Non Apostle First Presidency

[JLHPROF]

Looking at the illness of two of our leaders caused me to look at the history of our leadership and succession (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_First_Presidency_(LDS_Church).

Now I already knew not every member of the First Presidency has always held the Apostleship.
But looking at this list, I am curious.  How would this have operated?
Without the Apostleship there can be no sealing keys, except for delegated authority as in a Temple sealer.

So purely from the standpoint of authority, how would a member of the First Presidency who didn't hold the Apostleship have any authority to direct those matters requiring priesthood keys?
For example, President Uchtdorf presides over President Nelson based on his position as a member of the First Presidency.
But if President Uchtdorf was not an Apostle he would only preside in Church administration but would have to defer to President Nelson in matters of priesthood.

Or does anyone have a better understanding than that?

There were quite a few in Joseph's day, but for the purpose of my question there are only 3:
John R. Winder
Charles W. Nibley
Thorpe B. Isaacson
 

Edited September 29, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Duncan]

keys aren't priesthood so say for giving the Temple sealing keys, Pres. Nelson would give the authority to a Temple Presidency or have an Apostle do it, by passing a Non Apostle First Presidency member. Remember too you aren't given new keys when you become the President of the Church you are just confirmed the dormant ones you got when you were ordained an apostle, that are now fully active-in your capacity as POC

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, Duncan said:

keys aren't priesthood so say for giving the Temple sealing keys, Pres. Nelson would give the authority to a Temple Presidency or have an Apostle do it, by passing a Non Apostle First Presidency member. Remember too you aren't given new keys when you become the President of the Church you are just confirmed the dormant ones you got when you were ordained an apostle, that are now fully active-in your capacity as POC

Right.
But a member of the FP who wasn't an Apostle wouldn't hold any authority to seal, and therefore no authority to delegate a sealing either.
They could be given delegated authority like a Temple sealer, but anyone holding the Apostleship would hold more authority than a member of the First Presidency in priesthood matters.
But in matters of running the Church the non-apostolic FP member would be able to overrule an Apostle.

Maybe that's why this hasn't happened in decades.

[ksfisher]

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

So purely from the standpoint of authority, how would a member of the First Presidency who didn't hold the Apostleship have any authority to direct those matters requiring priesthood keys?

 

A counselor in a bishopric, who does not hold priesthood keys, may give direction to deacons and teachers quorum presidents who do.  The authority by which the counselor operates is that of the bishop.

The same would be true of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve.  A counselor in the First Presidency, under the direction of and by the authority of the President of the Church, could give direction to the Twelve.

It should also be remembered that while all the apostles hold the keys of the priesthood, it is only the president of the church who has the authority to use them.  Ultimately all officers of the church are acting under his direction and authority. 

 

Edited September 29, 2017 by ksfisher
clarity

[hope_for_things]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Looking at the illness of two of our leaders caused me to look at the history of our leadership and succession (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_First_Presidency_(LDS_Church).

Now I already knew not every member of the First Presidency has always held the Apostleship.
But looking at this list, I am curious.  How would this have operated?
Without the Apostleship there can be no sealing keys, except for delegated authority as in a Temple sealer.

So purely from the standpoint of authority, how would a member of the First Presidency who didn't hold the Apostleship have any authority to direct those matters requiring priesthood keys?
For example, President Uchtdorf presides over President Nelson based on his position as a member of the First Presidency.
But if President Uchtdorf was not an Apostle he would only preside in Church administration but would have to defer to President Nelson in matters of priesthood.

Or does anyone have a better understanding than that?

There were quite a few in Joseph's day, but for the purpose of my question there are only 3:
John R. Winder
Charles W. Nibley
Thorpe B. Isaacson
 

If sealing keys can be delegated to temple presidents, then why not to a member of the First Presidency that's not an Apostle?

Also, there are some interesting examples of Apostles in history that also weren't part of the quorum of the twelve Apostles. 

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

A counselor in a bishopric, who holds not priesthood keys, may give direction to deacons and teachers quorum presidents, who do.  The authority by which the counselor operates is that of the bishop.

The same would be true of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve.  A counselor in the First Presidency, under the direction of and by the authority of the President of the Church, could give direction to the Twelve.

It should also be remembered that while all the apostles hold the keys of the priesthood, it is only the president of the church who has the authority to use them.  Ultimately all officers of the church are acting under his direction and authority. 

 

Close, but not quite the same thing.
D&C 107:10 High priests after the order of the Melchizedek Priesthood have a right to officiate in their own standing, under the direction of the presidency, in administering spiritual things, and also in the office of an elder, priest (of the Levitical order), teacher, deacon, and member.

So yes those holding the MP can direct those presidents of the Aaronic quorums.
But my original question has to do with a member of the FP (a calling, not a priesthood office) directing things that require the Apostleship.
And more specifically who would preside between a non-Apostle FP counselor and a member of the Qof12?

In theory, the Apostle would preside over the non-Apostolic counselor in Priesthood matters, but the counselor would preside over the Apostle in matters pertaining to Church administration.
Unless I am missing something.
It would make quite a mess if it happened today I think.
 

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

If sealing keys can be delegated to temple presidents, then why not to a member of the First Presidency that's not an Apostle?

Yes, they can.  I mentioned that - like a temple president or sealer.
But an Apostle would still preside over someone with delegated authority, no matter what Church calling they hold.  Apostle being the highest priesthood office in the Church today.
Isn't that right?

Quote

Also, there are some interesting examples of Apostles in history that also weren't part of the quorum of the twelve Apostles. 

A different topic, but yes, interesting.
Especially in matters of succession, seniority, etc.
 

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Close, but not quite the same thing.
D&C 107:10 High priests after the order of the Melchizedek Priesthood have a right to officiate in their own standing, under the direction of the presidency, in administering spiritual things, and also in the office of an elder, priest (of the Levitical order), teacher, deacon, and member.

So yes those holding the MP can direct those presidents of the Aaronic quorums.
But my original question has to do with a member of the FP (a calling, not a priesthood office) directing things that require the Apostleship.
And more specifically who would preside between a non-Apostle FP counselor and a member of the Qof12?

In theory, the Apostle would preside over the non-Apostolic counselor in Priesthood matters, but the counselor would preside over the Apostle in matters pertaining to Church administration.
Unless I am missing something.
It would make quite a mess if it happened today I think.
 

The office by which a counselor in a bishopric may direct a deacon or teachers quorum president if that of a counselor in the ward Aaronic Priesthood presidency.  Which, yes, is a Melchizedek Priesthood holder.  But any MP holder in the ward may not direct the ward AP, only the a member of the ward AP presidency.

The same pattern would seem to follow in that a non apostle First Presidency member may direct the work of apostles. 

[ksfisher]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

In theory, the Apostle would preside over the non-Apostolic counselor in Priesthood matters, but the counselor would preside over the Apostle in matters pertaining to Church administration.
Unless I am missing something.
It would make quite a mess if it happened today I think.
 

I don't think you are correct here.  The counselor in the First Presidency would always preside as he is acting in the place of and by the authority of the President of the Church.

[hope_for_things]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

Yes, they can.  I mentioned that - like a temple president or sealer.
But an Apostle would still preside over someone with delegated authority, no matter what Church calling they hold.  Apostle being the highest priesthood office in the Church today.
Isn't that right?

A different topic, but yes, interesting.
Especially in matters of succession, seniority, etc.
 

Thanks, I missed that other response earlier, good point.  I wonder how this would be looked at in the early church though before Joseph died.  I think the First Presidency as a group was of highest authority in the church.  Then the quorum of the 12, the Stake High Council, and the Seventy all had equal authority as groups, thinking back to the wording in the D&C, but just going from memory. 

Also, even earlier in the church when Joseph was First Elder and Oliver was Second Elder, those positions had rank above the 12.  

Much of this changed after Joseph died and Brigham Young began to gather power, I believe Mike Quinn talks about this in one of his books at length.  

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

 

Also, even earlier in the church when Joseph was First Elder and Oliver was Second Elder, those positions had rank above the 12.  

 

I believe that at the time that Joseph and Oliver held these titles that the offices of high priest and apostle had yet to be restored.  I may be incorrect as I'm going off memory at the moment.

[Duncan]

18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Close, but not quite the same thing.
D&C 107:10 High priests after the order of the Melchizedek Priesthood have a right to officiate in their own standing, under the direction of the presidency, in administering spiritual things, and also in the office of an elder, priest (of the Levitical order), teacher, deacon, and member.

So yes those holding the MP can direct those presidents of the Aaronic quorums.
But my original question has to do with a member of the FP (a calling, not a priesthood office) directing things that require the Apostleship.
And more specifically who would preside between a non-Apostle FP counselor and a member of the Qof12?

In theory, the Apostle would preside over the non-Apostolic counselor in Priesthood matters, but the counselor would preside over the Apostle in matters pertaining to Church administration.
Unless I am missing something.
It would make quite a mess if it happened today I think.
 

I would take a stab that the member of the First Presidency would preside, as the keys of presidency reside with anyone in the First Presidency as per DC 81:2

[ksfisher]

9 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I would take a stab that the member of the First Presidency would preside, as the keys of presidency reside with anyone in the First Presidency as per DC 81:2

Bingo.

[hope_for_things]

15 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I believe that at the time that Joseph and Oliver held these titles that the offices of high priest and apostle had yet to be restored.  I may be incorrect as I'm going off memory at the moment.

In June of 1829 when Oliver Cowdery received his revelation for the Articles of the Church of Christ he uses the title Apostle of Jesus Christ for himself.  High Priest I believe came in 1831, and the Aaronic and Melchezidek priesthoods theology didn't develop until later in the 1833 - 1835 time period.  

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/appendix-3-articles-of-the-church-of-christ-june-1829/3

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/event/high-priest-office-instituted?highlight=high priest

 

[hope_for_things]

36 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

But an Apostle would still preside over someone with delegated authority, no matter what Church calling they hold.  Apostle being the highest priesthood office in the Church today.
Isn't that right?

Some interesting comments from the Joseph Smith Papers site on the First Presidency

Quote

The highest presiding body of the church.1

 An 11 November 1831 revelation stated that the president of the high priesthood was to preside over the church.2

 JS was ordained as president of the high priesthood on 25 January 1832.3

 In March 1832, JS appointed two counselors to himself; by March 1833, JS and his counselors were functioning as the presidency of the high priesthood.4

 The term “first presidency” was occasionally used to describe the presidency of the high priesthood by 1835.5

 In spring 1835, the “Instruction on Priesthood” indicated that the Melchizedek priesthood held the right to preside over all church offices.6

The instruction also stated that three presidents of the high priesthood constituted a “quorum of the presidency of the church,” though the First Presidency sometimes consisted of more than three presidents.7

 A president was appointed over the quorum of high priests in 1836, but the office remained distinct from JS’s role as president of the high priesthood.8

 The First Presidency appointed church leaders, organized stakes, and provided spiritual leadership for the church.9

 It also served as the ultimate authority in matters of church discipline, finances, and administration.10

 Revelations in 1831 and 1838 established disciplinary procedures for trying members of the First Presidency

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/topic/first-presidency?highlight=melchizedek

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Looking at the illness of two of our leaders caused me to look at the history of our leadership and succession (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_First_Presidency_(LDS_Church).

Now I already knew not every member of the First Presidency has always held the Apostleship.
But looking at this list, I am curious.  How would this have operated?
Without the Apostleship there can be no sealing keys, except for delegated authority as in a Temple sealer.

So purely from the standpoint of authority, how would a member of the First Presidency who didn't hold the Apostleship have any authority to direct those matters requiring priesthood keys?
For example, President Uchtdorf presides over President Nelson based on his position as a member of the First Presidency.
But if President Uchtdorf was not an Apostle he would only preside in Church administration but would have to defer to President Nelson in matters of priesthood.

Or does anyone have a better understanding than that?

There were quite a few in Joseph's day, but for the purpose of my question there are only 3:
John R. Winder
Charles W. Nibley
Thorpe B. Isaacson
 

From the Wikipedia article on the First Presidency: 

Counselors must be high priests^[1] and are usually chosen from among the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, although there have been a number of exceptions where members of the church's Presiding Bishopric or the church at large were called to be counselors. Any high priest of the church is eligible to be called as a counselor in the First Presidency. There have also been a few cases where counselors have been ordained to the priesthood office of apostle and became members of the Quorum of the Twelve after already being set apart as counselors in the First Presidency (e.g., J. Reuben Clark). There have been other cases where counselors have been ordained to the office of apostle but not set apart as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve (e.g., Alvin R. Dyer). Other counselors in the First Presidency were never ordained to the office of apostle (e.g., Charles W. Nibley; John R. Winder). Whether or not a counselor is an apostle, all members of the First Presidency are sustained by the church as prophets, seers, and revelators.

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

From the Wikipedia article on the First Presidency: 

Counselors must be high priests^[1] and are usually chosen from among the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, although there have been a number of exceptions where members of the church's Presiding Bishopric or the church at large were called to be counselors. Any high priest of the church is eligible to be called as a counselor in the First Presidency. There have also been a few cases where counselors have been ordained to the priesthood office of apostle and became members of the Quorum of the Twelve after already being set apart as counselors in the First Presidency (e.g., J. Reuben Clark). There have been other cases where counselors have been ordained to the office of apostle but not set apart as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve (e.g., Alvin R. Dyer). Other counselors in the First Presidency were never ordained to the office of apostle (e.g., Charles W. Nibley; John R. Winder). Whether or not a counselor is an apostle, all members of the First Presidency are sustained by the church as prophets, seers, and revelators.

Thank you.  This is very thorough.
It doesn't really address the topic at hand though - for a non-apostolic counselor, even a prophet seer and revelator, do they hold the keys of the office of the apostleship as the 12 do?
Or are they functioning under the delegated authority of the President they serve like a temple president?

[Jeanne]

18 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

From the Wikipedia article on the First Presidency: 

Counselors must be high priests^[1] and are usually chosen from among the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, although there have been a number of exceptions where members of the church's Presiding Bishopric or the church at large were called to be counselors. Any high priest of the church is eligible to be called as a counselor in the First Presidency. There have also been a few cases where counselors have been ordained to the priesthood office of apostle and became members of the Quorum of the Twelve after already being set apart as counselors in the First Presidency (e.g., J. Reuben Clark). There have been other cases where counselors have been ordained to the office of apostle but not set apart as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve (e.g., Alvin R. Dyer). Other counselors in the First Presidency were never ordained to the office of apostle (e.g., Charles W. Nibley; John R. Winder). Whether or not a counselor is an apostle, all members of the First Presidency are sustained by the church as prophets, seers, and revelators.

Question for all of you...I am not understanding being ordained but not set apart....what does this mean and why would that be so? 

[JLHPROF]

19 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Question for all of you...I am not understanding being ordained but not set apart....what does this mean and why would that be so? 

Ordain has to do with an office.
Set Apart has to do with a calling.

A person can be ordained an Elder but given no calling in the Church.
An Elder can be set apart to do many callings, including being the Elders Quorum President.
The Relief Society President is set apart, but is not ordained to any office.

Ordination is the giving of priesthood.  Setting apart is being called to a role or duty, sometimes with additional priesthood keys, sometimes without.
That's why there were those called and set apart to be in the First Presidency who were never ordained Apostles.  And why not every Apostle is set apart to serve in the First Presidency.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Duncan said:

keys aren't priesthood so say for giving the Temple sealing keys, Pres. Nelson would give the authority to a Temple Presidency or have an Apostle do it, by passing a Non Apostle First Presidency member. Remember too you aren't given new keys when you become the President of the Church you are just confirmed the dormant ones you got when you were ordained an apostle, that are now fully active-in your capacity as POC

Or in his capacity as Pres of the High Priesthood.  The Church is a temporary artifact, while the priesthood is forever.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Ordain has to do with an office.
Set Apart has to do with a calling.

A person can be ordained an Elder but given no calling in the Church.
An Elder can be set apart to do many callings, including being the Elders Quorum President.
The Relief Society President is set apart, but is not ordained to any office.

Ordination is the giving of priesthood.  Setting apart is being called to a role or duty, sometimes with additional priesthood keys, sometimes without.
That's why there were those called and set apart to be in the First Presidency who were never ordained Apostles.  And why not every Apostle is set apart to serve in the First Presidency.

Thanks..I didn't know this.  Ha...I was set apart once...didn't know I had keys..!

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Thank you.  This is very thorough.
It doesn't really address the topic at hand though - for a non-apostolic counselor, even a prophet seer and revelator, do they hold the keys of the office of the apostleship as the 12 do?
Or are they functioning under the delegated authority of the President they serve like a temple president?

Does this help?

Sidney Rigdon and Frederick G. Williams were set apart as counselors in the First Presidency. The Prophet Joseph Smith recorded: “Elder Rigdon expressed a desire that himself and Brother Frederick G. Williams should be ordained to the offices to which they had been called, … according to the revelation given on the 8th of March, 1833. Accordingly I laid my hands on Brothers Sidney and Frederick, and ordained them to take part with me in holding the keys of this last kingdom, and to assist in the Presidency of the High Priesthood, as my Counselors” (in History of the Church, 1:334).

March 28, 1835

The Prophet Joseph Smith received the revelation found in Doctrine and Covenants 107:1–58, further defining the First Presidency as the presiding quorum of the Church: “Of the Melchizedek Priesthood, three Presiding High Priests, chosen by the body, appointed and ordained to that office, and upheld by the confidence, faith, and prayer of the church, form a quorum of the Presidency of the Church” (D&C 107:22).

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

...........................................................

There were quite a few in Joseph's day, but for the purpose of my question there are only 3:
John R. Winder
Charles W. Nibley
Thorpe B. Isaacson

Can someone be an apostle without a formal ordination?   Are the twelve disciples the same as the twelve apostles?  

An apostle is an official "messenger" (Luke 6:13, I Corinthians 12:28-29, Ephesians 4:11).  Jesus was an apostle (Hebrews 3:1), so whose messenger was he?  And what was his message?

The Council of the First Presidency is the Presidency over the Council of the Twelve Apostles - similar to a Presidency presiding over a quorum of Deacons; Teachers, Elders, High Priests, Seventies, etc.
 
The First Presidency, under the direction of Jesus Christ, presides over the entire Priesthood with Pres. Monson as the Chief Apostle who holds, as revealed in the D&C, all priesthood keys and has all Gifts of God pertaining to the Church. This is what sets him apart from all holders of the Priesthood. D&C 107:92 

Does that standard apply at all times and in all places?

 

[cdowis]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Can someone be an apostle without a formal ordination?  

Apostle is an office in the Melchizedek priesthood, and similar to a HP or Elder he is ordained as such.    We kept statistics on attendance based on priesthood -- elder, seventy (when it was ward based), HP, and apostle.

Edited September 30, 2017 by cdowis

[2BizE]

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks, I missed that other response earlier, good point.  I wonder how this would be looked at in the early church though before Joseph died.  I think the First Presidency as a group was of highest authority in the church.  Then the quorum of the 12, the Stake High Council, and the Seventy all had equal authority as groups, thinking back to the wording in the D&C, but just going from memory. 

Also, even earlier in the church when Joseph was First Elder and Oliver was Second Elder, those positions had rank above the 12.  

Much of this changed after Joseph died and Brigham Young began to gather power, I believe Mike Quinn talks about this in one of his books at length.  

Bingo.  This is the reason we struggle with understanding this concept.  The hierarchy structure has changed since the Lord defined it with Joseph the prophet.  There is this concept today that the FP is the highest and then the Q12 and then the Q70, but really the structure is flat according to section 107 and each of these three quorums are equal in authority.  Also keep in mind that the MP is higher than any of the offices in it.  If President Monson were to ask a regular elder from a ward to ordain someone to the office of Patriarch it would be correct.  If the president asked the same elder to ordain someone to the office of Apostle, it would be correct.  The MP is greater than all of the offices within and all actions of the priesthood are done under the authority of the President.

The Q12 is a High council for areas of the world not in a stake or mission district with its key responsibility being missionary work.  Somehow, this quorum was able to take more power than it was originally intended when the Lord defined responsibilities after the three witnesses to the BOM selected the Q12.

This is why when we read section 107 and then look at the current leadership structure we get confused.