rpn Posted June 11, 2015 Posted June 11, 2015 Elder Perry tried to maintain his duties as a member of the faith's Quorum of the Twelve Apostles until last week, said his son, Lee Perry, who was his biographer and is the dean of BYU's Marriott School of Management."It was only on Tuesday that he realized it was too much and that he couldn't do it any more, so he did the appropriate things," Perry said. "Elder (Russell M.) Nelson was traveling, so he talked to Elder (Dallin H.) Oaks and Elder (M. Russell) Ballard and explained the situation. He had a last few instructions, but he said he had the sense his mission was done and that they should move forward without him." Deseret News http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865629792/Elder-Perrys-wildfire-cancer-shocked-family-but-son-recalls-dear-memories.html?pg=1 Should we glean from this that Elder Packer is also currently not able to function much (Elder Nelson, Oak and Ballard having then been third through fifth in the Quorum)? Or would it just be that Elder Perry was in groups over certain things, with the other ones names?
ksfisher Posted June 11, 2015 Posted June 11, 2015 Hard to tell without more info. Could be some of each.
Buckeye Posted June 11, 2015 Posted June 11, 2015 I don't think you can read anything about Elder Packer into this. However, I do find it interesting that Elder Perry felt his mission was finished at some point prior to his death, even if it was just a few days. I've heard some members express the view that an apostle could never be granted emeritus status due to age or health. Maybe that's not the case.
JAHS Posted June 11, 2015 Posted June 11, 2015 I don't think an Apostle would ever stop being an Apostle. A special witness for Jesus Christ is not going to go into an emeritus status for this calling. I think it just meant that he physically couldn't perform the duties of the quorum; still a member of the team but sitting on the bench for now. There are four councils, each of which has 3 quorum members. I believe he was on the Correlation Executive Council and probably felt that he could no longer participate in it and other activities due to health. The others could fill in for him. 3
bluebell Posted June 11, 2015 Posted June 11, 2015 As i said in another thread, Elder oaks spoke at our stake conference the saturday night that Elder Perry died, and he spoke of this very development. He too also said that Elder Perry called him, and he specifically said that he called him because Elder Nelson was out of the country and he was the next senior apostle. He did not mention Elder Packer at all. Given all of that, it does seem to imply that Elder Packer is not functioning right now or fulfilling duties pertaining to being the President of the quorum of Apostles.
JLHPROF Posted June 11, 2015 Posted June 11, 2015 Should we glean from this that Elder Packer is also currently not able to function much (Elder Nelson, Oak and Ballard having then been third through fifth in the Quorum)? Or would it just be that Elder Perry was in groups over certain things, with the other ones names? I think that's an assumption about Elder Packer. But that doesn't make it a false one.
cinepro Posted June 11, 2015 Posted June 11, 2015 I think that's an assumption about Elder Packer. But that doesn't make it a false one. Based on how he's looked the last few General Conferences, it is a safe one. 1
Garden Girl Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 Based on how he's looked the last few General Conferences, it is a safe one. Yes, I would have thought Elder Packer would be the next to go... GG 1
Kenngo1969 Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 [sigh!] We don't have anything better to do than to speculate about what's going on (or not) in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles? Seriously? https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1994/04/god-is-at-the-helm?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/sustaining-the-prophets?lang=eng 4
Robert F. Smith Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 Just because something is highly unusual does not mean that it is prohibited. That an LDS Church President or Apostle might retire seems not at all absurd. That he might remain an apostle in retirement (the same way a released bishop remains always a bishop) is also an important consideration. I see no problem, although there would need to be a good reason for such a retirement (severe Alzheimers or the like).
Kenngo1969 Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 Just because something is highly unusual does not mean that it is prohibited. That an LDS Church President or Apostle might retire seems not at all absurd. That he might remain an apostle in retirement (the same way a released bishop remains always a bishop) is also an important consideration. I see no problem, although there would need to be a good reason for such a retirement (severe Alzheimers or the like). We've never had an Apostle retire, but, in the modern era, we've had one who, although ordained, never served in the Twelve. It's an interesting case. I've never heard much about how Elder Dyer's ordination was treated by President Joseph Fielding Smith. I wonder, did he consider it a mistake, or what? I guess it's simply a matter that the newly set apart President of the Church can pick his counselors ... theoretically ... from anyone. I don't know that being ordained an Apostle is a sin qua non for serving in the First Presidency. Anyone know? Elder [Alvin R.] Dyer had been serving as an Assistant to the Twelve for nine years when President McKay called him to be a Counselor to the First Presidency, and ordained him an apostle. Upon President McKay's death, Elder Dyer resumed his position as an Assistant to the Twelve. He later served in the First Quorum of the Seventy. Source: http://www.ldsfacts.net/apostle4.htm
Kenngo1969 Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) Has anyone thought to consider that Elders Oaks and Ballard could have made that visit (and, most likely, did make it, the more I think about it) by assignment from President Packer? If that's the case, "what it means" is that this is simply a case of things working how things usually work in the Church of Jesus Christ: a file leader makes an assignment, and the person or persons assigned carry it out. I don't think one called the other and said, "Dallin? Melvin, here," or "Melvin? Dallin here. What's say we go visit Tom? I'll bet he could use some cheering up." (Maybe Elder Ballard goes by "Russell," but that might be confusing! ) Edited June 12, 2015 by Kenngo1969
rpn Posted June 12, 2015 Author Posted June 12, 2015 JAHS, Can you tell us more about the councils you mention within the Quorum? I don't know why we would be surprised that leaders who are required to die in place, have periods of time, increasing as they get older, that they cannot fully or sometimes at all function in their assignments. If you are too sick to do something, you are always excused from service in the eyes of the Lord.
Avatar4321 Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) duplicate Edited June 12, 2015 by Avatar4321
Avatar4321 Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 I wouldn't be surprised if he was preparing them for the added responsibility that comes as they move up in seniority
hope_for_things Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 Why can’t we just have emeritus status for apostles? This is crazy that they have to serve until death. There is nothing in church canon that requires service until death. Just change the policy, it would benefit everyone all around, and no members are going to lose their testimony and defect because of it. Make the change people! 1
HappyJackWagon Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 Why can’t we just have emeritus status for apostles? This is crazy that they have to serve until death. There is nothing in church canon that requires service until death. Just change the policy, it would benefit everyone all around, and no members are going to lose their testimony and defect because of it. Make the change people! Yeah, I don't see a downside to allowing emeritus status. 1
JAHS Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) JAHS, Can you tell us more about the councils you mention within the Quorum? I don't know why we would be surprised that leaders who are required to die in place, have periods of time, increasing as they get older, that they cannot fully or sometimes at all function in their assignments. If you are too sick to do something, you are always excused from service in the eyes of the Lord. I agree. See the chart (link below) I made some years ago that describes the hierarchy of authority in the Church, including responsibilities of each council within the Quorum of Twelve Apostles: http://www.mormonhaven.com/chain.jpg Edited June 12, 2015 by JAHS 1
Rivers Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 Yes, I would have thought Elder Packer would be the next to go...GGEvery conference I think it is Packer's last. But he keeps coming back.
JLHPROF Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 Why can’t we just have emeritus status for apostles? This is crazy that they have to serve until death. There is nothing in church canon that requires service until death. Just change the policy, it would benefit everyone all around, and no members are going to lose their testimony and defect because of it. Make the change people! Priesthood order. An apostle holds certain keys, and membership in that quorum is more than a Church calling. If they remain worthy they become the President and hold all the keys of revelation and priesthood on the earth. That's not something that can be removed by changing their responsibilities in the Church. No matter how sick he is or how infirmed, if President Monson died today, President Packer (assuming worthiness) receives the mantle of the Presidency and becomes God's mouthpiece on earth. He can't really say, "Yeah, I'm too sick God." Basically, you could have an emeritus President or Apostle of the Church, but you cannot have an emeritus holder of the keys. They are vested within him whether he is healthy or not. However, I AM in favor of an elderly apostle being excused from many of the Church duties. They don't need to travel the world until they drop. But they should be attending their quorum meetings if at all able. The apostleship ordination is a big deal. 3
HappyJackWagon Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 Priesthood order. An apostle holds certain keys, and membership in that quorum is more than a Church calling. If they remain worthy they become the President and hold all the keys of revelation and priesthood on the earth. That's not something that can be removed by changing their responsibilities in the Church. No matter how sick he is or how infirmed, if President Monson died today, President Packer (assuming worthiness) receives the mantle of the Presidency and becomes God's mouthpiece on earth. He can't really say, "Yeah, I'm too sick God." Basically, you could have an emeritus President or Apostle of the Church, but you cannot have an emeritus holder of the keys. They are vested within him whether he is healthy or not. However, I AM in favor of an elderly apostle being excused from many of the Church duties. They don't need to travel the world until they drop. But they should be attending their quorum meetings if at all able. The apostleship ordination is a big deal.Why not? Can you expound on the reasoning or doctrine behind this. There are many priesthood holders with keys who discontinue use of those keys. An ordained Bishop is always a Bishop even after he no longer exercises the keys of that office. Why would apostleship necessarily be different?
JLHPROF Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 Why not? Can you expound on the reasoning or doctrine behind this. There are many priesthood holders with keys who discontinue use of those keys. An ordained Bishop is always a Bishop even after he no longer exercises the keys of that office. Why would apostleship necessarily be different? This is the difference between a calling in the Church and an ordination to an office.A Stake President is a High Priest. He has the keys of a High Priest, and is called and set apart as SP which bestows certain keys. But after he is released as SP, he is still a High Priest and cannot be released as a High Priest. So it comes down to what you understand about the Apostleship.Is it a calling like a Stake President to which you can be called and released?Or is it an ordination like a High Priest which stays with you regardless of calling? My understanding says the latter. President Packer could be made emeritus as far as his Church callings go, but he is still the next senior Apostle in the priesthood on the earth. 2
bluebell Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 Has anyone thought to consider that Elders Oaks and Ballard could have made that visit (and, most likely, did make it, the more I think about it) by assignment from President Packer? If that's the case, "what it means" is that this is simply a case of things working how things usually work in the Church of Jesus Christ: a file leader makes an assignment, and the person or persons assigned carry it out. I don't think one called the other and said, "Dallin? Melvin, here," or "Melvin? Dallin here. What's say we go visit Tom? I'll bet he could use some cheering up." (Maybe Elder Ballard goes by "Russell," but that might be confusing! ) Only that Elder Oaks specifically said that he was there (that Elder Perry called him personally) because he was the next most senior apostle in town.
HappyJackWagon Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 This is the difference between a calling in the Church and an ordination to an office.A Stake President is a High Priest. He has the keys of a High Priest, and is called and set apart as SP which bestows certain keys. But after he is released as SP, he is still a High Priest and cannot be released as a High Priest. So it comes down to what you understand about the Apostleship.Is it a calling like a Stake President to which you can be called and released?Or is it an ordination like a High Priest which stays with you regardless of calling? My understanding says the latter. President Packer could be made emeritus as far as his Church callings go, but he is still the next senior Apostle in the priesthood on the earth.My example of a Bishop is a closer fit because a Bishop is ordained a Bishop, not merely set apart as a bishop. See the difference? The same would hold true for a Patriarch. Patriarch is a life calling but they often stop serving as a patriarch long before death.
Robert F. Smith Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 Why can’t we just have emeritus status for apostles? This is crazy that they have to serve until death. There is nothing in church canon that requires service until death. Just change the policy, it would benefit everyone all around, and no members are going to lose their testimony and defect because of it. Make the change people! True. The RLDS Church President retired (Wally B. Smith), and a new President chosen. Why not?
Recommended Posts