Nofear Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 Of course not. But since we've learned the danger of ascribing policies to "revelation" when that might not be the case, I thought I would point it out nevertheless. Whether by revelation or natural evolution of Church dynamics, I confess being quite comfortable with the system. Not everybody is. There are rumors and gossip about signs of senility in Pres. Monson going around the interwebs. Given such, such purveyors of gossip (which may be true, /shrug) openly question the succession-after-death mechanism and wonder if a mechanism for resignation should be put in place.For my part, knowing God's omniscience and awareness of our mortal capabilities and lifespan, I am confident that when the mind/body break down too much for his servant to be an effective instrument, a replacement prophet is forthcoming.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 Of course not. But since we've learned the danger of ascribing policies to "revelation" when that might not be the case, I thought I would point it out nevertheless.I think there's a far more imminent danger of dismissing or ignoring inspired policies because one wrongly concludes that they are not inspired. In fact, I believe that happens all too often.
stemelbow Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 Whether by revelation or natural evolution of Church dynamics, I confess being quite comfortable with the system. Not everybody is. There are rumors and gossip about signs of senility in Pres. Monson going around the interwebs. Given such, such purveyors of gossip (which may be true, /shrug) openly question the succession-after-death mechanism and wonder if a mechanism for resignation should be put in place. For my part, knowing God's omniscience and awareness of our mortal capabilities and lifespan, I am confident that when the mind/body break down too much for his servant to be an effective instrument, a replacement prophet is forthcoming. Sure. And if you take what another poster indicated, it's not like the actual president needs to do much--just sit their and hold the keys works for now. I guess God can give any of the old 15 revelation that we may or may not need to hear, after all.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 Sure. And if you take what another poster indicated, it's not like the actual president needs to do much--just sit their and hold the keys works for now. I guess God can give any of the old 15 revelation that we may or may not need to hear, after all.What's the point in calling them "the old 15"?
stemelbow Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 I think there's a far more imminent danger of dismissing or ignoring inspired policies because one wrongly concludes that they are not inspired. In fact, I believe that happens all too often. How is that a danger? It seems like what God would expect. People deciding for themselves whether something is inspired and worth following or not. If we humans make a mistake, on an individual basis, because of this practice, I don't know it is even a danger at all, save perhaps for that individual. But even then repenting of it is easy, thanks to Jesus. The bigger problem would have to be stating revelation when revelation was not.
stemelbow Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 What's the point in calling them "the old 15"? To specify who I'm talking about. I could have said the Quorum of the 12 and First Presidency, but I saved myself the effort. No offense intended.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 To specify who I'm talking about. I could have said the Quorum of the 12 and First Presidency, but I saved myself the effort. No offense intended.It's just that some of them are relatively young men.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 How is that a danger?Seriously? You don't see the peril in dismissing or ignoring divinely inspired words and instruction?
Rain Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 I'm guessing....Kimball?Or Woodruff?Oops. Sorry. Hunter.
cinepro Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 (edited) Whether by revelation or natural evolution of Church dynamics, I confess being quite comfortable with the system. Not everybody is. There are rumors and gossip about signs of senility in Pres. Monson going around the interwebs. Given such, such purveyors of gossip (which may be true, /shrug) openly question the succession-after-death mechanism and wonder if a mechanism for resignation should be put in place. For my part, knowing God's omniscience and awareness of our mortal capabilities and lifespan, I am confident that when the mind/body break down too much for his servant to be an effective instrument, a replacement prophet is forthcoming. I would recommend that anyone who has such concerns go and read Ed Kimball's bio of his father, Spencer W. Kimball. Especially the last 1/4 of the book that discusses President Kimball's health problems in the last few years of his life. It might not make them feel better about President Monson, but it will show that we've probably had much worse with past Prophets' health in their final years. Here's how the chapter on this period of his life opens: The years 1974 through 1979 were Spencer's spring and summer as President, with freshness, warmth and energy, and early harvest. A short fall of gleaning followed surgeries for intracranial bleeding in 1979. After 1981, only winter awaited him. ------------------------------------------------------- By mid-1982, President Kimball was too weak to appear much in public, attend meetings, or go to his office more than sporadically. He had no choice but to accept a passive role. ------------------------------------------------------ In one temple meeting, President Hinckley asked Spencer whether he had anything he wanted to say. "I'd like to be released", was his poignant answer. But there was no precedent for such action. "Lengthen Your Stride" Chapter 38 (Original Manuscript Version) President Kimball didn't pass away until November 1985, and for those last years he made very few public appearances (with many different rumors, both true and untrue, about his health spreading among Church members). Edited September 18, 2014 by cinepro 1
VideoGameJunkie Posted September 18, 2014 Author Posted September 18, 2014 What would the church do if a prophet got dementia or something?
cinepro Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 (edited) What would the church do if a prophet got dementia or something? Nothing. He's still the prophet, but any responsibilities or duties he can't perform are taken over by his counselors (or, in the case when Presidents Kimball, Romney and Tanner were all incapacitated and President Hinckley was the only functioning counselor, "counselor"). Edited September 18, 2014 by cinepro 1
JLHPROF Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 Nothing. He's still the prophet, but any responsibilities or duties he can't perform are taken over by his counselors. I also think the presumption would be there that if God needed the prophet to perform an act or reveal a truth DESPITE dementia that God would provide sufficient clarity to do so.
Rivers Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 (edited) Uchdorf may not be the current president but with Pres. Monson becoming more old and feeble, he and Pres. Eyeing are probably running much of the show right now. Edited September 19, 2014 by Rivers
cinepro Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 I also think the presumption would be there that if God needed the prophet to perform an act or reveal a truth DESPITE dementia that God would provide sufficient clarity to do so. I would agree that it's a presumption. There's also this interesting story from President Kimball's later years. Elders Maxwell and Nelson were scheduled to be presented and sustained by the Church in the first session of the April 1984 Conference. [President Kimball] attended three of the four conference sessions, but not the first one. He had great difficulty raising his hand, even to his face, and it was decided that his failure to raise his hand in the sustaining vote might be misinterpreted. When the decision was explained to him, Spencer acquiesced but wept. Lengthen Your Stride, Working Draft, Chapter 38 Page 19
VideoGameJunkie Posted September 18, 2014 Author Posted September 18, 2014 It was shocking when the pope of the catholic church stepped down. I know we'll never see a prophet step down.
mormonnewb Posted September 19, 2014 Posted September 19, 2014 Nothing. He's still the prophet, but any responsibilities or duties he can't perform are taken over by his counselors (or, in the case when Presidents Kimball, Romney and Tanner were all incapacitated and President Hinckley was the only functioning counselor, "counselor").From what I've read, that certainly seemed to be the case during the Hinckley era. He seemed to be the de facto prophet from Kimball on. But was that some well-defined policy or simply the result of the esteem in which he was held among the Brethren? If the latter, then it's possible that we could have a free-for-all in the future when (not if) the Prophet becomes incapacitated. In fact, I've heard some theories that the KK excommunication might not have been something sanctioned by the Brethren as a whole, but rather an action orchestrated by one or two "rogue" apostles.It seems like a far-fetched theory to me, but I've seen similar things happen in other organizations when the leader is incapacitated. Now, I understand that many of you believe that HF will use His heavenly veto power to kill off wayward or incapacitated leaders, but that doesn't square well with my (likely warped) view of a loving God.
Calm Posted September 19, 2014 Posted September 19, 2014 In fact, I've heard some theories that the KK excommunication might not have been something sanctioned by the Brethren as a whole, but rather an action orchestrated by one or two "rogue" apostles. Unlikely. https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/june-first-presidency-statement?lang=eng
mormonnewb Posted September 19, 2014 Posted September 19, 2014 Unlikely. https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/june-first-presidency-statement?lang=eng It seems like a far-fetched theory to me, but I've seen similar things happen in other organizations when the leader is incapacitated. Now, I understand that many of you believe that HF will use His heavenly veto power to kill off wayward or incapacitated leaders, but that doesn't square well with my (likely warped) view of a loving God.
ksfisher Posted September 19, 2014 Posted September 19, 2014 Unlikely. https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/june-first-presidency-statement?lang=engProbably even less than unlikely.
DBMormon Posted September 19, 2014 Posted September 19, 2014 8 of the 15 are born in August-September, 5 in August. 1 in Oct, 2 in Nov, and 1 in Dec. Erying, Bednar and Christofferson are all oddballs.next your going to tell me they are all related to the illuminatti
Boanerges Posted September 19, 2014 Posted September 19, 2014 From what I've read, that certainly seemed to be the case during the Hinckley era. He seemed to be the de facto prophet from Kimball on. But was that some well-defined policy or simply the result of the esteem in which he was held among the Brethren? If the latter, then it's possible that we could have a free-for-all in the future when (not if) the Prophet becomes incapacitated. In fact, I've heard some theories that the KK excommunication might not have been something sanctioned by the Brethren as a whole, but rather an action orchestrated by one or two "rogue" apostles.It seems like a far-fetched theory to me, but I've seen similar things happen in other organizations when the leader is incapacitated. Now, I understand that many of you believe that HF will use His heavenly veto power to kill off wayward or incapacitated leaders, but that doesn't square well with my (likely warped) view of a loving God. It's pretty simple, actually. When he was called as the third counselor to Kimball, Romney and Tanner were also in very poor health. Hinckley was the only one who was able to do the leg work. He remained the most vigorous one as he remained in the first presidency to the succeeding presidents until it was his turn to sit in the big chair. The party line is that Hinckley never made any decisions without the approval of the rest of the first presidency, but it was very obvious in the case of Kimball and Benson that they were quite mentally incapacitated. It is of note, however, there were no major policy changes during those times when we all knew they incapacitated.
DBMormon Posted September 19, 2014 Posted September 19, 2014 (edited) It's pretty simple, actually. When he was called as the third counselor to Kimball, Romney and Tanner were also in very poor health. Hinckley was the only one who was able to do the leg work. He remained the most vigorous one as he remained in the first presidency to the succeeding presidents until it was his turn to sit in the big chair. The party line is that Hinckley never made any decisions without the approval of the rest of the first presidency, but it was very obvious in the case of Kimball and Benson that they were quite mentally incapacitated. It is of note, however, there were no major policy changes during those times when we all knew they incapacitated.We didn't all know. The Church did its best to make them look as if they were functioning in their prophetic roles Edited September 19, 2014 by DBMormon
VideoGameJunkie Posted September 19, 2014 Author Posted September 19, 2014 It would be cool if one of the posters on this message board wind up being a GA one day.
JLHPROF Posted September 19, 2014 Posted September 19, 2014 It would be cool if one of the posters on this message board wind up being a GA one day. That seriously depends on which poster. (I can 100% guarantee it won't be me).
Recommended Posts