What Does This News Mean?

[Avatar4321]

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.

I'm not sure that's necessarily true.

In theory, aged apostles could be released from the quorum of the Twelve. We've had apostles in the past who were removed and returned to the quorum. We've also had apostles who never served in the quorum.

It's only seniority in the quorum that matters. If it were otherwise, we may not have had Joseph F Smith as a prophet.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Then too, the last Patriarch of the Church, Eldred G. Smith, was retired and made emeritus in 1979 by the President of the Church, and he was not replaced.  He died in 2013.

[hope_for_things]

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.

 

I realize that this is the modern interpretation, but I’m not aware of any explicit scriptural support for this tradition.  The history shows that from the time of the succession crisis, and continuing through the next few presidencies, there have been differing options about how to operate on these matters.  Just because we’ve had a pretty stable practice for the past 100 years, doesn’t mean this is God revealed doctrine.  In my opinion this is just a policy and can be changed without the need for ground breaking revelation.  

[mormonnewb]

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.

 

For the sake of argument, what if Pres. Packer did something that made him unworthy?  Could he be replaced as an apostle or would the keys automatically fall to him upon Monson's death (assuming, of course, that Pres. Packer outlived Monson)?  I suspect that once an apostle has his ordination cancelled by unworthiness than whatever authority that would otherwise falls to him ceases.  Why can't incapacity work in the same way?  If an apostle is unable to serve his calling (for any reason), then he could be relieved of duty.

 

As I see it, the current process of Last Prophet Standing is not only administratively inefficient, but it can begin to erode confidence in the apostles in general.  At present, we seem to be down to 11 fully-functioning apostles.  This either means that the remaining 11 are working about 33% harder than they normal work or, more likely, the Church's administrative staff or GAs are picking up the slack.  And, as a general demographic pattern, our apostles are only getting harder.  I can easily conceive of a point at which HALF of the apostles are incapacitated in some sense.  At that point, the Church will be either operating at half-apostolic anointing OR it will be running along just fine, leading one to the conclusion that prophets aren't all that necessary.  After all, if we can operate just fine with 8 prophets (despite an ever-growing membership), then perhaps they aren't all that important to the operation of the Church.

 

And I'm not even factoring in the plain humanity of allowing these faithful servants rest at the end of a long journey.

[The Nehor]

I realize that this is the modern interpretation, but I’m not aware of any explicit scriptural support for this tradition.  The history shows that from the time of the succession crisis, and continuing through the next few presidencies, there have been differing options about how to operate on these matters.  Just because we’ve had a pretty stable practice for the past 100 years, doesn’t mean this is God revealed doctrine.  In my opinion this is just a policy and can be changed without the need for ground breaking revelation.

It would still require revelation even if it is not ground breaking. The Councils of the Church just do not work exclusively on the "this is a good idea" methodology. At least they should not.

[JLHPROF]

For the sake of argument, what if Pres. Packer did something that made him unworthy?  Could he be replaced as an apostle or would the keys automatically fall to him upon Monson's death (assuming, of course, that Pres. Packer outlived Monson)?  I suspect that once an apostle has his ordination cancelled by unworthiness than whatever authority that would otherwise falls to him ceases.  Why can't incapacity work in the same way?  If an apostle is unable to serve his calling (for any reason), then he could be relieved of duty.

 

D&C 43 provides the only scriptural precedent for somebody other than the worthy senior apostle by ordination taking over.

3 And this ye shall know assuredly—that there is none other appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations until he be taken, if he abide in me.

4 But verily, verily, I say unto you, that none else shall be appointed unto this gift except it be through him; for if it be taken from him he shall not have power except to appoint another in his stead.

 

The prophet can appoint a successor, senior or not, even if the prophet is not receiving revelation.

But the key question here is "who does God recognize as his mouthpiece".

 

If the Quorum voted, let's say, President Uchtdorf to take over when President Monson dies does that bind God into using him as his mouthpiece?  Or does God follow the principles he laid out and use President Packer as his mouthpiece?

Do we get a say in who God speaks through to the entire Church and earth?  Or does God select him?

[Scott Lloyd]

[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

I agree with this.

 

And I would add further that it has been obvious for some time now that President Packer is in frail health and has limited mobility. One need only view general conference to see that. It should not be surprising in the least that he would delegate to other members of the Twelve the difficult task of dealing directly with the pending demise of one of their number. That there would be a disposition to read things into that beyond the obvious circumstances is somewhat surprising to me.

Edited June 12, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

That an apostle facing imminent death that is certain and soon would be given the spiritual gift to know that his offering had been accepted and his mission was complete is hardly a surprising thing, nor is it something that could reasonably be stretched into a supposition that early "retirement" or emeritus status is in the offing for any of those holding that office.

 

It's far more likely that one so incapacitated as to be non-functional would be quietly relieved of his duties without having it formalized with a major announcement or a change of status.

 

In other words, the eventuality can be handled just fine under the existing structure.

Edited June 12, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rpn]

Why does the church need any change in status, any release or emeritus?   It appears that individual frailty either temporary or more prolonged is accommodated just fine within and by the quorum.  

[Scott Lloyd]

Why does the church need any change in status, any release or emeritus?   It appears that individual frailty either temporary or more prolonged is accommodated just fine within and by the quorum.  

That's a reasonable point.

 

I could give you my guesses as to why emeritus status or releases make sense for the Quorums of the Seventy as opposed to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, but I have neither the knowledge nor the inclination to say definitively.

Edited June 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Stargazer]

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.

 

Yes, exactly.

 

Having attended the ordination and setting apart of two bishops in my church service, I've seen this in action.  It is two separate things to be ordained a bishop and to be set apart as the bishop of a ward.  For the first he receives no keys, but for the second he does.  Once he is released he gives up the keys, but remains a bishop.  Alvin R. Dyer was ordained an Apostle, but was never set apart as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, and so had no keys in that Quorum.  Based on that reasoning, and the matter of a bishop, I conclude that Church administration should permit an Apostle to released from the Quorum of the Twelve, and thus be released from holding the keys associated with that membership. 

 

Perhaps policy does not currently allow for this.  But I don't see why the policy, if it states this, could not be changed. 

[Avatar4321]

Yes, exactly.

 

Having attended the ordination and setting apart of two bishops in my church service, I've seen this in action.  It is two separate things to be ordained a bishop and to be set apart as the bishop of a ward.  For the first he receives no keys, but for the second he does.  Once he is released he gives up the keys, but remains a bishop.  Alvin R. Dyer was ordained an Apostle, but was never set apart as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, and so had no keys in that Quorum.  Based on that reasoning, and the matter of a bishop, I conclude that Church administration should permit an Apostle to released from the Quorum of the Twelve, and thus be released from holding the keys associated with that membership. 

 

Perhaps policy does not currently allow for this.  But I don't see why the policy, if it states this, could not be changed.

I think I said these thing essentially. I don't see why it couldn't happen. I dont expect it to change though.

[Freedom]

All I can say is, I am sure glad I am not an apostle. I can not imagine the scrutiny they and their family are under. They cannot retire, go shopping, sit with their family on Sundays. They must live virtually perfect lives and can never stop. It is a grueling job and they answer to God. I have my favorites among the 12, but they are all remarkable men. I have had wonderful and heartwarming experiences with each one that I have met. 

[ERayR]

Yes, exactly.

 

Having attended the ordination and setting apart of two bishops in my church service, I've seen this in action.  It is two separate things to be ordained a bishop and to be set apart as the bishop of a ward.  For the first he receives no keys, but for the second he does.  Once he is released he gives up the keys, but remains a bishop.  Alvin R. Dyer was ordained an Apostle, but was never set apart as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, and so had no keys in that Quorum.  Based on that reasoning, and the matter of a bishop, I conclude that Church administration should permit an Apostle to released from the Quorum of the Twelve, and thus be released from holding the keys associated with that membership. 

 

Perhaps policy does not currently allow for this.  But I don't see why the policy, if it states this, could not be changed. 

 

I was ordained a Seventy back in the day there was a Seventies Quorum in each stake.  That ordination is still valid and part of my permanent record.

[Robert F. Smith]

For the sake of argument, what if Pres. Packer did something that made him unworthy?  Could he be replaced as an apostle or would the keys automatically fall to him upon Monson's death (assuming, of course, that Pres. Packer outlived Monson)?  I suspect that once an apostle has his ordination cancelled by unworthiness than whatever authority that would otherwise falls to him ceases.  Why can't incapacity work in the same way?  If an apostle is unable to serve his calling (for any reason), then he could be relieved of duty.

We have had apostles removed from the Quorum as well as their seniority altered by the President.  Some apostles have had to be excommunicated.

 

As I see it, the current process of Last Prophet Standing is not only administratively inefficient, but it can begin to erode confidence in the apostles in general.  At present, we seem to be down to 11 fully-functioning apostles.  This either means that the remaining 11 are working about 33% harder than they normal work or, more likely, the Church's administrative staff or GAs are picking up the slack.  And, as a general demographic pattern, our apostles are only getting harder.  I can easily conceive of a point at which HALF of the apostles are incapacitated in some sense.  At that point, the Church will be either operating at half-apostolic anointing OR it will be running along just fine, leading one to the conclusion that prophets aren't all that necessary.  After all, if we can operate just fine with 8 prophets (despite an ever-growing membership), then perhaps they aren't all that important to the operation of the Church.

 

And I'm not even factoring in the plain humanity of allowing these faithful servants rest at the end of a long journey.

You are vastly overstating the importance of an apostle in our time.  As you yourself observe, in addition to other GAs (2 partially filled quorums of Seventy), there is a staff of Church administrative personnel ready to take up the slack -- and do so regularly anyhow.  I don't see the problem.  A gerontocracy rules in China as well, and that does not stop them from moving in a dynamic way to do what needs to be done.  Like the Central Committee of the Communist Party or the Politburo, the Twelve and First Presidency set policy.  Others (the aparatchiks) carry it out.

Edited June 13, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[mormonnewb]

We have had apostles removed from the Quorum as well as their seniority altered by the President. Some apostles have had to be excommunicated.

You are vastly overstating the importance of an apostle in our time. As you yourself observe, in addition to other GAs (2 partially filled quorums of Seventy), there is a staff of Church administrative personnel ready to take up the slack -- and do so regularly anyhow. I don't see the problem. A gerontocracy rules in China as well, and that does not stop them from moving in a dynamic way to do what needs to be done. Like the Central Committee of the Communist Party or the Politburo, the Twelve and First Presidency set policy. Others (the aparatchiks) carry it out.

Shhh! Ix-nay on the uth-tray! You're going to ruin the surprise for those who constantly tell me that this Church is run by Christ Himself, as He literally whispers into the ears of the prophets who dutifully carry out His every command. That is why, for some, no Church policy or practice can EVER be questioned because to do so, is to steady the ark of God.

On the other hand, if the apostles (working through inspiration, albeit imperfect) are just setting general guidelines and policies, then it MIGHT be possible that ordinary men and women sometimes (even if seldomly) botch the implementation of such policies.

So, if some saints have bad dreams tonight, it is all your ault-fay!

[Kenngo1969]

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.

Could be some combination of the two.  I'm sure that, like me, whatever other reasons there were, you're not ready to concede that the reason why Elder Oaks's and Elder Ballard's numbers were called has anything to do with the prospect that President Packer simply has become a doddering old fool.

Edited June 13, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Stargazer]

Shhh! Ix-nay on the uth-tray! You're going to ruin the surprise for those who constantly tell me that this Church is run by Christ Himself, as He literally whispers into the ears of the prophets who dutifully carry out His every command. That is why, for some, no Church policy or practice can EVER be questioned because to do so, is to steady the ark of God.

On the other hand, if the apostles (working through inspiration, albeit imperfect) are just setting general guidelines and policies, then it MIGHT be possible that ordinary men and women sometimes (even if seldomly) botch the implementation of such policies.

So, if some saints have bad dreams tonight, it is all your ault-fay!

 

I don't know if you intended it or not, but I had to laugh at this post of yours!

 

And besides, I think you make a good point about occasional botchery.  I've seen it happen locally, though not very often.  Of course it must happen at the HQ level as well.  Thankfully, also very seldom, I am sure.

 

So I shall sleep well tonight, because I do believe Christ is guiding this church and its leaders.

[bluebell]

Could be some combination of the two.  I'm sure that, like me, whatever other reasons there were, you're not ready to concede that the reason why Elder Oaks's and Elder Ballard's numbers were called has anything to do with the prospect that President Packer simply has become a doddering old fool.

 

It never occurred to me to think that the lack of Pres. Packer involvement with Elder Perry's death meant he was anything other than too sick or frail to serve in the same capacity as the he normally would.

 

And I don't see that being a bad thing, just a part of life.

[The Nehor]

And besides, I think you make a good point about occasional botchery.  I've seen it happen locally, though not very often.  Of course it must happen at the HQ level as well.  Thankfully, also very seldom, I am sure.

 

"We all stumble occasionally. We all make mistakes." -President Hinckley

 

And yet I still believe God is at the helm and that the Savior leads the church and that I have no calling or responsibility to criticize or complain about church programs or leaders and try to institute change. If I feel the need to complain I have a direct conduit to the CEO. If he wants to correct the VPs he can do so at any time.

[mormonnewb]

"We all stumble occasionally. We all make mistakes." -President Hinckley

And yet I still believe God is at the helm and that the Savior leads the church and that I have no calling or responsibility to criticize or complain about church programs or leaders and try to institute change. If I feel the need to complain I have a direct conduit to the CEO. If he wants to correct the VPs he can do so at any time.

Yet, you believe that you've been called or assigned to mock those who do criticize and question? If so, how did I get that calling? I'd be one of the greatest GMs (General Mockers) of all time!

NOTE: As Mocker-in-Chief, I realize that the irony here is rich, but I do not recognize any limitations on my mockitude nor do I attempt to impose limits on others. I am strictly mock and let mock.

[The Nehor]

Yet, you believe that you've been called or assigned to mock those who do criticize and question? If so, how did I get that calling? I'd be one of the greatest GMs (General Mockers) of all time!

 

You have to marry the daughter of an Apostle or Seventy.