Scott Lloyd Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 (edited) The Patriarch to the Church is also designated "prophet, seer, and revelator". Once you are so designated, and receive the gift, I don't see how you can be "released" from it, or "lose" the gift. If an Apostle was declared "emeritus," would he stop being an Apostle? Would he lose the gift? I don't see how. If he transgressed maybe he would lose his gifts--or maybe he never received them in the first place through some unworthiness. But once someone becomes a "prophet, seer, and revelator," I don't see how he can suddenly stop being one just because his status has changed to "emeritus".He is no longer Patriarch to the Church. That position has been unfilled since 1979, when he was designated as "patriarch emeritus."A comparable case is that of a stake patriarch. Even though patriarch is an ordained office in the priesthood, a person so ordained can be released from the position of stake patriarch, in which case he no longer has the duties or designation that he formerly did, even though in certain limited and specified instances, he can still give patriarchal blessings. There is such a man in my high priests group. He served as a stake patriarch where he formerly lived. When he moved, he was released. Later, he moved into our ward. He himself will say that he still holds the priesthood office of patriarch, but he may not give patriarchal blessings except to members of his own extended family, not unless he is once again called to the position of stake patriarch.There is no such thing as "apostle emeritus."Again I say that "prophet, seer and revelator" is a formal designation reserved for those who are sustained as such when presented before the body of the Church in general conference. At present, that group of men is the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve and no one else.It's true that one can exercise spiritual gifts, including the gift of prophecy, but that's not the same thing as having that formal designation and being thus presented for sustaining by the body of the Church. Edited July 30, 2012 by Scott Lloyd
zerinus Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 He is no longer Patriarch to the Church. That position has been unfilled since 1979, when he was designated as "patriarch emeritus."There is no such thing as "apostle emeritus."In that case there shouldn’t be any “patriarch emeritus” either. Can you tell me what is the qualitative difference between the two callings that one can have an “emeritus” status, but the other can’t? I can’t see what the difference could be.Again I say that "prophet, seer and revelator" is a formal designation reserved for those who are sustained as such when presented before the body of the Church in general conference. At present, that group of men is the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve and no one else.Okay, I can accept that; but I have a question: Did Elder Eldred G. Smith receive the gift of seership or didn’t he? Did he ever become a true seer, or was he just “called” a seer, but never completely received the gift, for whatever reason—his faith was not up to standard, or any other reason? If he did receive the gift, and became a true seer, how did he lose the gift just because he was made “emeritus”? Once a seer always a seer. How can someone “lose” the gift, of which he is still worthy, merely through a change of status?It's true that one can exercise spiritual gifts, including the gift of prophecy, but that's not the same thing as having that formal designation and being thus presented for sustaining by the body of the Church.I can see your point; but that raises the questions of: (1) Why was he declared “emeritus” in the first place? Why didn’t he remain in that office to the end of his life, as the Apostles and members of the First Presidency are? (2) Did he receive the gift of seership when he was appointed Patriarch, or did he never qualify to receive it, perhaps because his faith wasn’t up to standard? And (3) Did he stop being a seer and revelator as a consequence of the change in his status—assuming that he was one before the change?I have more questions to ask depending on how you answer those questions.
Recommended Posts