oaks that will comfortably hang in their gallery.

Regards,
MG

If you're implying that critics had to go to the trouble of painting a new picture, I think you're more than a bit out of touch.

[Rivendale]

Oaks was perfectly capable of painting a self portrait. He has a long list of demonstrated lies and unethical behavior.

[MG 2.0]

...

My point in my previous post is that it didn't take long for critics to paint a picture of President Oaks that will comfortably hang in their gallery.

Regards,
MG

If you're implying that critics had to go to the trouble of painting a new picture, I think you're more than a bit out of touch.

I'm not sure where you're going with this, malkie. The original post I was responding to showed a lack of understanding as to what President Oaks was actually saying in this instance.

I was simply responding to that.

Should he not be able to start his time as Prophet/President with a clean slate rather than being smeared or misinterpreted from the get go?

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Two things come to mind when I think of Todd Christofferson:

1. Christofferson’s canned 2015 interview with Michael Otterson regarding the then-new Policy of Exclusion. Christofferson had apparently been invited forced by senior church leaders to defend the policy.

2. The story related by Christofferson to begin his November 2006 general conference address, titled “Let Us Be Men.” Christofferson said:


I remember well the curious video clip accompanying Christofferson’s talk showing a woman operating an Ironrite.

Watching that talk 19 years ago, I said to myself, “Isn’t that a man who chose to skip lunches for a year rather than save his wife needless suffering by doing the ironing himself?”

I'm pretty sure I heard that talk. At least I read it. And I had a similar feeling, Tom. If I were Elder Christofferson I would have kept that story to myself, rather than think it showed a great example of a "man".

I had the same response. The image of him watching his wife, for a year, leave the room to cry in pain after ironing HIS clothes is sickening.

[Chap]

Should [President Oaks] not be able to start his time as Prophet/President with a clean slate rather than being smeared or misinterpreted from the get go?

Since he has served in a number of high positions in the CoJCoLDS for many years, I think it would be unreasonable to expect people not to base their opinion of his character and their future expectations of his actions on what they have seen of him so far.

Also, he was born on August 12, 1932, so he is now 93 years old. People of that age rarely undergo major changes in their character and habits (assuming that they are spared dementia). So what we have seen so far is what we are likely to continue to get, is it not?

By the way, when did the CoJCoLDS start ... well, let us say 'being prompted by the Lord' to choose Presidents from an age-group whose members are not usually expected to bear major leadership responsibilities'? In the Roman Catholic Church, it is now accepted that retirement is a possible option for an aging Pope to choose. But then of course that church does not enjoy the benefit of direct divine guidance.