Were Elder Uchtdorf and Pres. Eyring Demoted?

It’s always interesting to me to see reactions to changes in the church. Yesterday’s announcement of the new First Presidency was another milestone event for members of the church. As the day progressed I searched out and read the reactions of other people. Thankfully I saw more expressions of gladness and gratitude than of murmuring and disagreement — although those were out there.

One of the complaints/speculations I read had to do with Elder Uchtdorf resuming his place in the Quorum of the 12. The accusation was that he was demoted. One person speculated the reason for this was that Elder Uchtdorf and Pres. Nelson didn’t get along and had philosophical disagreements and that this was a punishment for Elder Uchtdorf — a sort of “bad dog” moment, if you will. No, The 12 are unanimous in their decisions and work. They bore that testimony many times yesterday and in the past as well.

Another thread which I observed complained that now that Elder Uchtdorf was no longer in the First Presidency that there was less inclusivity in the church than ever before and how were they an {insert self-imposed label} Mormon ever going to feel welcome at church again. For some, Elder Uchtdorf’s release back into The 12 is being interpreted as a big mistake on the part of the Quorum. This has to do with the belief that some members of the church hold that the younger apostles are just waiting for the older ones to die off so they can make “the right changes” or changes that fall more inline with the standards and teachings of the world rather than the standards and teachings of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. The first time I heard this idea, the person with which I was speaking mentioned Boyd K. Packer specifically. Well, Elder Packer has been gone two years and the doctrine of the church is still the same. The laws and doctrines of the gospel will not change.

Last night, thankfully, a post on Elder Uchtdorf’s Facebook page popped into my newsfeed and he shared his feelings on the events surrounding the new leadership calls:

In a comment on her post from yesterday, Meg Stout remarked, “I was reminded that one of the fun things about the Quorum being unanimous in the selection of the new President and First Presidency is that obviously Elder Uchtdorf also concurred with resuming his place in the Quorum.” Meg is 100% right here. I’m sure Elder Uctdorf is excited to get back out into the field to work. Pres. Nelson shared that he’d already been given assignments “for which he was uniquely qualified”. This change is really no different than being released from one calling and being given another. What matters most is the willingness to serve, and I know Elder Uchtdorf is willing to go where he is needed. (Yes the chorus of “I’ll Go Where You Want Me To Go” is playing in my head as I type this).

The same can be said of Pres Eyring’s call as Second Councilor in the First Presidency. This new calling is not a punishment or a demotion of any kind. He is willing to serve no matter what the capacity and no matter where the assignment is. In the press conference yesterday Pres. Eyring pointed out the difference between position and influence. They are not the same. He gets this distinction and it’s evidenced by how he serves, not where he serves.

He stated on his facebook page:

A final word, and this was emphasized several times yesterday, that our questions and concerns can be resolved by staying on, or coming back to the covenant path. When we’re on that covenant path the Holy Ghost can teach, testify, and bring to our remembrance things we know and which will help us as we move forward. And move forward the work of the Lord will.

This entry was posted in General and tagged , , , by Joyce Anderson. Bookmark the permalink.

About Joyce Anderson

Joyce is a mother, wife, sister, school teacher, Bulgarian speaker, conservative, lover of good music, social media junky and a two time culinary arts Grand Champion bread baker. She and the family reside in a remote mountain community where great discoveries have been made. When not changing the world, she enjoys the occasional bowl of chips and salsa. She can be found at: http://pinterest.com/TheAtomicMom

39 thoughts on “Were Elder Uchtdorf and Pres. Eyring Demoted?

  1. Those who view Uchtdorf resuming his place in the Q12 as a demotion are viewing the changes via how the world sees things, not the eyes of God.

    Personally, I’m glad Oaks is in the First Presidency. With the forthcoming legal assault on the LDS Church over gay and women’s rights, someone with his vast legal experience would be good to have at such a leadership position.

  2. Well put, Joyce! I find that while the small number shrill voices are coming up with some pretty wild conspiracy theories, they won’t stop the work from progressing. Those who are murmuring about this and engaging in bizarre speculation would do well to choose whom they will serve and make a determination to have faith in God and thus, His prophets. We’re at that point where people are going to have to make some decisions, and we hope they come and follow the prophets of God. The work is moving forward with or without these voices. We hope they come with us. There is so much that lies ahead. And, paraphrasing what a visiting general authority said in a recent Utah regional conference, we have so much work to do that the detractors, critics and naysayers don’t bother us. In other words, I take it as we have bigger fish to fry and a grand work to do, let’s get to it!

    Looking forward to a bright future!

  3. They are all apostles, prophets, seers, and revelators – it doesn’t really “matter” which are assigned as counselors versus which are “regular” members of the Quorum of the Twelve.

    Since Oaks has a statistically very high chance of being the next President it is possibly useful to have him experience the First Presidency role before that happens. However, directing the Twelve is likely excellent “training” as well, as demonstrated by the current President’s path (e.g., serving in the First presidency is not a necessary step).

    The biggest noticeable difference is that we are going to hear many more general conference (and other) talks from Nelson and Oaks and many fewer from Uchtdorf.

  4. The answer to the question posed in your title is obviously yes. In a Church that so carefully nurtures the concept of hierarchy, yes, both were demoted. Try to call it something else, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, well . . .

  5. This is the way the church is set up, Wally. This is the Lord’s church and it is run the Lord’s way, not the way of man. Perhaps you’ve forgotten this only change through revelation, at the Lord’s direction. Maybe a little mindful prayer would be in order, instead of looking for problems where they don’t exist. If everyone personally involved is amenable to the Lord’s direction the naysayers could do well to use them as an example.

  6. Err. “Carefully nurtures the concept of hierarchy.” What a joke. The Church does the exact opposite, ie point out that hierarchy doesn’t matter. People serve out of faith, not for profit. They are not interested in power but simply doing the will of the Lord.

    Wally, a reminder: this is a forum for believing latter-day Saints who support the Church and the prophets. If your comments are going to criticize the Brethren or the Church, they will be deleted. Don’t waste your time leaving comments that nobody will ever see.

  7. The flip side to not viewing the new arrangement as a demotion of anyone is also not viewing it as a promotion of anyone. We need to respect, sustain, and follow the lead of the president of the church and his counselors while still viewing their calling as equivalent to any other (as we so often claim to) and not as an elevation of the individuals called to preside.

  8. Some people tend to forget that when President Monson died, the First Presidency was immediately dissolved, and President Eyring and Elder Uchtdorf resumed their roles in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, in their place of seniority. Until the Quorum decided unanimously how to proceed, they as a Quorum, led by President Nelson, led the Church for that short space of time. Right now, I serve in my ward as Sunday School President. Some day, I will be released from this calling, and could possibly be called as a primary teacher, or something like that. That doesn’t mean I will be demoted. My bishop will some day be released. Doesn’t mean he’s demoted. We don’t always continue to fill the same calling. The same goes for the First Presidency outside of the President of the Church.

    The 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are all ordained and sustained as prophets, seers and revelators. Each may be called to different aspects of service during their time as Apostles, but none will ever be demoted. This line of thinking is what led Sidney Rigdon (1st councilor to Joseph Smith in the First Presidency) to fall away after the Prophet’s death, when he felt that the mantle of leadership should have fallen to him, rather than the Twelve.

  9. Wally, and others like him, a reminder, as Geoff said, comments critical of the LDS Church and its leaders are not going to be tolerated. I encourage you, Wallly, to moderate your tone, and perhaps re-watch the announcement and press conference from yesterday, and listen to what Pres. Nelson and the others said.

  10. I did a bit of research into the shift in counselors. A handy reference for quick research is Grampa Bill’s GA Pages (link to First Presidency page)

    I do think it is fair to say that J. Reuben Clark did feel a bit chuffed about being “demoted” to second counselor when David O. McKay became prophet and selected Stephen L. Richards as first counselor.

    Going back to the time of Joseph Smith, none of his first or second counselors survived within the LDS faith following the martyrdom. Amasa Lyman and the prophet’s uncle, John Smith, are the only ones listed as counselors to (versus in) the First Presidency who followed Brigham Young to Utah. While non-LDS historians like to fawn on Sidney Rigdon and William Law, LDS historians understand why each of these two individuals were unsuitable (Law was excommunicated before Joseph’s death, Rigdon rejected the vote of the people and tried to set up his own variant of the Church).

    When confirmed as prophet in 1847, Brigham selected Heber C. Kimball and Willard Richards, both of whom had been trusted by Joseph Smith in Nauvoo. When Brigham died in 1877, his counselors were son John W. Young and Daniel H. Wells. Along that line, my perusal of early LDS temple records suggests that sealings were typically performed by a member of the First Presidency, though sometimes an apostle would be delegated authority to officiate in sealings. Of all counselors of or to the First Presidency listed for Brigham Young, only Albert Carrington fell from grace, though even he was rebaptized before his death.

    When John Taylor was confirmed prophet in 1880, he selected George Q. Cannon and Joseph F. Smith, both of who had served as counselors to the First Presidency under Brigham Young. John Taylor’s presidency marks the shift from seeing the First Presidency as owners of the assets of the Church (from 1841 under Joseph Smith, Jr.). This involved various financial readjustments that particularly affected Brigham Young’s family. While this could be seen as a reason John Taylor did not choose to have John W. Young continue as a counselor, the fact was that neither surviving member of the former First Presidency was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. George Q. Cannon was both a bona fide member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and brother to Taylor’s wife, Leonora. Joseph F. Smith was similarly a bona fide member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. John Taylor apparently dispensed with counselors to the First Presidency.

    Upon the death of John Taylor and confirmation of Wilford Woodruff as prophet, George Q. Cannon and Joseph F. Smith were retained as members of the First Presidency.

    When Wilford Woodruff passed and Lorenzo was confirmed as prophet, George Q. Cannon and Joseph F. Smith were again retained as members of the First Presidency. Before Lorenzo Snow died, George Q. Cannon passed, so Joseph F. Smith became First Counselor and Rutger Clawson became Second Counselor.

    When Joseph F. Smith succeeded Lorenzo Snow, Rudger Clawson did not continue in the First Presidency, possibly because he was associated with plural marriage because of the US Supreme Court case that had decided plural marriage was not a protected religious practice.

    Joseph F. Smith shocked everyone by selecting non-apostle John R. Winder (a financial genius – crucial given the Church’s precarious situation) to be his First Counselor, with Apostle Anthon H. Lund as Second Counselor. At the time of Joseph F. Smith’s death, his counselors were Apostles Lund and Penrose.

    Heber J. Grant, succeeding Joseph F. Smith, continued with the same counselors (Lund and Penrose) who had served his predecessor.

    George Albert Smith, succeeding Heber J. Grant, continued with the same counselors (J. Reuben Clark, David O. McKay) who had most recently served his predecessor.

    David O. McKay, succeeding George Albert Smith, selected Stephen L. Richards as his First Counselor and made J. Reuben Clark his second counselor. Clark took this as an indication that he did not have the full confidence of McKay, though Richards was his apostolic senior by over a decade. But upon Richards’s death, Clark again resumed the post of First Counselor. Under David O. McKay, illness and the growth of the Church created a need to expand to additional counselors, beyond the First and Second counselors.

    Joseph Fielding Smith, succeeding David O. McKay, selected senior apostle Harold B. Lee as his First Counselor and McKay’s former Second Counselor, N. Eldon Tanner, as his Second Counselor. This is strikingly similar to what President Nelson has done in his selection of counselors. Hugh B. Brown, who had been First Counselor at McKay’s death, resumed his position in the Quorum of the Twelve, passing away five years later after an extended illness.

    Harold B. Lee, succeeding Joseph Fielding Smith, continued with N. Eldon Tanner as his First Counselor and made senior Apostle Marion G. Romney his Second Counselor. If I recall correctly, it was under the administration of Harold B. Lee that the duties of the apostles were expanded to include administration for Church programs.

    Spencer W. Kimball, succeeding Harold B. Lee, continued with N. Eldon Tanner as First Counselor and Marion G. Romney as Second Counselor. It was under Spencer Kimball’s presidency that the Quorum of the Seventy was reconstituted, with the duty to assist the Quorum of the Twelve in the duties of general authorities. As Kimball’s health began to fail, Gorden B. Hinckley was called as a counselor to the First Presidency, then became a member of the First Presidency upon the death of N. Eldon Tanner. Perhaps as a nod to the effects associated with age, it was under President Kimball’s presidency that Seventies began to be called who were not to serve for life, but until age 70.

    Ezra Taft Benson, succeeding Spencer W. Kimball, allowed Marion G. Romney to return to the position of President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, making Gordon B. Hinckley his First Counselor and Thomas S. Monson his Second Counselor.

    Howard W. Hunter, succeeding Ezra Taft Benson, retained Hinckley and Monson as his counselors.

    When Gordon B. Hinckley succeeded Howard W. Hunter, he selected Thomas S. Monson as First Counselor and Apostle James E. Faust as Second Counselor (bypassing Boyd K. Packer, L. Tom Perry, and David B. Haight). Upon the death of James E. Faust, Hinckley selected Henry B. Eyring as his Second Counselor (bypassing Boyd K. Packer, L. Tom Perry, Russell M. Nelson, Dallin H. Oaks, M. Russell Ballard, Joseph B. Wirthlin, Richard G. Scott, Robert D. Hales, and Jeffrey R. Holland).

    Thomas S. Monson, succeeding Gordon B. Hinckley, retained Henry B. Eyring in the First Presidency as First Counselor, and surprised many by selecting junior apostle Dieter F. Uchtdorf as Second Counselor. At the time Dieter F. Uchtdorf was selected to serve in the First Presidency, he had only been an apostle for four years (compared to Eyring’s twelve years as an apostle before joining the First Presidency), with only David A. Bednar and Quentin L. Cook less senior than he.

    And so we arrive at today. Russell M. Nelson, succeeding Thomas S. Monson, selected the most senior apostle, Dallin H. Oaks, as First Counselor and retained Henry B. Eyring in the First Presidency as Second Counselor, though Ballard and Holland are more senior than Eyring. Where President Kimball reconstituted the Quorum of the Seventy in 1975 to assist the apostles (and added age limitations), there are now eight quorums of the Seventy assisting in proclaiming the gospel as general authorities throughout the world.

    In the past “demotion” within or from the First Presidency for reasons other than failing health may have been seen as a mark of insufficient confidence that the person’s retained presence would serve God’s needs (as in the demotion of Rudger Clawson or J. Reuben Clark’s inference from the shift that affected him). However the expanded Church and its duties makes it unnecessary to infer petty disfavor from such a change.

    As I understand things, the four most senior apostles have particular responsibility for temple work throughout the world, and this crucial ministry is now where Elder Uchtdorf serves. During the time Elder Uchtdorf was in the First Presidency, he “missed” the years when his seniority would have assigned him to the work of strengthening the Saints. I suggest that Elder Uchtdorf did more to strengthen the Saints as a member of the First Presidency than we often see (as external observers) be the case for apostles with that formal responsibility.

  11. Meg, wonderful information! However, one correction. Howard W. Hunter succeeded President Benson, and retained President Hinckley and President Monson as 1st and 2nd Councilors.

  12. As I stated on another post/thread: Anyone who sees Uchtdorf’s removal as a “demotion” has no experience in church leadership. It was Elder Oaks who said in 2003: “In the world, we refer to the up or down of promotions or reductions. But there is no up or down in Church positions. We just move around. A bishop released by proper authority and called to teach in Primary does not move down. He moves forward as he accepts his release with gratitude and fulfills the duties of a new calling—even one far less visible.”

    I have had the experience of being removed as a counselor in my branch presidency to teach Gospel Doctrine, and then years later I was recalled into the branch presidency. These were the right moves at the time. I never felt demoted or promoted. Uchtdorf absolutely doesn’t either, as evidenced by his Facebook post. I believe this actually gives him more freedom and leeway to maximize his talents in his current calling and role, especially as the church grows ever faster outside the U.S.

  13. As Meg pointed out, J. Rueben Clark was also moved from 1st counselor to 2nd counselor in the First Presidency. He had served in that capacity for about 17 years. He had been a 2nd counselor to Heber J. Grant, being put in as soon as he was called as an apostle so he never served in the Quorum of the Twelve, only in the First Presidency. The response Pres. Clark gave in the April 1951 General Conference when there was speculation as to why he was moved is appropriate here:

    “In the service of the Lord, it is not where you serve but how. In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, one takes the place to which one is duly called, which place one neither seeks nor declines.”

  14. I’m afraid that President Clark’s statement does not measure up to his own feelings or those of many other church leaders. I believe that J. Reuben Clark was quite chagrined at the change he faced. I know far too many church leaders, good men and women, who have faced major depression and despondency over an untimely or even a timely release. And yes, they sustained their replacements and never said a word in public about it. These were human beings.

    Also, some historians feel that Hugh B. Brown was likely “demoted” for pressing for the ordination of black LDS men. See Gary Bergera’s “Tensions in David O. McKay’s First Presidencies” in the Journal of Mormon History.

    I am NOT claiming Uchtdorf was “demoted” by President Nelson. Just noting that an intelligent LDS person can have concerns about how the process operated a few days ago. I hope to hear much more from Elder Uchtdorf.

  15. We should not think about Church positions with a worldly mind, and I don’t believe our current leaders do. See Mark 10:35-45.

  16. Hi Old Man,

    I agree that one can infer negative things. Whatever Elder Clark said when he was moved, his gratitude at being restored as First Counselor definitely indicates he cared about the original shift.

    However Elder Clark was not anything close to William Law, angrily (and potentially lethally) arguing that Joseph had no right to release him from the First Presidency.

    Hugh B. Brown was no Albert Carrington or Richard Lyman, even if there was truth to the suspicion that he reached beyond what was deemed orderly.

    As to disappointment, Church service requires sacrifice, as readily seen in the premature truncation of high profile careers amongst most Church leaders.

    As to the perks of service, the one recent case I know of personally where an in-law’s sister was called as President of an Auxiliary, the response was screams of dismay from their sibling, who had anticipated an expanded ability to spend time with their loved one once they were released from the General Board of that Auxiliary.

  17. The biggest noticeable difference is that we are going to hear many more general conference (and other) talks from Nelson and Oaks and many fewer from Uchtdorf.

    And that alone will diminish Uchtdorf’s influence. The fact that he concurred in this reassignment misses the point. His choices were (1) accept the reassignment and see his influence diminish, or (2) reject the reassignment and see his influence vanish altogether. Tough choice.

  18. It seems to me that President Uchtdorf gave more than his share of major talks recently, with President Monson unavailable. I would think that he and his wife have sighed a big deep sigh of relief that they can get back to the business of ministering to the flock. I agree with others, too, that Dallin H. Oaks is the perfect choice for this particular time in history, both for his legal mind & the fact that he is next in line for the presidency. I have no worries that President Uchtdorf is at all depressed or saddened. He has alot of years ahead of him. Why is it so hard for some of us to trust that the Lord knows what he’s doing in leading and guiding His church?

  19. Why is it that some people seem to think that Elder Uchtdorf has a different vision for the future of the Church than the rest of the brethren? I’ve never seen or heard anything from him to indicate that he disagrees with how the Church is governed and that he is looking for increased influence over Church policy.

    I have no doubt that the the brethren are completely unified. I truly believe that Elder Uchtdorf did not accept his new role begrudgingly, or with disappointment.

  20. Regarding President Eyring being the 2nd Counselor – what, aside from where they sit and who get’s to decide what to order for lunch, is the difference between the first and second councilor? In a bishopric, stake presidency, or young women’s class presidency, the only reason that I’ve ever seen for designating a one counselor over another is to avoid confusion on who is to preside in the absence of the president. Anybody have any insight on if there is any real difference in roles here?

  21. Last Lemming, Elder Uchtdorf will have the right influence in the places he’s called to serve and when he gives a talk in Conference his influence will also be felt. Again, he is willing to serve wherever he’s called.

  22. Nathan,
    I agree, there is NO evidence that Elder Uchtdorf is prone to go in a different direction than the other brethren. I do believe that he possesses an extraordinary spiritual gift to teach and inspire common people, young people and people on the fringes of church membership. (Did you see what he and his wife did in last week’s fireside? Amazing.). I pray for his continued success as a powerful teaching apostle.

  23. I have no doubt that he will be. No one would say that Elder Holland isn’t a powerful teaching Apostle or anything like that. I highly doubt that Elder Uchtdorf will be that much less visible than he was as a member of the First Presidency.

  24. Opposition in all things…

    Sometimes when people tell lies, it gives others the chance to emphasize the truth where they otherwise might not have bothered to document anything at all.

    Alas, some people are unable to accept information that contradicts their world view. For example, those who insist on seeing an LDS Church that is backwards and insensitive will continue to see that, despite the information available to them.

  25. I agree Meg. If someone is unhappy with anything, job, spouse, choice of dinner , they will use any excuse to stay unsatisfied. It’s too bad we’re mere mortals and can’t understand the divine thinking of our Father and just have faith when His ways don’t coincide with our worldly mindset. We have to remember to have have faith is to believe in God’s plan, not what we think is true.

    Thank you too, for your work to clarify how the First Presidency has changed in the past.

  26. Taylor: Counselors have different assignments and responsibilities, Maybe Pres. Nelson thought Pres. Eyring would enjoy or benefit from a change of assignments.

  27. Church leadership is not a contest about personal influence or an arena for it. We err greatly and introduce division in the Church if we are concerned with personal influence, or speculate about it in others, as if it were appropriate to take a worldly and secular view of influence in the Church.
    See 1 Cor. 3:4-9.

    I have no doubts about the great unity and love among our leadership.

  28. Like an organization that is administered (not lead, the Lord does that) by humans who is in what positions matters (that’s why the calls come under the direction/influence of the Lord) . The Church has changed immensely from when it was restored – both in administration and doctrine (just read some of the old conference talks if you don’t think it has).

    The Presidents of the Church are the primary drivers of those changes, but the apostles bring forth ideas for the President to consider (e.g., the example of Hugh B. Brown given by Meg Stout concerning the priesthood). Often though the biggest influence comes simply from who the President calls to be an apostle as vacancies arise. Once we hear the talks given by the two new apostles over the course of the next several years we will have a pretty good idea of what President Nelsen’s legacy might be.

  29. Sorry people, but what a waste of time this and previous post concerning the release of both counselors in the first presidency or the “demotion [?] of one of them. Any body that might think it might hurt any of them as far a their church standing never really understood how things work in this WORK. Nothing to do with testimony but plain knowledge of the priesthood order.Church offices are not run for nor part of a contest as someone pointed before here. Assignments are not given because one is cuter or smarter or sweet talk. I believe calls are made to fulfill a purpose within a given time period , which can be to serve others, to help the growth of the church, to help the person called develop his testimony or whatever, but once the need for the call diminishes, the person is released, period.
    No mystery here…
    What I do see however and as also indicated above, conferences speakers have changed. True to the trends of times, I feel talks are now “lighter”, sugar free. But as I wrote, just the way I feel. If I want to find depth, I read the Book of Mormon pr the D&C.

  30. While I agree that apostles need to be prepared to serve where called — whether in the Q12 or the First Presidency, let’s not pretend that the changes are not significant. Clearly, Dieter was a threat to Nelson’s agenda and he wanted a more like-minded apostle (Oaks) as his right-hand man.

    Dieter’s face and body language in the photos captured during the announcement and the following news conference say it all. He was clearly not happy with the change of circumstances, notwithstanding his Facebook post suggesting otherwise.

  31. Mark, that’s silly. The only person who attempts to smile all the time is President Eyring. President Nelson does it most the time when speaking, but President Eyring it’s almost all the time!

    Look at Elder Bednar sitting there. Or Elder Ballard’s slouch. None of them have their happy faces on. Why? Because if you look at a human being sitting in contemplation they usually aren’t going to look happy.

    My wife’s always telling me I look angry. I’m not… I’m probably scowling while typing this now, but not upset at all.

  32. My own personal feeling are this: People who are unhappy with President Nelson being chosen as President of the Church of his choice of councilors are projecting that unhappiness onto Elder Uchtdorf in effort to validate their feelings. People such as this are those who tend to try to council God, rather than receive council from Him. They think they know best and that invalidates decisions made by the brethren that are contrary to they’re own desires.

    I’ve seen and heard many comments from people who were hopeful that somehow Elder Uchtdorf would be selected as President of the Church instead of any of the Apostles senior to him. These people also seem to think that Elder Uchtdorf is more socially progressive and likely to make sweeping changes within the church, such as extending Priesthood ordination to women and Temple marriage to same sex couples.

    Again I say that I have absolutely no doubt that the brethren, including Elder Uchtdorf, are 100% unified. There are no bad feelings between them. There is also no reason to think that if he does ever become President of the Church, that he would do anything contrary to current Church doctrine.

  33. Pres Nelson and the other apostles are honest-to-God prophets, seers and revelators. They all are privy to knowing God’s will for the leadership, direction, and doctrine of the church. They know God’s will in regards to their callings just as every member has the ability to find out God’s will for his or her callings.

    All 13 of them (there are currently two empty slots) are exactly where the Lord wants them right now.

    Anyone who supposes that Pres Nelson didn’t get confirming revelation, if not outright directions, in regards to choosing his two counselors, either doesn’t believe he’s a true prophet, or doesn’t understand what a true prophet is.

    As I mentioned in another thread, if a dufus like me can occasionally receive personal revelation, then surely, prophets, apostles, and all others holding positions of leadership and authority are receiving revelation.

  34. President Nelson and Elder Uchtdorf may well be a threat to Mark Giles’ agenda. This is certainly the case if Mark wishes to spread doubt, discord, discontent, and disharmony among Church members by his comment on agendas. President Nelson’s agenda was clear from his recent address: to encourage Church members to keep on the covenant path and to go to every nation, kindred, tongue and people, helping to prepare the world for Christ’s Second Coming. No one among the General Authorities, and hopefully no one in Church leadership at any level, has a different agenda.

    I am surprised his comment wasn’t moderated.

  35. People suggesting/certain that Elder Uchdorf is unhappy/threathened the seniormost apostles are what we Brazilians say “looking for hair in eggshells”. It’s amuzing, to say the least.

  36. Considering the fact that Elder Uchtdorf is only five heartbeats away from being President of the Church himself, his influence will actually continue to increase, not diminish.

Comments are closed.