Elder Holland, Part II

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, mtomm said:

All of this. Nothing wrong with considering emeritus status for apostles IMO.  I would suggest they ask God for a revelation on such on a thing but that might just be adding to the exhaustion of both them and God. 

Sure, pray about it, thats fine.  Most revelations are just impressions/feelings anyway.  Seems like an easy, common sense move. 

[JulieM]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Area Seventies are not given emeritus status; they are simply released from their callings.

Until very recently, that was also the case for General Authority Seventies who had served in the Second Quorum of the Seventy.

Yes, those were the 70's I was referring to as I remember you posting about that (that they are given emeritus status).  

And I do specifically remember my uncle saying he'd been put on emeritus status.  I'll ask him about it though.  I do wonder if he can give Patriarchal blessing since he  has been ordained to and still holds the priesthood office of Patriarch.  Maybe not in an official calling in the stake, but with family members for example.  I know he was able to do this for family members outside his stake at the time he served.

I will ask him about that too!

Edited May 4, 2016 by JulieM

[Tacenda]

13 minutes ago, USU78 said:

As opposed to the uses to which LDS Temples are presently put?

I was putting it in a "what if" category, if the church wasn't true.  If true, of course they'd keep on operating like they have.  I've just had that on my mind a lot.  The building and amounts of money used to build temples.  I wondered if the leaders get frustrated at the thought that in some temples they aren't being utilized as much, not because of the ($) necessarily but also the cost of many lives and sacrifice.

We have 14 million members, and out of those only around 5 million are active, and out of 5 million how many are active TR users.  That might be a tad frustrating for the leaders like Elder Holland.  

 

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Yes, those were the 70's I was referring to as I remember you posting about that (that they are given emeritus status).  

And I do specifically remember my uncle saying he'd been put on emeritus status.  I'll ask him about it though.  I do wonder if he can give Patriarchal blessing since he  has been ordained to and still holds the priesthood office of Patriarch.  Maybe not in an official calling in the stake, but with family members for example.  I know he was able to do this for family members outside his stake at the time he served.

I will ask him about that too!

A few years ago, I was home teacher to a member of our stake who had been a stake patriarch in a stake where he had lived previously. He told us he was still entitled to give patriarchal blessings to members of his own family, just as you say here.

Correlation will be here today. I will ask them about stake patriarchs receiving emeritus status. It might be a standard procedure that I just haven't heard about.

 

Edited May 4, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

A few years ago, I was home teacher to a member of our stake who had been a stake patriarch in a stake where he had lived previously. He told us he was still entitled to give patriarchal blessings to members of his own family, just as you say here.

Correlation will be here today. I will ask them about stake patriarchs receiving emeritus status. It might be a standard procedure that I just haven't heard about.

 

Thanks for doing that!  I'd be interested in knowing.  Maybe the Stake President told my uncle wrong?

But people still call him "Patriarch so & so" out of respect when they see him.  I guess I don't know what emeritus status means in the church really.  Isn't the definition of it just that one who is allowed to keep the title? 

Thanks again for asking about this!

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

Thanks for doing that!  I'd be interested in knowing.  Maybe the Stake President told my uncle wrong?

But people still call him "Patriarch so & so" out of respect when they see him.  I guess I don't know what emeritus status means in the church really.  Isn't the definition of it just that one who is allowed to keep the title? 

Thanks again for asking about this!

I would be very interested too..so thanks Scott!

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I guess I don't know what emeritus status means in the church really.  Isn't the definition of it just that one who is allowed to keep the title? 

Yes, what is the difference between the Seventies who are given Emeritus Status and those who are not given Emeritus Status?  

Don't they both retain the title or office of Seventy?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

28 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Thanks for doing that!  I'd be interested in knowing.  Maybe the Stake President told my uncle wrong?

But people still call him "Patriarch so & so" out of respect when they see him.  I guess I don't know what emeritus status means in the church really.  Isn't the definition of it just that one who is allowed to keep the title? 

Thanks again for asking about this!

As far as I can tell, there is little, if any, significance to emeritus status other than it being an honorary title for one who has retired from active service in a calling.

It is typically used in an academic setting, and according to one on-line definition, it is "(of the former holder of an office, especially a college professor) having retired but allowed to retain their title as an honor."

Edited May 4, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[JAHS]

20 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Thanks for doing that!  I'd be interested in knowing.  Maybe the Stake President told my uncle wrong?

But people still call him "Patriarch so & so" out of respect when they see him.  I guess I don't know what emeritus status means in the church really.  Isn't the definition of it just that one who is allowed to keep the title? 

Thanks again for asking about this!

Here's a few notes from the Church Handbook about Stake Patriarchs

"Because the calling of patriarch is an office of the Melchizedek Priesthood, a patriarch is ordained, not set apart.
The ordination of a patriarch is for a lifetime, so he is not released. However, he may be given nonfunctioning status, excusing him from giving blessings.
A patriarch is also given nonfunctioning status if he leaves to serve a mission, is absent from his home for other reasons, moves to a different stake, or is approved to be called to a position of Church administration.
A patriarch who is given nonfunctioning status may continue to give patriarchal blessings to his lineal descendants only (children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren) if the stake president determines that he is able to do so.
If a patriarch moves to a different stake, his status automatically becomes nonfunctioning. He contacts the president of the new stake as a courtesy to inform him of his residence there. If the stake president wants him to serve as a patriarch in the new stake, he contacts the patriarch’s former stake president to confirm the patriarch’s worthiness and past service." (CHI)

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yes, what is the difference between the Seventies who are given Emeritus Status and those who are not given Emeritus Status?  

Don't they both retain the title or office of Seventy?

 

I'll ask my Correlation friends about that too.

I can tell you that after Tad R. Callister was released from the Presidency of the Seventy and as a member of the Second Quorum of the Seventy (he would have emeritus status now, though he wasn't given it at the time of his release) and was immediately called as the Sunday School general president, we were instructed to cease referring to him by the title "Elder" in written text; instead, we are to address him as "Brother."

See the pattern here, for example.

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'll ask my Correlation friends about that too.

I can tell you that after Tad R. Callister was released from the Presidency of the Seventy and as a member of the Second Quorum of the Seventy (he would have emeritus status now, though he wasn't given it at the time of his release) and was immediately called as the Sunday School general president, we were instructed to cease referring to him by the title "Elder" in written text; instead, we are to address him as "Brother."

See the pattern here, for example.

That's interesting (and thanks for the link).  It will also be interesting to see what you find out today from Correlation.

[JulieM]

48 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Here's a few notes from the Church Handbook about Stake Patriarchs

"Because the calling of patriarch is an office of the Melchizedek Priesthood, a patriarch is ordained, not set apart.
The ordination of a patriarch is for a lifetime, so he is not released. However, he may be given nonfunctioning status, excusing him from giving blessings.
A patriarch is also given nonfunctioning status if he leaves to serve a mission, is absent from his home for other reasons, moves to a different stake, or is approved to be called to a position of Church administration.
A patriarch who is given nonfunctioning status may continue to give patriarchal blessings to his lineal descendants only (children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren) if the stake president determines that he is able to do so.
If a patriarch moves to a different stake, his status automatically becomes nonfunctioning. He contacts the president of the new stake as a courtesy to inform him of his residence there. If the stake president wants him to serve as a patriarch in the new stake, he contacts the patriarch’s former stake president to confirm the patriarch’s worthiness and past service." (CHI)

Thanks for this information, JAHS.  The part I put in bold may have been what the Stake President was referring to and he just termed it emeritus status maybe.  I appreciate you posting this  

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

I think what you say fits well with foundational LDS theology, and is logically sound, but the message from church leadership seems to present a more traditionally Christian view of God - they're saying He is omnipotent and omniscient:

https://www.lds.org/topics/christians?lang=eng

 

Of course they do.  And you are quite correct that there is a disconnect.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Are we suggesting then that God does tire out?  That his immortal exalted body wears down?  If so, what eternal effect does that have?  Does He retire at some point because He can't keep going?  If we're wearing HIm out and we should be concerned of that, why did He have billions of children, perhaps 100 billion?  Why not just keep it smaller so He doesn't resent us for wearing Him down? 

This whole concept is just foreign to me.  I thought we were to go to God for everything, at least that's what's been said in the past.  We should even have a prayer in heart directed to HIm constantly.  Considering only a very few, relatively speaking, do anything near that, what did He expect if we're wearing Him out? 

Think metaphorically about it, if you will.  Anyhow, when I go to Him in prayer, I do worry than he is exasperated with me at times, and I do try to mollify Him.  It isn't so much that His body might wear down, as that His patience wears thin.  I would rather think of Eliza Snow's wonderful "Oh, my Father."

[stemelbow]

13 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Think metaphorically about it, if you will.  Anyhow, when I go to Him in prayer, I do worry than he is exasperated with me at times, and I do try to mollify Him.  It isn't so much that His body might wear down, as that His patience wears thin.  I would rather think of Eliza Snow's wonderful "Oh, my Father."

Sounds more likely what Elder Scott intended.  I suppose it remains a bit discouraging to me that the problems I struggle with exasperate Him.  It makes me feel a little like I shouldn't go to Him.  Might not have been an intended message from Elder Scott but I think it could be an issue for some people.  it is for me, anyway.  That's perhaps why it's stuck with me more than anything and perhaps why it was caught by my wife.  I tend to be one who worries about bothering God because I am, after all, but one of billions and my issues and problems seem like nothing compared to the issues many to most people deal with. 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Sounds more likely what Elder Scott intended.  I suppose it remains a bit discouraging to me that the problems I struggle with exasperate Him.  It makes me feel a little like I shouldn't go to Him.  Might not have been an intended message from Elder Scott but I think it could be an issue for some people.  it is for me, anyway.  That's perhaps why it's stuck with me more than anything and perhaps why it was caught by my wife.  I tend to be one who worries about bothering God because I am, after all, but one of billions and my issues and problems seem like nothing compared to the issues many to most people deal with. 

That's where I finally got, I believed God had better things to do than help me find my lost keys...or other menial things.  I guess that leaves me to just being continually thankful in my thoughts and prayers.  But OTOH, I've often imagined millions of angels helping Him/Her or both, along too.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'll ask my Correlation friends about that too.

I can tell you that after Tad R. Callister was released from the Presidency of the Seventy and as a member of the Second Quorum of the Seventy (he would have emeritus status now, though he wasn't given it at the time of his release) and was immediately called as the Sunday School general president, we were instructed to cease referring to him by the title "Elder" in written text; instead, we are to address him as "Brother."

See the pattern here, for example.

So here are some things I've learned/verified:

-- Area Seventies who are released, and General Authority Seventies who receive emeritus status, retain the priesthood office of seventy, though they no longer function in that office. Apparently it is optional whether to continue to refer to such a man as "Brother ____" or "Elder ____." That said, apparently the Sunday School general president is still to be addressed as Brother Callister, even though he now has emeritus status as a former General Authority Seventy.

-- From what I can tell, there is no policy of granting of emeritus status to non-functioning patriarchs (that is, former stake patriarchs who still retain the priesthood office of patriarch even if they no longer serve as stake patriarch).

-- Though it is common -- and has been for years -- to address a stake patriarch as "Patriarch ______," that is not the officially approved form of address. Rather, he is to be referred to as Brother ______, patriarch in the _____ Stake.

 

[Duncan]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Area Seventies are not given emeritus status; they are simply released from their callings.

Until very recently, that was also the case for General Authority Seventies who had served in the Second Quorum of the Seventy.

I've never heard of a stake patriarch being given emeritus status. The only patriarch I know of who received that status was the late Eldred G. Smith, who was the last man to hold the position of Patriarch to the Church.

It's true that patriarch is a priesthood office and that once a man is thus ordained, he holds that office for life. But a man can be relieved from active service as a stake patriarch and can be a non-functioning patriarch, which happens quite often in the case of a patriarch who moves out of his stake. Having thus served, such a man can be called again to the position of stake patriarch in the stake where he is residing. In that instance, it would not be necessary for him to be re-ordained to the office of patriarch, since he would already be holding that office.

Our Stake has an inactive Patriarch in it! as in he hasn't been to Church in years, so we have a new one!

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Sounds more likely what Elder Scott intended.  I suppose it remains a bit discouraging to me that the problems I struggle with exasperate Him.  It makes me feel a little like I shouldn't go to Him.  Might not have been an intended message from Elder Scott but I think it could be an issue for some people.  it is for me, anyway.  That's perhaps why it's stuck with me more than anything and perhaps why it was caught by my wife.  I tend to be one who worries about bothering God because I am, after all, but one of billions and my issues and problems seem like nothing compared to the issues many to most people deal with. 

You got that right.

[JAHS]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Sounds more likely what Elder Scott intended.  I suppose it remains a bit discouraging to me that the problems I struggle with exasperate Him.  It makes me feel a little like I shouldn't go to Him.  Might not have been an intended message from Elder Scott but I think it could be an issue for some people.  it is for me, anyway.  That's perhaps why it's stuck with me more than anything and perhaps why it was caught by my wife.  I tend to be one who worries about bothering God because I am, after all, but one of billions and my issues and problems seem like nothing compared to the issues many to most people deal with. 

The only thing that bothers God is when we don't go to Him. Sometimes people think He is sitting around listening to and answering millions of prayers directed at Him every minute, as if He were a human being trying to do it all with a human brain. While He wants us to do as much as we can ourselves so we can learn and develop character, He can handle the incoming data. His hard drive will never crash. Ultimately our prayers are answered by the influence of the Holy Ghost anyway that is always there for us so long as we have our spirits in tune so we can receive His direction.

[igonzals]

Before use the logic, why do not use the Scriptures?

Please see: Isaiah 1:14; 40:28.

If Holland is wrong, Isaiah too.

PS: Why do people use not Scripture before their logic?

[rodheadlee]

32 minutes ago, igonzals said:

Before use the logic, why do not use the Scriptures?

Please see: Isaiah 1:14; 40:28.

If Holland is wrong, Isaiah too.

PS: Why do people use not Scripture before their logic?

Good point, I recommend reading the whole chapter. I think it applies to us as members of the House of Israel today.

[Teancum]

On May 4, 2016 at 2:14 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

I don't know much of anything.  However, Mormon theology makes Him finite and a part of nature, and there are certain logical consequences of that status.

Please provide me LDS scripture as well as statements from LDS prophets and apostles that substantiate this position.

Consider this a CFR.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Please provide me LDS scripture as well as statements from LDS prophets and apostles that substantiate this position.

Consider this a CFR.

This has been discussed many a time on this board, with full citations, and you have been here that whole time, so that it is odd that you make such a CFR request now, Teancum.

Generally, whole books are required to explain this vast theological principle, which is unique to Mormonism within the larger Christian communion, but some basic principles can be listed here, along with further reading:

The Book of Mormon speaks of God with the same sort of flesh and blood anthropomorphisms (Ether 2:4-5,14, 3:4-19), as found in the Bible – based on the anthropomorphic descriptions of God in the Bible, Yohanan Muffs insists that “the biblical God is anthropomorphic. Whoever strips God of his personal quality distorts the true meaning of Scripture” (Muffs, Bible Review, 18/6 [Dec 2002]:23).

Lorenzo Snow, “As man  now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be.”  See full discussion at https://www.lds.org/ensign/1982/02/i-have-a-question?lang=eng .

On the implications of this suggestion of apotheosis for us, see Hannah Rebekah, post #17, on this board, online at http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58453-non-mormon-christian-doctrine-that-men-may-become-gods/page__pid__1209151269#entry1209151269 .  

Non-Mormon scholar Ernst Benz has said of the Mormon doctrine of apotheosis:   

Quote

 Regardless of how one feels about the doctrine of progressive deification, one thing is certain: Joseph Smith’s anthropology of man is closer to the concept of man in the primitive church than that of the proponents of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin, who considered the idea of such a fundamental and corporeal relationship between God and man as the quintessential heresy.  Benz, "Imago Dei: Man in the Image of God," in T. Madsen, ed., Reflections on Mormonism (Provo, 1978), 201-219.

See especially “Becoming Like God,” an LDS.org Gospel Topic, 2014, online at https://www.lds.org/topics/becoming-like-god?lang=eng# , and 
J. J. Collins, “A Throne in the Heavens: Apotheosis in Pre-Christian Judaism,” in Death, Ecstasy, and Other Worldly Journeys, eds. J. J. Collins & M. Fishbane (N.Y.: SUNY Press, 1995), 43-58.

This is also entailed by the Mormon denial of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim dogma of God as the First Uncaused Cause (Prime Mover), the only Necessary Being, who is absolute in all respects, which comes not from Scripture but from Greek philosophy.  To understand the Mormon concept, which is built on the notion of eternal intelligences (D&C 93:29-30; Abraham 3:18-22; King Follett Funeral Sermon), one needs to read books and articles on the subject, here only a sampling:

Sterling M. McMurrin, The Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion: And, the Philosophical Foundations of Mormon Theology, Signature Mormon Classics (SLC: Signature Books, 2000). 
Blake T. Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought, 4 vols. (SLC: Kofford Books, 2001-2013).
Charles R. Harrell, “This is My Doctrine”: The Development of Mormon Theology (SLC: Kofford Books, 2011).
David L. Paulsen and Donald W. Musser, eds., Mormonism in Dialogue with Contemporary Christian Theologies (Macon, Ga.: Mercer Unversity Press, 2007).

[sunstoned]

On 5/4/2016 at 3:33 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

So here are some things I've learned/verified:

-- Area Seventies who are released, and General Authority Seventies who receive emeritus status, retain the priesthood office of seventy, though they no longer function in that office. Apparently it is optional whether to continue to refer to such a man as "Brother ____" or "Elder ____." That said, apparently the Sunday School general president is still to be addressed as Brother Callister, even though he now has emeritus status as a former General Authority Seventy.

-- From what I can tell, there is no policy of granting of emeritus status to non-functioning patriarchs (that is, former stake patriarchs who still retain the priesthood office of patriarch even if they no longer serve as stake patriarch).

-- Though it is common -- and has been for years -- to address a stake patriarch as "Patriarch ______," that is not the officially approved form of address. Rather, he is to be referred to as Brother ______, patriarch in the _____ Stake.

 

Would you happen to know if a GA with emeritus status still receives their salary and benefits?