Conflict in the Quorum of 12

[CA Steve]

Not with that, but apparently BH Roberts, James E Talmadge, and Joseph Fielding Smith debated regarding the existence of preAdmite races in the context of evolution.

I would be interested in reading more about this. Do you have any more information on it?

[Damien the Leper]

Have you figured out why this is important to you? Do you like conflict in other areas of your life? Do you find it thrilling?

The Q of 12 are human beings and they have a right to disagree with each other. Who cares?

I decided that based on the conversation with my friend that I would do research for a paper for my Religion in America class. I want write about the plagues of lobbying, politicking, bureaucracy affect modern religious institutions. LDS will not only be discussed but also Assemblies of God, RCC, and UPCI.

Your antagonism as to my motives is irrelevent and unneeded.

[Eric Blob]

I wouldn't be surprised that GAs may disagree on certain things. It's just natural, and if anything, it's a good thing. I don't know how many GAs there are altogether (about 90-100?), but it's good that all these people have a say, rather than like 3 people.

Also, I think the church leaders have learnt from the mistakes made in Brigham Young's day. They've learnt not to speak in public about their opinions and theories of things to do with church doctrine and principles, so whilst it may seem that all our General Authorities agree on everything, I think it's more that they keep the things they may disagree about to themselves. They don't make them a big issue, because, to be frank, they're not.

[Damien the Leper]

It appears to be Moses Thatcher whom is being spoken of.

From Wikipedia:

At the April 1896 General Conference of the church, Thatcher was dropped from the Quorum of the Twelve in consequence of his not being "in harmony" with the other leaders of the church in regards to a proposed policy called "The Political Rule of the Church" and commonly referred to as "the political Manifesto." This policy would have required LDS Church officials to obtain approval from their priesthood superiors in the church prior to taking on "any position, political or otherwise." This statement was signed by all the apostles at the time except Thatcher, who refused on grounds of conscience, citing the church's long-standing position on neutrality in political matters. (Apostle Anthon Lund also did not sign the document due to his absence while presiding over the church's European Mission.)[4]

However, Thatcher was not excommunicated from the church and held the priesthood office of Apostle until his death. Thatcher remained supportive of the church after being removed from the Quorum, testifying on many occasions of the divinity of the work and the divinity of the calling of its leaders. Matthias F. Cowley was called to replace Thatcher in the Quorum of the Twelve.

[Kiviuq]

I think many members would like to believe that the top 12 Apostles are so in tune with the Spirit that God could send them important messages regarding the correct direction of the Church. Pleading for their human fallibility and acknowledgement of their personal opinions, at a time when direct revelation is expected, seems to run contrary to that expectation. Yes, the Apostles never claimed to be perfect, but they would have us believe that they are entitled to receive revelation concerning the direction of the Church. And if they indeed all received revelation on a subject then there could be no disagreement.

[oremites]

And if they indeed all received revelation on a subject then there could be no disagreement.

That isn't how revelation works.

D&C 9:7 Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.

8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind ...

There is work required to get revelation and part of it is studying the issue. Church leaders don't start by getting the revelation then discussing it. They discuss the issues first which can involve disagreements.

[Kiviuq]

That isn't how revelation works.

There is work required to get revelation and part of it is studying the issue.

I understand the prerequisites to receive revelation. My comment was assuming that the required work you described had already been done. I think by definition, if they all received revelation then there could be no disagreement.

[mfbukowski]

The attached is an online link to the journal entries of Wilford Woodruff. Jump to January 27, 1860.

Woodruff Journals

I am not sure, but what is described is close to the account in his journal of the debate over Orsen Pratt's The Seer and what he said about God. Pratt wasn't seperated from the quorum, but obviously bad feelings came and went as you read through WW's remarks during this period.

Good find and great read- and it just shows what I said earlier- these are very human men who disagree from time to time and speak their minds on issues, but are ultimately guided by revelation.

On a personal note, I often hear from you and others that my beliefs are not doctrinal-- of course I disagree with that, but if anyone in authority ever told me that, I would do as Orson Pratt did in this account and correct my views post haste.

[mfbukowski]

Your antagonism as to my motives is irrelevent and unneeded.

You are right and I apologize. I often let my mouth get the best of me, and I am working on it. It is a definite flaw.

[mfbukowski]

I understand the prerequisites to receive revelation. My comment was assuming that the required work you described had already been done. I think by definition, if they all received revelation then there could be no disagreement.

At the end, there typically IS no disagreement.

The point is, that while there is a disagreement, the issue is still under "study", when it is resolved and agreement is achieved it is because each has finally felt the influence of the spirit about which of the choices is the correct one.

Having participated in disciplinary councils and discussions about who is to be called to what position, I have seen this many times- there may be differing opinions on the right course at first but through discussion and the influence of the spirit, the correct answer always becomes known.

[Fifth Columnist]

That isn't how revelation works.

D&C 9:7 Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.

8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind ...

There is work required to get revelation and part of it is studying the issue. Church leaders don't start by getting the revelation then discussing it. They discuss the issues first which can involve disagreements.

I think D&C 9 is specific to translating the BOM. JS and OC had to study the story out in their minds, i.e., come up with story in their minds, then ask God whether what they came up with was the "translation." D&C 9 may have some relevance to other revelatory experiences, but that is secondary.

[BCSpace]

Not with that, but apparently BH Roberts, James E Talmadge, and Joseph Fielding Smith debated regarding the existence of preAdmite races in the context of evolution.

I would be interested in reading more about this. Do you have any more information on it?

Yes. One might start here: Mormonism and evolution

And here is another interesting tidbit: 1931 Statement of the First Presidency

[cinepro]

I would be interested in reading more about this. Do you have any more information on it?

You should read up on the history of BH Roberts' book "The Way, The Truth, and the Life". It was never published in his lifetime, mainly because of his views on pre-Adamites and God's progression, if I understand correctly.

It would be interesting to see if any modern day apostles could get a pro-pre-Adamite theory published.

[CA Steve]

Cinepro & BC

Thanks!!

[Damien the Leper]

You are right and I apologize. I often let my mouth get the best of me, and I am working on it. It is a definite flaw.

Accepted. I am far from flawless myself and must remember Maynard James Keanan's famous lyrics: "Foot in mouth and head up *******". I try to apply this to myself but don't require of other the same extreme measure.

[Damien the Leper]

From Out of the Bishop's Closet:

But there was another problem. My research uncovered some facts of life that I was not ready to see. Reading the minutes of meetings held by the First Presidencies, the Twelve Apostles and the Presiding Bishoprics of the church revealed much of a side of these leaders to me that I'd never acknowledged before.

These men were very human. They fought terrible battles with one another in these council meetings over issues they had felt very strongly about. I, somehow, hadn't ever imagined that Apostles--holy men--ever argued in their council meetings. I had carried the misconception that all was "revelation" for them. It was quite a discovery,for me to see them in these minutesas human beings laboring with one anotherin a political fashion in order to get each other to understand their individual opinions and views. I hadn't realized it, but I was experiencing somewhat of a spiritual culture shock...

President Tanner stood and began the proposals, the business portion of the conference. There was the normal sustaining of the General Authorities and officers of the Church. Then he announced:

It is proposed that we sustain certain 'Excerpts From Three Addresses by President Wilford Woodruff Regarding the Manifesto' and accept them as part of the Doctrine and Covenants and, therefore, binding upon the membership of the Church. All in favor, may manifest it by the raise of the right hand.

I sat there stunned [due to the voting]. I couldn't help but think about Moses Thatcher, an Apostle during the Wilford Woodruff was President of the Church. He had been out of union with the rest of the Brethren. In fact, serious divisions existed among the The Twelve and others of the leadership of the Church on many questions of doctrine and procedure. This division was so deep that Heber J. Grant recorded in his journal that he was ashamed of his own actions during that period. Wilford Woodruff also lamented in his journal over the extreme disunity that then existed in his quorum. The Twelve were evenly divided on nearly every issue on which they tried to make a decision.

During the time I'd spent pouring over microfilms and other materials in the Church archives, I'd seen that many of the leaders of the Church who'd worked with Wilford Woodruff had been strongly opposed to this particular statement of his--this statement that our 1980 Church had just accepted as scripture. Many even had felt that he was starting to lead the Church astray because of his implied infallibility. In order to get a unanimous vote from the Council of the Twelve, Wilford Woodruff finally had to have Moses Thatcher "dropped" from his position in the Quorum.

From the Chapter Into the Church Archives (Feliz, 85-87)

Just to stop it before it starts, there is no use for the critics of Antonio Feliz to point out his 'deviant' lifestyle as a reason to question his integrity and authorship for the book.

[thatjimguy]

Have you figured out why this is important to you? Do you like conflict in other areas of your life? Do you find it thrilling?

The Q of 12 are human beings and they have a right to disagree with each other. Who cares?

It is an important question because it gives a glimpse on how things actually work.

As in most religions, there is a tendency to think (because possibly of TV and sanitized promotional material) that their leaders are so influenced by God and with the spirit that they would never be wrong. Knowing that the Apostles debate is rather interesting because I would have first thought that if they are all with the spirit, wouldn't they all be on the same page? The truth is no.

Some revelations come to some and not to others or at least the same kind of revelations. Brigham Young once said he was frustrated that he did not have the sweeping revelations that Joseph did. However, he did have his own that fit his style of knowledge.

In the end, they are a group of men trying their best to help direct the church. I am rather sure it does get rather political to a point in there. I find the imperfection comforting.

But I think it's a great question to have asked. Because I asked it myself when I was investigating.

[mfbukowski]

It is an important question because it gives a glimpse on how things actually work.

As in most religions, there is a tendency to think (because possibly of TV and sanitized promotional material) that their leaders are so influenced by God and with the spirit that they would never be wrong. Knowing that the Apostles debate is rather interesting because I would have first thought that if they are all with the spirit, wouldn't they all be on the same page? The truth is no.

Some revelations come to some and not to others or at least the same kind of revelations. Brigham Young once said he was frustrated that he did not have the sweeping revelations that Joseph did. However, he did have his own that fit his style of knowledge.

In the end, they are a group of men trying their best to help direct the church. I am rather sure it does get rather political to a point in there. I find the imperfection comforting.

But I think it's a great question to have asked. Because I asked it myself when I was investigating.

What is important to know is that these Brethren follow their consciences and each has his own opinion. Those who accuse us of being mindless robot worshippers of Joseph Smith could not be farther from the truth.

That is also I think an answer to those here and on other boards who hit apologists with the constant mantra "but you don't believe that" and make distinctions between internet Mormons and chapel Mormons and this type and that type- it is all nonsense.

We are for the most part, very autonomous and opinionated people as this board shows. The entire "problem" of the ambiguity of defining doctrine points to this fact as well. We are people who will speak our minds- yes we agree on what is important for salvation- but the rest is open to each individual's interpretation.

The church was started based on personal revelation and the idea that anyone could "ask God" for the truth- and we haven't stopped yet! Personal revelation at once shows how unified we are- it is amazing that so many of us affirm parallel conclusions derived from personal revelation- and also that God leads us individually on the personal path which is best for us.

[Damien the Leper]

The church was started based on personal revelation and the idea that anyone could "ask God" for the truth- and we haven't stopped yet! Personal revelation at once shows how unified we are- it is amazing that so many of us affirm parallel conclusions derived from personal revelation- and also that God leads us individually on the personal path which is best for us.

What I see conflicting in this is that not all members, from many whom I have spoken with, have not always received a confirmation on things said by the General Authorities. This should not automatically mean that they are not in the right place spiritually. Perhaps the Lord chooses not to confirm for all church members the 'rightness' or 'truthfulness' of what an authority states.

[mfbukowski]

What I see conflicting in this is that not all members, from many whom I have spoken with, have not always received a confirmation on things said by the General Authorities. This should not automatically mean that they are not in the right place spiritually. Perhaps the Lord chooses not to confirm for all church members the 'rightness' or 'truthfulness' of what an authority states.

I take that as a given, and that is why we don't take a lot of what was said on certain matters by Brigham Young and others, at face value.

It is not that it is necessarily "wrong" it is just that it was one person's opinion at a certain time and place. The usual definition of doctrine is that it comes from official church sources published or re-published by the church. Frankly, since we have an open canon which is adjustable to changing times as needed, I tend to take doctrine to consist of the Standard Works only, and official statements published by the first presidency like the Proclamation on the Family, but others disagree with me. That is their right.

[Damien the Leper]

I take that as a given, and that is why we don't take a lot of what was said on certain matters by Brigham Young and others, at face value.

It is not that it is necessarily "wrong" it is just that it was one person's opinion at a certain time and place. The usual definition of doctrine is that it comes from official church sources published or re-published by the church. Frankly, since we have an open canon which is adjustable to changing times as needed, I tend to take doctrine to consist of the Standard Works only, and official statements published by the first presidency like the Proclamation on the Family, but others disagree with me. That is their right.

Agreed. However, the Official Declarations and the Proclamation seem to hold more of a political birthing as opposed to a revelatory experience. IMO, of course.

[mrmendoza]

Shortly after joining the Church in 1974 I read the Biography of Spencer W Kimbell, and I was mildly surprised to find that shortly after he became President of the 12, that he was surprised to find that the other members of the 12 did not feel as he did about the role of Native Americans in the Church. Having read the story of Neil Maxwell just a couple of years ago I got the impression that he too was a little surprised at how often the different members of the 12 didn't know what the others were doing or thinking! While I'd heard about the challanges that Heber J Grant gave to WW about assuming the presidency of the Church, I like many (Maybe most!) others assumed, that all of those kind of problems would have been solved in our more modern age. But in studying throughout Church history I've come to see that most of the time in the past, the various members of the Q of 12 were off in other parts of the world or country with specific assignments, and just didn't get together enough to always be aware of what each other was doing. In reading about Neil Maxwell, I got the opinion that the Church leadership, is trying to rectify that situation. I think that is one of the reasons why we now get stake conferences "visited" by General Authorities via sattilite! That keeps them closer to headquarters and in more constant direct contact with each other!

Mike

[Sara59]

Would you call it a conflict when Dallin Oakes said of Boyd K. Packer, "You can't stage manage a grizzly bear."

[Eric Blob]

Shortly after joining the Church in 1974 I read the Biography of Spencer W Kimbell, and I was mildly surprised to find that shortly after he became President of the 12, that he was surprised to find that the other members of the 12 did not feel as he did about the role of Native Americans in the Church. Having read the story of Neil Maxwell just a couple of years ago I got the impression that he too was a little surprised at how often the different members of the 12 didn't know what the others were doing or thinking! While I'd heard about the challanges that Heber J Grant gave to WW about assuming the presidency of the Church, I like many (Maybe most!) others assumed, that all of those kind of problems would have been solved in our more modern age. But in studying throughout Church history I've come to see that most of the time in the past, the various members of the Q of 12 were off in other parts of the world or country with specific assignments, and just didn't get together enough to always be aware of what each other was doing. In reading about Neil Maxwell, I got the opinion that the Church leadership, is trying to rectify that situation. I think that is one of the reasons why we now get stake conferences "visited" by General Authorities via sattilite! That keeps them closer to headquarters and in more constant direct contact with each other!

Mike

That's interesting. General Authorities now get passed a weekly timetable via e-mail, where they fill in what they're doing in a certain week, and where they'll be, so now most of the GAs know where the other GAs will be, and what they're doing, which is good. I don't know how long this has been happening though. Perhaps it's one of those measures they're taking to keep everything more organized.

With regards to Stake Conferences, while there's not usually any General Authorities there, I usually have at least one of the Temple President, the Mission President, or an Area Seventy attend mine, so I guess they can report to the General Authorities too, which is more sensible.

Also, did Dallin H. Oaks really say that? Is that where all the Packer faction and Oaks faction stuff came from.

[katherine the great]

My favorite "conflict in the quorum" is the story told in Matthew, Mark, and Luke about the twelve debating which one of them was the greatest! Our apostles probably butt heads mildly on certain topics as they are all thinking individuals, but I doubt they do so on that issue!