Regional Priesthood Leadership Conference

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

1. Common judge (repentance and discipline)

2. Finances (tithing settlement, fast offering expenditures approval). I am aware of bishops delegating needs assessment and counseling on welfare issues to others, such that he basically only signs the checks. I personally don't like this.

3. Setting apart quorum and auxiliary presidents. This has to be the bishop, but counselors can set apart counselors and secretaries (EQP and HPGL set apart their own secretaries).

4. MP advancement interviews (although, it may now be permissible for counselors to do this, too.)

5. President of the Aaronic priesthood, with all that entails.

[6. Fairly recently, counselors were approved to interview for baptism, patriarchal blessings, and AP ordination.]

The way I see it, if bishops divest themselves of as much as possible, so that there is as little pastoral/interviewing between the bishop and his flock as possible, that is not a good thing. I do see some bishops trying to do as little as possible and only doing what they are required to do. I think this approaches what some have discussed here about having a "pastor" for the ward, with a bishop being over welfare and bureaucracy things. Yuck!  It's the spiritual experiences that make it worth it. If the bishop is relegated to a green eye shade-wearing clerk ---- that's not good.

Can you explain why a president of an auxiliary has to be set apart by the bishop?  I didn't realize that was a rule.  And what quorum presidents must he set apart? I know he doesn't do elder's quorum because that's a stake thing, right?

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And what quorum presidents must he set apart? I know he doesn't do elder's quorum because that's a stake thing, right?

The deacons and teachers quorum presidents hold priesthood keys.  Only the bishop can give those keys to them.

An elders quorum president must be set apart by the stake president (not a counselor or high councilor) for the same reason.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

The deacons and teachers quorum presidents hold priesthood keys.  Only the bishop can give those keys to them.

An elders quorum president must be set apart by the stake president (not a counselor or high councilor) for the same reason.

That makes sense, but why does a bishop have to set a part a RS or YM's president?

[ksfisher]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Can you explain why a president of an auxiliary has to be set apart by the bishop? 

I don't know exactly, but part of what's going on in the setting apart is that that person receives the priesthood authority necessary to be the head of that organization. 

[ksfisher]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That makes sense, but why does a bishop have to set a part a RS or YM's president?

See my answer above.  It makes sense in my mind that it should be this way but I'm not sure I fully understand why.  If nothing else I trust the brethren that this is the way it should be and hopefully I'll come to that understanding someday.

Edited September 26, 2017 by ksfisher

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, ALarson said:

If one believes that Joseph was commanded to restore polygamy, I get that.  But did he need to marry over 30 women (most without Emma's knowledge and all causing her grief and pain), some as young as 14 years old and some already married to other men, in order to restore the principle of polygamy?  

I believe that Joseph had choices regarding how he went about restoring polygamy.  The details of how he went about it and who he chose to marry is what mainly becomes an issue for many members who learn about them.

I don't believe Joseph had the choices you think he did.
We could start with the highly divisive stories of the angel and the sword.
Even if we leave them aside, the idea that his marriages were all his own idea is also not according to the records.  We also have to look at the doctrine of premortal covenants, something that also troubles many members, but may be a cause for the marriages.

Mary Lightner was told by Joseph that she "was his before I came here".
Brigham Young in his vision of Joseph Smith was shown and told:

• Our Father in Heaven organized the human family, but they are all disorganized and in great confusion.  Joseph then showed me the pattern, how they were in the beginning. This I cannot describe, but I saw it, and saw where the Priesthood had been taken from the earth and how it must be joined together, so that there would be a perfect chain from Father Adam to his latest posterity.

John Taylor taught that:

• Thou being willing and anxious to imitate them, waiting and desirous to obtain a body, a resurrection and exaltation also, and having obtained permission, madest a covenant with one of thy kindred spirits to be thy guardian angel while in mortality, also with two others, male and female spirits, that thou wouldst come and take a tabernacle through their lineage, and become one of their offspring.  You also chose a kindred spirit whom you loved in the spirit world to be your head, stay, husband and protector on the earth and to exalt you in eternal worlds.  All these were arranged, likewise the spirits that should tabernacle through your lineage.

So why did he marry the women he did?  Perhaps there is more to it doctrinally.

[JLHPROF]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That makes sense, but why does a bishop have to set a part a RS or YM's president?

Because they are receiving a calling of leadership within his ward.  He presides over them as head of the ward.

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't believe Joseph had the choices you think he did.

Oh, there's always a choice. 

I do agree that things got complicated for him, but I do wonder what really was necessary before the principle of polygamy had been restored?  One plural wife?  At least ten?  Was it necessary to marry some women who already had legal husbands?  Those are questions that some wonder about regarding the choices he made.

Once again, everyone has to do their own reading and research on the topic and come to their own conclusions.  For me, I feel that much of what transpired did not come from God.  

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Because they are receiving a calling of leadership within his ward.  He presides over them as head of the ward.

But isn't that true of every calling in the ward?

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

See my answer above.  It makes sense in my mind that it should be this way but I'm not sure I fully understand why.  If nothing else I trust the brethren that this is the way it should be and hopefully I'll come to that understanding someday.

I don't care one way or the other, but if someone implies that there is a doctrinal reason that the bishop set's auxiliary and quorum presidents apart I want to know what it is.  If it's just policy, that's fine too, but I would also like to know that it's just policy.

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't care one way or the other, but if someone implies that there is a doctrinal reason that the bishop set's auxiliary and quorum presidents apart I want to know what it is.  If it's just policy, that's fine too, but I would also like to know that it's just policy.

The quorum presidents is doctrine.

Auxiliary presidents, it seems like it's a little more than policy, but if it's doctrine I can't quite identify it.  It makes sense administratively to me that the head of the ward would set apart the head of an organization.  It's a pattern that seems to feel right to me.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't believe Joseph had the choices you think he did.
We could start with the highly divisive stories of the angel and the sword.
Even if we leave them aside, the idea that his marriages were all his own idea is also not according to the records.  We also have to look at the doctrine of premortal covenants, something that also troubles many members, but may be a cause for the marriages.

Mary Lightner was told by Joseph that she "was his before I came here".
Brigham Young in his vision of Joseph Smith was shown and told:

• Our Father in Heaven organized the human family, but they are all disorganized and in great confusion.  Joseph then showed me the pattern, how they were in the beginning. This I cannot describe, but I saw it, and saw where the Priesthood had been taken from the earth and how it must be joined together, so that there would be a perfect chain from Father Adam to his latest posterity.

John Taylor taught that:

• Thou being willing and anxious to imitate them, waiting and desirous to obtain a body, a resurrection and exaltation also, and having obtained permission, madest a covenant with one of thy kindred spirits to be thy guardian angel while in mortality, also with two others, male and female spirits, that thou wouldst come and take a tabernacle through their lineage, and become one of their offspring.  You also chose a kindred spirit whom you loved in the spirit world to be your head, stay, husband and protector on the earth and to exalt you in eternal worlds.  All these were arranged, likewise the spirits that should tabernacle through your lineage.

So why did he marry the women he did?  Perhaps there is more to it doctrinally.

I believe he was commanded to institute plural marriage.  I think he got creative (came up with the idea on his own) doing it with other men's wives, but I am not sure of the reasoning behind it ( the men who knew weren't protesting so it must not have been seen at that time as removing them from the equation completely; it is also possible it was seen as in name only for this lifetime and was a way to live plural marriage without living polygyny if that makes sense).  Bottomline for me is he stopped doing that completely and moved on to single women only, which seems to indicate a change in understanding.

The one 14/15 year old we know about (added: in terms of how and why it happened), the sealing was initiated by her father and therefore did not have to involve any real reasoning about what plural marriage should be like on Joseph's part save wanting to do something loving for a beloved friend and his family.  We don't know what was involved in his other very young marriage, it may have been a similar situation for all we know...not instigated by Joseph so not really part of how he himself was attempting to fulfill the command.

If the story about Fanny Young is true, it comes across as a very relaxed view of the sealing...decided in a moment based on another's emotional rejection of it with no apparent seen need to ensure the woman was committed to the principle at that point...it comes across to me as having an expectation of fluidity afterwards (the Lord will ensure everyone is happy and where they are needed as long as there is a sealing in place) or absolute arrogance coupled with compassion (deciding her eternal state be a great one, but without any consultation with .Fanny first and instead just expecting her to do it).  The obsession with hierarchy attaching to sealings seems to have come in Brigham's time as prophet (men fighting over who gets to be father in Law of Adoption sealings, women and children not being able to be "stolen" from dead husbands).

http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/plural-wives-overview/fanny-young/

Edited September 26, 2017 by Calm

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

I believe he was commanded to institute plural marriage.  I think he got creative (came up with the idea on his own) doing it with other men's wives . . . 

Was the angel with a drawn sword him "getting creative," or was God's hand in that, too?

That's where I think people have to decide what they really believe. If you believe the angels with swords, then you believe that those, too, were God's will. That's what I believe.

[JLHPROF]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But isn't that true of every calling in the ward?

Every calling Aaronic and below.
So auxiliaries, RS, YM, YW, etc.
Only Melchizedek falls under the Stake President - Elders, High Priests, the Bishop himself.

 

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Every calling Aaronic and below.
So auxiliaries, RS, YM, YW, etc.
Only Melchizedek falls under the Stake President - Elders, High Priests, the Bishop himself.

 

Yes.  So, if presiding over people were the reason that the bishop had to personally set them apart, he would have to personally set apart everyone (but a handful) in the ward, right?

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The quorum presidents is doctrine.

Auxiliary presidents, it seems like it's a little more than policy, but if it's doctrine I can't quite identify it.  It makes sense administratively to me that the head of the ward would set apart the head of an organization.  It's a pattern that seems to feel right to me.

That's how I see it too.

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Yes.  So, if presiding over people were the reason that the bishop had to personally set them apart, he would have to personally set apart everyone (but a handful) in the ward, right?

In the setting apart the bishop is in effect delegating the stewardship for that organization to the person being set apart.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

Was the angel with a drawn sword him "getting creative," or was God's hand in that, too?

That's where I think people have to decide what they really believe. If you believe the angels with swords, then you believe that those, too, were God's will. That's what I believe.

The angel need not have given Joseph specifics on how to do it, at least to begin with.  He appears to have appeared at least one time to Joseph after he started being sealed  to other men's wives iirc (LDS.org has the angel appearing three times, the last with a sword, between 1834 and 1842).

Edited September 26, 2017 by Calm

[rongo]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

The angel need not have given him specifics on how to do it, at least to begin with.

Then again, he might have. 

I think that those who recoil from polygamy are on shaky ground when they try to retain a deistic "God's will" while blaming Joseph for the implementation. By "deistic," I mean, similar to the deists: yes, there's a God, but he doesn't really interact or intervene. He wound things up and then let them run their course."

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

Then again, he might have. 

True, but historically speaking significant changes in practices are often, perhaps even mostly, tied to revelation that gives details apparently not previously covered, a prime example being sealing in families being switched from .Law of Adoption (which appears from the way Wilford Woodruff speaks of it to be a figured it out on their own instance) to sealing to actual parents and in own family lines rather than creating a new family structure through everyone getting tied back to the prophet.

It makes sense to me Joseph went through this with polygamy.  Plural marriage in general was revealed to him.  Some details came later. Perhaps if he lived more refinements would have come to him.  

It is a very significant change imo that his sealings were changed from mostly with married women to only with single women in 42.

Revealed refinements may have come to Brigham.  I haven't studied him enough to see changes in context.

I think God lets us work things out on our own at times so that when how to revelation comes we can easily see how much better it is and so more fully and immediately commit to his revealed way.

Edited September 26, 2017 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

The one 14/15 year old we know about, the sealing was initiated by her father and therefore did not have to involve any real reasoning about what plural marriage should be like on Joseph's part save wanting to do something loving for a beloved friend and his family.  We don't know what was involved in his other very young marriage, it may have been a similar situation for all we know...not instigated by Joseph so not really part of how he himself was attempting to fulfill the command.

The other very young marriage was also 14/15.

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

Was the angel with a drawn sword him "getting creative," or was God's hand in that, too?

That's where I think people have to decide what they really believe. If you believe the angels with swords, then you believe that those, too, were God's will. That's what I believe.

I believe Joseph followed God's direction and married those God directed him too.  I believe the angel was sent to ensure Joseph went against his cultural traditions.
And I believe it bothers us so much because we have cultural traditions so firmly implanted that we cannot fully understand things of God.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The other very young marriage was also 14/15.

I meant know about in enough detail to know why he was sealed to her.

[JulieM]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

The angel need not have given Joseph specifics on how to do it, at least to begin with.  He appears to have appeared at least one time to Joseph after he started being sealed  to other men's wives iirc (LDS.org has the angel appearing three times, the last with a sword, between 1834 and 1842).

Doesn't it say in the essay  something like he didn't receive much instruction from God on how to live polygamy?  Would that include from the angel?

Edited September 26, 2017 by JulieM

[Calm]

I think it is quite possible that polyandry was part of the revelation of plural marriage, but when it couldn't be lived in the way it was meant and resistance to the idea threatened the ties it was supposed to create, the polyandry aspect of plural marriage was removed.  This is actually what I would prefer.  I believe If plural marriage does exist eternally, polyandry will also.  Perhaps Joseph was aware of this future state (D&C 132 may hint of this) but erred in how he attempted to include it because the culture was not ready for such freedom for women (from what we are told, at times it was about the husband and Joseph most and the woman was a symbol of the depth of their relationship, at times it was viewed as Joseph's right to a woman).

I think it is possible polyandry was undertaken because Joseph was trying avoid hurting Emma and he was putting off living the Principle until a time when Emma would understand and there would be no competition or hardship in the life due to everyone being perfected.

I think it is possible polyandry was included by Joseph because he saw it as the closest bond and greatest blessing he could create for  his friends, male and female...he and the others may have viewed him as having some special office in the next life that would somehow give greater blessings to those with direct ties...if so, .I think this was based on a partial understanding of sealings and is the type of reasoning that led to the Law of Adoption sealings that were later corrected and replaced with family line sealings.

I could probably come up with some other reasons, I think I have in the past.

Without records, the little we know (if we accept both that plural marriage was a commandment and an angel appeared to Joseph multiple times over the years commanding he live it as well as instructing others) allows for a lot of different constructions of the events.

Edited September 26, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Doesn't it say in the essay  something like he didn't receive much instruction from God on how to live polygamy?  Would that include from the angel?

"Although the Lord commanded the adoption—and later the cessation—of plural marriage in the latter days, He did not give exact instructions on how to obey the commandment. Significant social and cultural changes often include misunderstandings and difficulties."