How would LDS members handle an apostolic schism or apostasy in the present day?

[rameumptom]

I am sure that is exactly what the priests of King Noah said about that crazy apostate Alma.

The problem with these examples is that the priests were not prophets. Jerusalem fell into apostasy, because the priests of the temple were political, rather than religious. They were stoning prophets, rather than listening to them - which was the pattern established since Moses.

The priests were NOT the revelatory arm of the gospel, particularly true after the Urim and Thummim was lost. Nor did they hold the Melchizedek Priesthood.

As for the priests of Noah, he had fired the true priests and selected his own that were engaged in adultery and other sinful practices contrary the commandments they were supposed to uphold.

Often in the past, the society has fallen into apostasy. However, the prophets and apostles have not. During the times of apostasy among the Nephites after their 200 years of peace, the prophets and apostles were all straight forward, even when the vast majority of people became evil.

So, the answer is to determine through spiritual means, who the real prophets and apostles are. Then, follow them, all the while praying and seeking a confirming answer from God.

[Duncan]

In my opinion, this is the best way to go - Simply follow the prophet and the majority of the living apostles; to be honest, not a lot else matters. The goofy stuff that occurs in the wards, stakes and I suppose once in a while with the G.A.s, well that

[rameumptom]

I guess my only question that remains is, if we were just left with seventy, do they have keys to lead the church?

Yes. They hold the Melchizedek Priesthood and as a quorum they hold keys equal to the First Presidency and 12.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorum_of_the_Twelve_Apostles_%28LDS_Church%29

Interestingly, D&C 107 tells us that the high councils of the stakes also hold equal keys. So, it is possible that if the 70 were to also all die, that the stake presidencies and high councils of the Church could gather and reestablish the First Presidency.

[cinepro]

I'm pretty confident that the selection process for the Apostles is suitably designed to ensure that most (if not all) of them are very, very unlikely to publicly disagree with the Prophet about anything.

Several years ago, a crazy guy in the San Fransisco Bay Area was arrested and part of the charges involved a plot he had to kill the Prophet and Apostles. Something like that would be more likely (but still very unlikely) than internal dissension.

[bookofmormontruth]

I'm pretty confident that the selection process for the Apostles is suitably designed to ensure that most (if not all) of them are very, very unlikely to publicly disagree with the Prophet about anything.

Several years ago, a crazy guy in the San Fransisco Bay Area was arrested and part of the charges involved a plot he had to kill the Prophet and Apostles. Something like that would be more likely (but still very unlikely) than internal dissension.

Plots like that happened weekly with Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. Hence Porter Rockwell.

But I agree though, it seems impossible to see any Prophets to fall away for whatever reason. It isn't part of the program and it is comforting to know.

[cinepro]

But I agree though, it seems impossible to see any Prophets to fall away for whatever reason. It isn't part of the program and it is comforting to know.

I didn't say that "Prophets" (meaning Apostles as well) wouldn't fall away. While it hasn't happened often in the past 100 years, it has happened. The key point is that such events have clearly been based on actions and beliefs of the Apostle who is subsequently disciplined. There isn't a "splinter" effect because everyone (including the Apostle) acknowledges the situation.

What I was referring to was an Apostle (or Apostles) actually publicly disagreeing with the Prophet over a mater of policy or doctrine. While there may be private disagreements between the Apostles and the Prophet, the chances of these private disagreements going public are nil. They will lie quietly until future biographers and historians share them with us long after the disagreeing parties have expired.

[bookofmormontruth]

I didn't say that "Prophets" (meaning Apostles as well) wouldn't fall away. While it hasn't happened often in the past 100 years, it has happened. The key point is that such events have clearly been based on actions and beliefs of the Apostle who is subsequently disciplined. There isn't a "splinter" effect because everyone (including the Apostle) acknowledges the situation.

What I was referring to was an Apostle (or Apostles) actually publicly disagreeing with the Prophet over a mater of policy or doctrine. While there may be private disagreements between the Apostles and the Prophet, the chances of these private disagreements going public are nil. They will lie quietly until future biographers and historians share them with us long after the disagreeing parties have expired.

Okay, so why do you believe that it is possible for a Prophet to fall away and lead the Church astray? I understand it has happened before, but am I living in a false security that we have been promised it will never happen again?

[bookofmormontruth]

Double Post

[erichard]

... Do they have keys at all to reorganize?

I always have believed what President Young said about this:

[Stargazer]

While I was on my mission I had an odd dreamlet in which I was in a kind of elegant restaurant with round tables. It was divided down the middle by one of those soft rope chains like they sometimes used in bank lines. I was seated at a table near the rope, and on the other side sitting at a similar table was another man whom I recognized as the mission president of the mission in which I had lived while my family was living temporarily in England. I did not speak to him, but I guess he saw I was curious as to the divided room for he said to me: "We are orthodox Mormons." With that emphasis.

This disturbed me because of the implication of schism, but I wasn't too sure whether the preference should be orthodox or heterodox. I was somewhat bemused years later when this man was called into the 1st Quorum of the Seventy (he's emeritus now). But I have had a considerable length of time to consider all this, taking that dream as a point of information for something that could happen in the future, and I determined in my mind that if something like that were to happen I have some confidence that I would be able to see the correct path.

[Messenger]

Wow, awesome story!

And that was the watered down version!