Radio West- Policy

[CV75]

50 minutes ago, rongo said:

Agreed. This is what I said earlier.

Only the president of the Church "holds and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys." The other 14 apostles collectively share the keys, but can only exercise them in fullness when setting apart another president. The Quorum of the First Presidency has not always consisted of three apostles, nor does it have to, although that has been the custom for some time now (some FP members have been high priests only). So, it's not technically accurate to think of the First Presidency as always consisting of members all sharing the same keys. 

Section 107 doesn't require unanimity absolutely. It states that quorum decisions that are not unanimous do not have the same authority as unanimous decisions from lower quorums. This, of course, presupposes that it is possible to have less-than-unanimous quorum decisions. In practice (and it's a very good thing), the Brethren strive to have all quorum decisions be unanimous. There are known and unknown exceptions, and I cited President Packer's disagreement on having separate single's wards as one. I would argue, and I think you would agree, that he was unified with the Brethren on Church policy with single's ward, but not unanimous. Importantly, the end result was functional unanimity --- his strong feelings were not a source of contention or a stumbling block. This is a good example to us at the ward and stake level when we have strong feelings or concerns about decisions from key-holders.

Good points!

I think it is the collective use of the keys that D&C 107 refers to for the purpose of decision-making. In that context, the Twelve have the keys “to open the door [to “all the spiritual blessings of the church”]” and make decisions after the pattern of “the quorum of three presidents …anciently, who were ordained after the order of Melchizedek.” It sets up the basic pattern of “three Presiding High Priests … [as] the Presidency of the Church," though I remember when President Kimball had three counselors. The “Twelve Apostles …form a quorum, equal in authority and power to the three presidents previously mentioned.”

“And every decision made by either of these quorums must be by the unanimous voice of the same; that is, every member in each quorum must be agreed to its decisions, in order to make their decisions of the same power or validity one with the other—“

Under that strict requirement, “not entitled to the same blessings” is a really nice way of saying no power, no validity, and no fruitfulness (or futility and barrenness) in the knowledge of the Lord, as opposed to the blessings enjoyed when this order of unanimous decision-making was practiced anciently (and which was restored).

Just as there is a joint “Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles,” (see http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Council_of_the_First_Presidency_and_the_Quorum_of_the_Twelve_Apostles ), the quorums have their individual respective councils, which as you pointed out may include members not of the office of apostle (Wikipedia lists ten such men over the years, but I've seen other names over the years as well). According to this article, “The members of these two quorums are the only men on earth who hold all the keys, or authorization, of the priesthood, and only they are sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators for the Church.” But as D&C 107 indicates, they must exercise the keys of decision-making unanimously.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Good points!

I think it is the collective use of the keys that D&C 107 refers to for the purpose of decision-making. In that context, the Twelve have the keys “to open the door [to “all the spiritual blessings of the church”]” and make decisions after the pattern of “the quorum of three presidents …anciently, who were ordained after the order of Melchizedek.” It sets up the basic pattern of “three Presiding High Priests … [as] the Presidency of the Church," though I remember when President Kimball had three counselors. The “Twelve Apostles …form a quorum, equal in authority and power to the three presidents previously mentioned.”

“And every decision made by either of these quorums must be by the unanimous voice of the same; that is, every member in each quorum must be agreed to its decisions, in order to make their decisions of the same power or validity one with the other—“

Under that strict requirement, “not entitled to the same blessings” is a really nice way of saying no power, no validity, and no fruitfulness (or futility and barrenness) in the knowledge of the Lord, as opposed to the blessings enjoyed when this order of unanimous decision-making was practiced anciently (and which was restored).

Just as there is a joint “Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles,” (see http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Council_of_the_First_Presidency_and_the_Quorum_of_the_Twelve_Apostles ), the quorums have their individual respective councils, which as you pointed out may include members not of the office of apostle (Wikipedia lists ten such men over the years, but I've seen other names over the years as well). According to this article, “The members of these two quorums are the only men on earth who hold all the keys, or authorization, of the priesthood, and only they are sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators for the Church.” But as D&C 107 indicates, they must exercise the keys of decision-making unanimously.

I think this whole discussion grew out of the insinuation that, because a couple of the apostles might not have been at one of the meetings, that they did not experience revelation with respect to the November policy and thus are only acquiescing to it. Nothing I've heard or seen supports that notion.

 

Edited November 17, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rongo]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

North Korea has unanimous votes. Not because everyone agrees about the candidate but because everyone agrees that it's most important to accept the leader.

I agree with you, which is why I've said before that I'm fine with it as long as the church acknowledges that unanimity in the quorum means that everyone agrees it is important to sustain the leader, NOT necessarily that they all agree that an action is best or even God's will. This approach undercuts the Nelson talk I quoted earlier where he said we can have confidence in the unanimity of councils in the church protecting us from the errant idea or frailty of a leader. In your scenario a frail leader who may be suffering from decreased mental faculty would still be sustained because he is the leader. There's no safety in that.

I don't think it's merely a mater of sustaining the leader, and not agreeing "that an action is best or even God's will." I think that, often, when not agreeing personally with something, people agree to sustain it --- and not just because of Mormon culture to never vote against what leadership wants. I think that everyone chooses what hills he is willing to die on, what he's willing to go to the mat for, and often/most of the time, points of disagreement aren't that important and people sustain things. Actually sustain, not just a pretense. 

When I was a counselor in a bishopric, we had a disciplinary council for a brother at the ward level (which automatically took excommunication off the table). During the deliberation phase, I strongly felt (and feel to this day) that he should be disfellowshipped. The bishop strongly felt that he should receive formal probation only. We each prayed, and continued to feel this way. The bishop's decision was formal probation, and I sustained it. A large part of this was the fact that it was the bishop's decision to make, and I didn't feel strongly enough about it to dig in and "hang the jury." I didn't have any misgivings about formal probation, and sustained it --- the decision of the bishop through his keys.

I completely reject the notion that I didn't sustain the decision because I continued to feel and believe that disfellowshipment would have been better. I feel that I fully sustained the decision, even while personally disagreeing with it. 

[CV75]

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think this whole discussion grew out of the insinuation that, because a couple of the apostles might not been at one of the meetings, that they did not experience revelation with respect to the November policy and thus are only acquiescing to it. Nothing I've heard or seen supports that notion.

And if anyone was insinuating it on this thread, they haven't shared the basis of that insinuation, or the presumption that missing members of the quorum were not able to participate in the unanimous agreement. I jumped in late but it seems that @HappyJackWagon and/or @rockpond have held that idea (I'm sure there are some nuances I'm missing, so pardon me if I am mistaken).

I was hoping they would address that as I've asked about it (the presumption at least) a couple of times.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

And if anyone was insinuating it on this thread, they haven't shared the basis of that insinuation, or the presumption that missing members of the quorum were not able to participate in the unanimous agreement. I jumped in late but it seems that @HappyJackWagon and/or @rockpond have held that idea (I'm sure there are some nuances I'm missing, so pardon me if I am mistaken).

I was hoping they would address that as I've asked about it (the presumption at least) a couple of times.

They just keep coyly repeating Prince's hearsay on RadioWest that two apostles weren't at the meeting. As though a conclusion were self-evident from this.

The more self-evident conclusion is that all of the apostles agree with President Nelson, as none have said otherwise.

Edited November 17, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

They just keep coyly repeating Prince's hearsay on RadioWest that two apostles weren't at the meeting. As though a conclusion were self-evident from this.

The more self-evident conclusion is that all of the apostles agree with President Nelson, as none of said otherwise.

Maybe you'll remember the question from the OP.

Quote

1- Does it matter that a key apostle and a member of the 1st Presidency were absent for the very quick, presentation and acceptance of a policy of this magnitude before publishing the policy?

Frankly, my "coy" repetition of Prince's statements is merely in attempt to get to the question because most on this thread, you included, seem uninterested in the question at all. You'd prefer to just assume that everything worked as you think it should have. Could the brethren who weren't present still have been involved with Skype or phone, or some other means to participate in the discussion? Sure. But we don't know how they were involved or even if they were at all because they don't tell us. I don't consider the possibility that they were involved a slam dunk which is why I asked the question. I find the lack of curiosity among many here, astonishing. These are simple questions that could be answered, yet they're not, because none of the principles are talking. And no one with access to them is willing to ask some very basic questions.

The brethren are in their bubble and the average member like me has ZERO access to them. There is no sunlight on the situation. I find that troubling but not nearly as troubling as the lack of curiosity and willingness to remain in the dark.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Maybe you'll remember the question from the OP.

Frankly, my "coy" repetition of Prince's statements is merely in attempt to get to the question because most on this thread, you included, seem uninterested in the question at all. You'd prefer to just assume that everything worked as you think it should have. Could the brethren who weren't present still have been involved with Skype or phone, or some other means to participate in the discussion? Sure. But we don't know how they were involved or even if they were at all because they don't tell us. I don't consider the possibility that they were involved a slam dunk which is why I asked the question. I find the lack of curiosity among many here, astonishing. These are simple questions that could be answered, yet they're not, because none of the principles are talking. And no one with access to them is willing to ask some very basic questions.

The brethren are in their bubble and the average member like me has ZERO access to them. There is no sunlight on the situation. I find that troubling but not nearly as troubling as the lack of curiosity and willingness to remain in the dark.

 

I repeat, the more self-evident conclusion is they assent to President Nelson's account, as none have said otherwise.

[rongo]

37 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I find the lack of curiosity among many here, astonishing . . . There is no sunlight on the situation. I find that troubling but not nearly as troubling as the lack of curiosity and willingness to remain in the dark.

I think most of us here (and most of the active members in the Church) agree with the policy or at least don't have any problem with it. So, we're not prone to criticizing or "asking tough questions" of the process, whether it was a full, in-person quorum, or ratification after the fact, or via technology, or whatever. I can understand why those who have real problems with the policy might question the process. 

[HappyJackWagon]

25 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think most of us here (and most of the active members in the Church) agree with the policy or at least don't have any problem with it. So, we're not prone to criticizing or "asking tough questions" of the process, whether it was a full, in-person quorum, or ratification after the fact, or via technology, or whatever. I can understand why those who have real problems with the policy might question the process. 

I agree that most members view it that way. And I think that's troubling.

These really aren't even "tough questions". They're pretty simple. But they don't assume prophetic infallibility.

Quote

Scott Lloyd- I repeat, the more self-evident conclusion is they assent to President Nelson's account, as none have said otherwise.

I think it's a natural assumption for many people to make but there's nothing self evident about it. There are disincentives for a quorum member speaking up about this now.

1- They would show disunity where unity has previously been claimed

2- this would create greater skepticism among members

3- The President of the Q12 is the boss of the Q12 in very real ways. Members of the quorum are naturally averse to being seen as contradicting the senior apostle and president.

These are good men trying to do their best but I think the disincentives discourage them from speaking up. In that way, Pres. Nelson's claim of revelation was a sly political move. He locked in the brethren and squashed any possible dissent. That doesn't assign Nelson any negative motives. I think he truly believes in the policy and I think his actions are his way of protecting the policy and the general direction of the church on this issue until long after he's gone.

[Scott Lloyd]

42 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think most of us here (and most of the active members in the Church) agree with the policy or at least don't have any problem with it. So, we're not prone to criticizing or "asking tough questions" of the process, whether it was a full, in-person quorum, or ratification after the fact, or via technology, or whatever. I can understand why those who have real problems with the policy might question the process. 

Agree or disagree, assumption of good faith and honesty (contrary to the cynicism manifested in the post immediately above this one) is a valid consideration, especially by those who profess to regard the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve as holding high and holy callings.

Edited to add:

And (in response to that post) it is not assuming "prophetic infallibility" to expect that the president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and the members of that quorum will show basic honesty in their behavior.

 

 

Edited November 17, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

1- Does it matter that a key apostle and a member of the 1st Presidency were absent for the very quick, presentation and acceptance of a policy of this magnitude before publishing the policy?

You've been given an answer with some follow-up questions to allow a fuller examination of the question here  Posted Tuesday at 05:13 PM but you didn't engage. Let's try it again:

How was the D&C 107 not followed in the four points you listed? What is the basis for the concern that there was no unanimity?

The order and procedure of the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are not discussed in public, but can be inferred from various published accounts, and they all seem to align with D&C 107. How is what you are describing in "1" above translate into being out of line, after all that we do have shines a light on how they make decisions?

[CV75]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

These are good men trying to do their best but I think the disincentives discourage them from speaking up. In that way, Pres. Nelson's claim of revelation was a sly political move. He locked in the brethren and squashed any possible dissent. That doesn't assign Nelson any negative motives. I think he truly believes in the policy and I think his actions are his way of protecting the policy and the general direction of the church on this issue until long after he's gone.

Do you (did you ever) act this way? Does (did) it work? Do (did) you get away with it?

[CV75]

duplicate

Edited November 17, 2016 by CV75

[HappyJackWagon]

19 minutes ago, CV75 said:

You've been given an answer with some follow-up questions to allow a fuller examination of the question here  Posted Tuesday at 05:13 PM but you didn't engage. Let's try it again:

How was the D&C 107 not followed in the four points you listed? What is the basis for the concern that there was no unanimity?

The order and procedure of the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are not discussed in public, but can be inferred from various published accounts, and they all seem to align with D&C 107. How is what you are describing in "1" above translate into being out of line, after all that we do have shines a light on how they make decisions?

I didn't engage? Go back and read again.
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/68309-radio-west-policy/?page=7

How was it not followed. I'll answer that again as well. I DON"T KNOW BECAUSE NO ONE IS SPEAKING ABOUT IT. Man, I seriously hope you heard me this time as I'm getting tired of repeating myself. You confess that you are "inferring" from "various" accounts. You are welcome to make assumptions about the only account of the process I'm aware of, which is Nelson's. So I'm not sure what other "Various" accounts are out there. In fact, I'm pretty certain I asked you for sources for that and you simply provided Christofferson's fake interview that didn't address the process at all.

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Agree or disagree, assumption of good faith and honesty (contrary to the cynicism manifested in the post immediately above this one) is a valid consideration, especially by those who profess to regard the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve as holding high and holy callings.

Though nowhere near as fun as clinging to a piece of gossip that supports a preferred narrative.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I didn't engage? Go back and read again.
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/68309-radio-west-policy/?page=7

How was it not followed. I'll answer that again as well. I DON"T KNOW BECAUSE NO ONE IS SPEAKING ABOUT IT. Man, I seriously hope you heard me this time as I'm getting tired of repeating myself. You confess that you are "inferring" from "various" accounts. You are welcome to make assumptions about the only account of the process I'm aware of, which is Nelson's. So I'm not sure what other "Various" accounts are out there. In fact, I'm pretty certain I asked you for sources for that and you simply provided Christofferson's fake interview that didn't address the process at all.

I don’t see where you answered any of those questions in the link you provided. But I’m happy you answered them “again…” Well, I won’t repeat myself, either.

As to the “various published accounts” about how the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles operate, we have D&C 107 (oops I repeated myself), the lifting of the priesthood ban, President Hinckley’s testimony (oops I did it again), and other such accounts we’ve heard over the years (lookemup yerself). There is so much we do know that we can make reasonable inferences that everything was done properly in this instance; far more reasonable than resting your case for agonizing on presuming that every Council member must be present for some imagined punctilio that can’t be legitimized without a PR review... Really: your projection onto Elder Nelson sounds like a “Left Behind” movie script!!! LOL

(And the two sources I gave for this particular instance were perfectly sound!)

Edited November 18, 2016 by CV75

[HappyJackWagon]

11 hours ago, CV75 said:

I don’t see where you answered any of those questions in the link you provided. But I’m happy you answered them “again…” Well, I won’t repeat myself, either.

As to the “various published accounts” about how the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles operate, we have D&C 107 (oops I repeated myself), the lifting of the priesthood ban, President Hinckley’s testimony (oops I did it again), and other such accounts we’ve heard over the years (lookemup yerself). There is so much we do know that we can make reasonable inferences that everything was done properly in this instance; far more reasonable than resting your case for agonizing on presuming that every Council member must be present for some imagined punctilio that can’t be legitimized without a PR review... Really: your projection onto Elder Nelson sounds like a “Left Behind” movie script!!! LOL

 

(And the two sources I gave for this particular instance were perfectly sound!)

You are using past statements about procedure that do not speak to this instance at all. I have not once argued against the standard operating procedure. But assuming it is always followed without variability is a bit naïve and simplistic. On that point you seem unwilling to engage. I'm open to looking at your sources on how things played out in this example, but quoting statements about how things should be played out is quite useless.

If the CEO of Wells Fargo was asked by congress about the behaviors that led to widespread abuse and fraud, and he simply recited the employee handbook which states high ethical standards that prevent fraudulent activity, would that really do anything to speak to the question being asked? No. It's sidestepping. (Before you get all excited, I'm not comparing the church or Nelson to Wells Fargo- they are simply the most recent example that popped to mind. But it makes the point)

I want to know what happened, not what "should" have happened and the assumption that the church perfectly behaves as they "should" is a conversation stopper. It's hard to converse when you say, "they are perfect" because it allows for no movement of any kind. Whereas accepting that they are imperfect is not only more reasonable, but opens possibilities for consideration.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You are using past statements about procedure that do not speak to this instance at all. I have not once argued against the standard operating procedure. But assuming it is always followed without variability is a bit naïve and simplistic. On that point you seem unwilling to engage. I'm open to looking at your sources on how things played out in this example, but quoting statements about how things should be played out is quite useless.

If the CEO of Wells Fargo was asked by congress about the behaviors that led to widespread abuse and fraud, and he simply recited the employee handbook which states high ethical standards that prevent fraudulent activity, would that really do anything to speak to the question being asked? No. It's sidestepping. (Before you get all excited, I'm not comparing the church or Nelson to Wells Fargo- they are simply the most recent example that popped to mind. But it makes the point)

I want to know what happened, not what "should" have happened and the assumption that the church perfectly behaves as they "should" is a conversation stopper. It's hard to converse when you say, "they are perfect" because it allows for no movement of any kind. Whereas accepting that they are imperfect is not only more reasonable, but opens possibilities for consideration.

Who said “they are perfect?”

Here’s what allows for no movement: having instructions on how these things are to be done; having participants’ testimony of how they were carried out in the past; having twelve months of official support of the outcome; and, knowing that every Council member needn’t be present nor any PR review required for legitimacy (listed as your top worries) … and still whining about what possibly might be amiss. Also your general tone LOL

Is this thread really a side-ways expression of an inordinate need for transparency?

[HappyJackWagon]

33 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Who said “they are perfect?”

If you are dismissing out of hand the possibility that they didn't follow the normal protocol, then you are. If there is possibility they didn't perfectly follow the usual process then there are questions to be answered.

Here’s what allows for no movement: having instructions on how these things are to be done; having participants’ testimony of how they were carried out in the past; having twelve months of official support of the outcome; and, knowing that every Council member needn’t be present nor any PR review required for legitimacy (listed as your top worries) … and still whining about what possibly might be amiss. Also your general tone LOL

I don't feel that my general tone is "whiny".

I will ask you again, since you keep implying that there are various sources supporting the idea that they followed the usual process. What are those sources? You say we have 12 months of official support. Please cite this official support. CFR.

Is this thread really a side-ways expression of an inordinate need for transparency?

I don't understand this question. Please define "side-ways expression" and "Inordinate need". I don't know what you're trying to say.

Don't forget the CFR  It should be easy to find wince we have 12 months of official support.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If you are dismissing out of hand the possibility that they didn't follow the normal protocol, then you are.

Now that’s a stretch of logic (but sadly fits your pattern)! I guess that means you agree with everything you've understood me to say.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If there is possibility they didn't perfectly follow the usual process then there are questions to be answered.

That’s your windmill -- and good luck with all that! But thanks for reiterating where you're coming from.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't feel that my general tone is "whiny".

Believe me, to me it sounds whiny. And blustery. And pouty and fussy and spoiled. And needy. But I overlook all that and try to tease out anything of substance you might have to say. Which, when I see that I'm the last one posting with you, means there very likely isn't anything...

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I will ask you again, since you keep implying that there are various sources supporting the idea that they followed the usual process. What are those sources? You say we have 12 months of official support. Please cite this official support. CFR.

My reference for “twelve months of official support of the outcome” is that the policy has remained in the handbook that long.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't understand this question. Please define "side-ways expression" and "Inordinate need". I don't know what you're trying to say.

I'll do better than that, I'll rephrase the question: Is this thread really an unintentionally indirect way of discussing the actual concern at hand, which seems to be an (in my opinion, inordinate) disquiet about transparency?

side-ways expression = an unintentionally indirect way of discussing

inordinate need = inordinate disquiet

[rongo]

11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

My reference for “twelve months of official support of the outcome” is that the policy has remained in the handbook that long.

I hope, hope, hope that Bill Reel, John Dehlin, et. al. aren't correct and that this isn't going to be removed from the handbook in 2017. Only 1-2 years removed from this, it will look exactly like caving to social pressure and backlash. Such that it would be difficult for all but the most "We are at war with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia" of people not to see it. Especially given the attention and outcry when President Nelson specifically explained it as revelation.

Which is why I think they and their alleged sources are completely wrong. I would be stunned if this policy were undone any time remotely soon.

[HappyJackWagon]

20 minutes ago, rongo said:

I hope, hope, hope that Bill Reel, John Dehlin, et. al. aren't correct and that this isn't going to be removed from the handbook in 2017. Only 1-2 years removed from this, it will look exactly like caving to social pressure and backlash. Such that it would be difficult for all but the most "We are at war with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia" of people not to see it. Especially given the attention and outcry when President Nelson specifically explained it as revelation.

Which is why I think they and their alleged sources are completely wrong. I would be stunned if this policy were undone any time remotely soon.

Or, a change could be viewed as a correction. IF the brethren decide the policy is wrong, I sure hope they wouldn't keep it anyway out of a political need to not let others be right.

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Or, a change could be viewed as a correction. IF the brethren decide the policy is wrong, I sure hope they wouldn't keep it anyway out of a political need to not let others be right.

Such a short time after doubling down on revelation?

I don't know if many believers would ever look at revelation and the governing quorums quite the same. I think it would be much worse than ending polygamy or the priesthood ban.

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

Such a short time after doubling down on revelation?

I don't know if many believers would ever look at revelation and the governing quorums quite the same. I think it would be much worse than ending polygamy or the priesthood ban.

Are you advocating that they not change, even if wrong, because it would look bad?

Is it better for people to think it is revelation if it's not?

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Are you advocating that they not change, even if wrong, because it would look bad?

Is it better for people to think it is revelation if it's not?

Are you advocating that they change, even if right, because an extremely vocal and contentious segment of the population demands it?

Is it advisable to ignore revelation because of a hostile outcry denying its authenticity?

I should think that the Prophet Joseph Smith -- who endured mob violence, calumny, unjust imprisonment, betrayal; and ultimately died rather than forsake principles of truth -- would be deeply saddened if today's prophets and apostles were to cave in on this.

I like to think I personally would have been one of those who stood by the Prophet during the darkest of days. My inclination to stand with the prophets of today helps assure me that I would have been.