Presiding Patriarch

[halconero]

Does anyone know why the office was discontinued? It wasn't even that long ago that it was a General Office of the Church, with the Patriarch being a General Authority along with the Seventy, Twelve and First Presidency.

As a second question, would you like to see it reconstituted?

[sunstoned]

Here is a blog that does a good job of going over the history of the office and offers some insight to why it was discontinued:

 

http://leavingtsccbehind.blogspot.com/2009/04/office-of-presiding-patriarch-where-has.html

[Teancum]

I have not read this book but it looks like it may be an interesting read for those who want to know more about the topic:

Lost Legacy: THE MORMON OFFICE OF PRESIDING PATRIARCH Paperback – August 21, 2002

http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Legacy-MORMON-PRESIDING-PATRIARCH/dp/0252071158

Quinn's Books on the Moromon Heiarchy cover the subject as well.

Edited November 28, 2015 by Teancum

[Kenngo1969]

As I understand it, the office of presiding patriarch existed when there were many fewer stakes (and, hence, many fewer patriarchs) in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and one of the raisons d'etre of the office was for its holder to give patriarchal blessings to people in outlying areas where no stakes were organized.  Now, though many of them are far-flung, that is much less the case.

[Teancum]

As I understand it, the office of presiding patriarch existed when there were many fewer stakes (and, hence, many fewer patriarchs) in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and one of the raisons d'etre of the office was for its holder to give patriarchal blessings to people in outlying areas where no stakes were organized.  Now, though many of them are far-flung, that is much less the case.

This was the reason given and while that may have been part of it The historical narrative gives information that shows there may have been more to it.

[Sleeper Cell]

Does anyone know why the office was discontinued? It wasn't even that long ago that it was a General Office of the Church, with the Patriarch being a General Authority along with the Seventy, Twelve and First Presidency.

As a second question, would you like to see it reconstituted?

And trigger OW protests for not also having a Presiding Matriarch?  No thanks. 

[Duncan]

And trigger OW protests for not also having a Presiding Matriarch?  No thanks. 

 

or a Presiding Cool Uncle

[Robert F. Smith]

Here is a blog that does a good job of going over the history of the office and offers some insight to why it was discontinued:

 

http://leavingtsccbehind.blogspot.com/2009/04/office-of-presiding-patriarch-where-has.html

He does a terrible job, mixing fact with anti-Mormon fancy throughout.

[cinepro]

I have not read this book but it looks like it may be an interesting read for those who want to know more about the topic:

Lost Legacy: THE MORMON OFFICE OF PRESIDING PATRIARCH Paperback – August 21, 2002

http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Legacy-MORMON-PRESIDING-PATRIARCH/dp/0252071158

Quinn's Books on the Moromon Heiarchy cover the subject as well.

 

I highly recommend that book (the first one, not Quinn's).  It has a lot of really interesting info.  Sadly, we don't know the reason the office was eliminated, but all signs point to the impracticality of having an office based on ancestry that stood outside the structure of Q12/FP, but was also sustained as a "Prophet, Seer and Revelator", being a huge factor.

Edited November 29, 2015 by cinepro

[Coreyb]

I highly recommend that book (the first one, not Quinn's).  It has a lot of really interesting info.  Sadly, we don't know the reason the office was eliminated, but all signs point to the impracticality of having an office based on ancestry that stood outside the structure of Q12/FP, but was also sustained as a "Prophet, Seer and Revelator", being a huge factor.

I haven't read lost legacy but that's the feeling I got from Quinn's study in extensions of power. It also seemed to me that none of Joseph's successors really had a clear idea of what he intended the office to do, outside of give blessings, and they never got any revelations about it. Joseph F. Smith seemed to be the only POTC who thought much of the office, and rightfully so because it was his family line of authority.

[Kenngo1969]

This was the reason given and while that may have been part of it The historical narrative gives information that shows there may have been more to it.

I believe I wrote, "One of the raisons d'etre ..." n'est ce pas?

[Sevenbak]

The Church did had a Presiding Patriarch emeritus until just a couple years ago.  Eldred Smith, great great grandson of Hyrum Smith, died in 2013.

[JAHS]

Speaking of discontinuing offices, back in 1986 I was ordained to be a Seventy in my stake Seventies quorum. Within just a few weeks all local Seventies quorums were discontinued and local Seventies either joined with the Elders quorum or were ordained to High Priest. I was still pretty young so I went with the Elders. I don't remember what the "official" reason for the change was but I assumed it was because they were starting to call full-time missionaries into areas that had Seventies quorums (mostly Idaho and Utah). Does anyone else remember what the reason was?

[Calm]

Here is a blog that does a good job of going over the history of the office....

I wasn't impressed.  It was definitely from the point of view of a disbeliever and the areas that I was familiar with, such as the accusations of William Smith, left out nuances that made a significant difference imo.

[SamIam]

Does anyone know why the office was discontinued? It wasn't even that long ago that it was a General Office of the Church, with the Patriarch being a General Authority along with the Seventy, Twelve and First Presidency.

As a second question, would you like to see it reconstituted?

 

Well here goes...as one who always seeks to reconcile prophetic commentary with actual events in order to strengthen my testimony of their prophetic status I generally tend to start all of my research with the premise that the prophet is correct and I simply do not understand. Yes, it is a preferential bias, but not one without sustained evidence over time.  I stay with that premise until I can actually say I know otherwise…and thus far that has never happened.

 

One observation that caught my interest was the statement of Brigham Young's that the Blacks would never hold the priesthood until all of the Children of Adam had their opportunity to receive the priesthood. Now I could have been content, I suppose, with simply realizing that in all processes of God there is a bit of overlap at transitional points but that seemed inconsistent with Brigham Young’s intent.  I ran into some material a few years ago by Elden Watson, I believe, where he suggested that the October 1979 emeritus status of the presiding patriarch fit statements of the earlier brethren that marked a transition point where all of the children of Adam had received the priesthood. Specifically due to the fact that Adam's priesthood was a patriarchal priesthood that was passed down from father to son and that with the granting of priesthood to all worthy males in June of 1978 the retiring a bit over a year later ended the need for succession in the only patriarchal priesthood office in the church.

 

I instantly found I resonated with the observation and if it is not correct it is at least a brilliant bit of reasoning on his part. For me it became a validation of why the office was originated in the first place as a part of a restoration act that might of overlooked any need for such an office if the restoration was a contrivance of men.  However, to restore a definitive priesthood position that harkened back to the days of Adam and was entirely separate from the more widely observed Melchizedek roles all of the sudden was exceptionally reasonable and by design and purpose.

 

As far as reinstating, obviously I can see no need to do so. Its purpose has been fulfilled.

Edited November 29, 2015 by SamIam

[The Nehor]

Here is a blog that does a good job of going over the history of the office and offers some insight to why it was discontinued:

 

http://leavingtsccbehind.blogspot.com/2009/04/office-of-presiding-patriarch-where-has.html

 

I think you and I have a different definition of what constitutes a "good job".

[Teancum]

I think you and I have a different definition of what constitutes a "good job".

I agree that it was poorly written and spin doctored. But it did give some of the scriptural references you asked for and a brief history. The book I linked to look pretty good if someone is interested in the topic.

[Scott Lloyd]

The Church did had a Presiding Patriarch emeritus until just a couple years ago.  Eldred Smith, great great grandson of Hyrum Smith, died in 2013.

But like other emeritus General Authorities, he did not function in that office, though I understand he did give patriarchal blessings to direct-line descendants, which anyone holding the office of patriarch is entitled to do.

[Alan]

Well here goes...as one who always seeks to reconcile prophetic commentary with actual events in order to strengthen my testimony of their prophetic status I generally tend to start all of my research with the premise that the prophet is correct and I simply do not understand. Yes, it is a preferential bias, but not one without sustained evidence over time. I stay with that premise until I can actually say I know otherwise…and thus far that has never happened.

One observation that caught my interest was the statement of Brigham Young's that the Blacks would never hold the priesthood until all of the Children of Adam had their opportunity to receive the priesthood. Now I could have been content, I suppose, with simply realizing that in all processes of God there is a bit of overlap at transitional points but that seemed inconsistent with Brigham Young’s intent. I ran into some material a few years ago by Elden Watson, I believe, where he suggested that the October 1979 emeritus status of the presiding patriarch fit statements of the earlier brethren that marked a transition point where all of the children of Adam had received the priesthood. Specifically due to the fact that Adam's priesthood was a patriarchal priesthood that was passed down from father to son and that with the granting of priesthood to all worthy males in June of 1978 the retiring a bit over a year later ended the need for succession in the only patriarchal priesthood office in the church.

I instantly found I resonated with the observation and if it is not correct it is at least a brilliant bit of reasoning on his part. For me it became a validation of why the office was originated in the first place as a part of a restoration act that might of overlooked any need for such an office if the restoration was a contrivance of men. However, to restore a definitive priesthood position that harkened back to the days of Adam and was entirely separate from the more widely observed Melchizedek roles all of the sudden was exceptionally reasonable and by design and purpose.

As far as reinstating, obviously I can see no need to do so. Its purpose has been fulfilled.

So those receiving the priesthood today are not descendents of Adam? The blacks are not descended from Adam?

That doesn't appear likely.

Besides, I believe BY said that blacks couldn't receive the priesthood until all of the descendents of Abel had.

Still appears unlikely.

BY was just wrong.

Edited November 29, 2015 by Alan

[SamIam]

So those receiving the priesthood today are not descendents of Adam? The blacks are not descended from Adam?

That doesn't appear likely.

Besides, I believe BY said that blacks couldn't receive the priesthood until all of the descendents of Abel had.

Still appears unlikely.

BY was just wrong.

Here is the actual quote by Brigham Young:

Quote

Cain slew his brother.... and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race – that they should be the ‘servant of servants,’ and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree. How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. … (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 7, pp. 290-291)

Edited December 4, 2015 by SamIam

[Alan]

No, I think I was wrong. That is the quote I was thinking of.

However, clearly all the "other" descendents of Adam have not yet received the priesthood, so I believe my point is still valid.

[The Nehor]

No, I think I was wrong. That is the quote I was thinking of.

However, clearly all the "other" descendents of Adam have not yet received the priesthood, so I believe my point is still valid.

 

Have they not all been granted the opportunity?

[Scott Lloyd]

When was the term "presiding patriarch" in wide use? I'm old enough to remember Eldred G. Smith's service, and in my recollection, he was only ever called Patriarch to the Church. And I don't remember him presiding over anybody.

[Alan]

Have they not all been granted the opportunity?

I suppose so, if we discount all those who have died and have not yet had the chance, or all those yet to be born.

Edited November 30, 2015 by Alan