Popular Post smac97 Posted January 3, 2018 Popular Post Posted January 3, 2018 One of my favorite movies made in the last 10+ years is Amazing Grace, which tells the story of William Wilberforce, an English politician who, with others (including, notably, Thomas Clarkson) spent decades (from around 1787 to 1833, or around 46 years) seeking the abolition of slavery in the British Empire, and who did so principally based on his devout religious convictions as an Evangelical Christian. The film is really well done and is worthy watching. Here's a spoiler: At the end of the film, there is a scene where Parliament formally abolishes slavery in the British Empire. An MP then rises and makes the following remarks honoring Wilberforce: Quote When people speak of great men, they think of men like Napoleon. Men of violence. Rarely do they think of peaceful men. But contrast the reception they'll receive when they return home from their battles. Napoleon will arrive in pomp and in power. A man who's achieved the very summit of earthly ambition. Yet his dreams will be haunted by the oppressions of war. William Wilberforce, however, will return to his family, lay his head on his pillow and remember the slave trade is no more. Thomas S. Monson was a peaceful man. He served others for decades. He was a good and decent and kind man. He was a disciple of Jesus Christ. Let us think of the reception he will receive now that he has returned home. "Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord." (Matt. 25:21) Thanks, -Smac 8
Anakin7 Posted January 3, 2018 Posted January 3, 2018 9 minutes ago, smac97 said: One of my favorite movies made in the last 10+ years is Amazing Grace, which tells the story of William Wilberforce, an English politician who, with others (including, notably, Thomas Clarkson) spent decades (from around 1787 to 1833, or around 46 years) seeking the abolition of slavery in the British Empire, and who did so principally based on his devout religious convictions as an Evangelical Christian. The film is really well done and is worthy watching. Here's a spoiler: At the end of the film, there is a scene where Parliament formally abolishes slavery in the British Empire. An MP then rises and makes the following remarks honoring Wilberforce: Thomas S. Monson was a peaceful man. He served others for decades. He was a good and decent and kind man. He was a disciple of Jesus Christ. Let us think of the reception he will receive now that he has returned home. "Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord." (Matt. 25:21) Thanks, -Smac Amen and Amen. The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine Washing My Garment In His Blood In His Eternal Debt/Grace Anakin7 LDS Sentinel, Son Of Thunder, Kryptonian, Warrior
hope_for_things Posted January 3, 2018 Posted January 3, 2018 8 hours ago, Calm said: What is the best positive article out there on the process of succession in the Church.? Found much material on lds.org, but too sleepy yo keep looking There are some good links at the bottom of this JI post. http://juvenileinstructor.org/succession-in-the-lds-presidency-past-and-present/ 1
Calm Posted January 3, 2018 Posted January 3, 2018 (edited) I appreciate the help, but I am actually looking for a nonlds.org/mormonnewsroom source as I already have those. Trying to compile a useful list for others to read and thought an academic commentary would provide some useful additional depth. And as much as I love this board and all of you, I don't use it as a reference though I give credit when I get info from it. I didn't see the second page, thanks HFT. Edited January 3, 2018 by Calm 1
JLHPROF Posted January 3, 2018 Posted January 3, 2018 (edited) 8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Though not yet president of the Church, President Nelson is properly addressed with the title "President," as he presides over the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. RIP President Monson. Enjoy the rest after so many years of service. As far as I am concerned, the keys passed from President Monson to President Nelson immediately upon his death. "President of the Church" is a calling, and an important one. But the man in D&C 132:7 holding all the keys doesn't require further ordination. President Nelson may not be President of the Church for a while, but he is already the one man on the earth. Interestingly, that also means an additional 2 new Apostles when the three junior Apostles have only been there 2 1/2 years. That will make almost half the quorum having less than 3 years experience. Very interesting. Edited January 3, 2018 by JLHPROF 1
pogi Posted January 3, 2018 Posted January 3, 2018 Sorry for the small pics, but these images capture the legacy of President Monson in my mind. A legacy of family, love, service, and genuine attention and caring for others. 2
CMZ Posted January 3, 2018 Posted January 3, 2018 8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I beg to differ. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1986/04/solemn-assembly-and-sustaining-of-church-officers?lang=eng Thanks. It was late for me last night when I typed that, but thought I had read something like that before.
CMZ Posted January 3, 2018 Posted January 3, 2018 49 minutes ago, Calm said: And as much as I love this board and all of you, I don't use it as a reference though I give credit when I get info from it. Well, someone here could say the same thing you see elsewhere. Someone saying something here doesn't make it untrue.
CMZ Posted January 3, 2018 Posted January 3, 2018 Also, it doesn't have to be "The president of the Quorum of the Twelve" that sets apart the new president of the Church. I believe the Church Patriarch set Joseph F. Smith apart to be the sixth president of the Church. 1
Gray Posted January 3, 2018 Posted January 3, 2018 I remember in the MTC we would always look forward to President Monson's talks because he had a great sense of humor. Rest in peace.
Calm Posted January 3, 2018 Posted January 3, 2018 (edited) 11 minutes ago, CMZ said: Well, someone here could say the same thing you see elsewhere. Someone saying something here doesn't make it untrue. Not saying it does. The problem with using this board as a reference is it comes with a whole lot more than just the info I intend to supply. Plus I may know enough about a poster to trust them as a source because I know they either have experience or do their research, but anyone I refer wouldn't have that background, so why should they care what a stranger says on a weird message board? Edited January 3, 2018 by Calm
longview Posted January 3, 2018 Posted January 3, 2018 I grew up in the neighborhood of Seventh South West Temple in SLC Utah. So we have crossed paths many times although I do not have direct memories of seeing him during my youth. But my sister has told me of him visiting with my grandmother in her home. No question in my mind he truly was the salt of the earth. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 3, 2018 Posted January 3, 2018 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: It had been almost four years since the death of the only President the young LDS Church had known, but when Brother Brigham was made President of the Church, he had already received D&C 136 (Jan 1847) and he had already convincingly demonstrated his leadership skills -- if there was really any doubt. When he was made President on Dec 5, 1847 (the third day of Hanukka), it was in the midst of a Jewish Jubilee Year (from Sept 11, 1847 to Sept 28, 1848). Of course he was unaware of those synchronisms. Not only the vanguard company had arrived in Salt Lake (July 1847), but the first full company of Mormons had arrived in Oct 1847. The full second company would also arrive late in that Jubilee year -- punctuated by the Miracle of Seagulls & Crickets in Summer -- this was a conscious reenactment of the Israelite Exodus. Indeed. Including an almost eerie repetition of the miracle of the quail when flocks landed in the "poor camps" of Nauvoo refugees encamped on the Iowa side of the Mississippi River in 1846, unable to progress further due to their poverty and sickness. Just as with ancient Israel, the coming of the birds helped stave off starvation. 1
Mahoneymoriancumer Posted January 3, 2018 Posted January 3, 2018 I may have shared this before, but my dad told me my favorite President Monson story several years ago. My grandparents were called as assistants to one of the retirement homes in Holladay, Utah, to assist in running sacrament and church services for the tenants and patients, and my parents were accompanying them that day. As they were walking in, President and Sister Monson were walking in just in front of them. For those that don't know, President Monson was a long-time resident of the area. Dad told me that President Monson stopped at every door along the hall, stopping to talk with residents. He said President Monson not only knew everyone, he knew their families and their histories, asking about relatives by name. Sister Monson kept trying to hurry him along, saying, "Tommy, we're going to be late." Still, he continued to greet and visit with everyone he passed. I'll confess to thinking some of the stories shared by President Monson over the years held a bit of hyperbole; after all, how could anyone have so many stories? Hearing my dad's story about President Monson made me realize he really did know and serve so many. What a glorious example of caring for the one. President Monson will be deeply missed. 4
Avatar4321 Posted January 3, 2018 Posted January 3, 2018 42 minutes ago, CMZ said: Also, it doesn't have to be "The president of the Quorum of the Twelve" that sets apart the new president of the Church. I believe the Church Patriarch set Joseph F. Smith apart to be the sixth president of the Church. How would the president set himself apart?
CMZ Posted January 3, 2018 Posted January 3, 2018 8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I beg to differ. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1986/04/solemn-assembly-and-sustaining-of-church-officers?lang=eng Still trying to research it but I think what happened is that in the First Presidency Christmas Devotional of December 1985 that the new First Presidency was announced to a general gathering of the church but with the solemn assembly aspect being held off until April 1986.
CMZ Posted January 3, 2018 Posted January 3, 2018 5 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said: How would the president set himself apart? What it means is that (and we'll use the current situation as an example) the newly called President of the Quorum of the Twelve (in this case it will become Dallin H. Oaks) sets apart the just prior President of the Quorum of the Twelve (in this case Russell M. Nelson) to be the President of the Church (which the D&C also calls the Presiding High Priest over the High Priesthood of the Church).
Scott Lloyd Posted January 3, 2018 Posted January 3, 2018 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quite right. My bad. I almost typed President and then thought he had not been set apart yet. The only change in address so far is that Eyring and Uchtdorf are back to being addressed as Elder at least for now. True. We are in one of those rare and brief periods right now when we are between First Presidencies.
CMZ Posted January 3, 2018 Posted January 3, 2018 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: True. We are in one of those rare and brief periods right now when we are between First Presidencies. Yes, another apostolic interregnum. 1
JLHPROF Posted January 3, 2018 Posted January 3, 2018 1 minute ago, Avatar4321 said: How would the president set himself apart? He couldn't. Anyone with authority over the entire Church could perform the setting apart of the Presidency of the Church. According to D&C 107:22-26 that allows for several options. But again, that is the setting apart (calling in the Church), not ordination. D&C 132:7 is the more important office than Church President (even though they are the same person). 7 And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations,oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.
CMZ Posted January 3, 2018 Posted January 3, 2018 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: The only change in address so far is that Eyring and Uchtdorf are back to being addressed as Elder at least for now. Yes, kind of true. Except that there is also the thing where once someone has been a "president" they can still continue to be called "President" even after being released from the calling that made them a president. I do think with counselors released from the First Presidency that "President" or "Elder" could work. If I remember correctly when Hugh B. Brown was released from the First Presidency that officially he was known as "Elder Brown" once again, but I don't think that made it inappropriate for people to address him as President Brown. I think people refer to former stake presidents and stake presidency counselors of theirs as "President" all the time. Same goes for bishops. And men who had served as bishops can even continue to be addressed as "Bishop" when they move to a new area. I was in a ward a few years back where a family moved in and the bishop of the ward they moved into announced to the ward, "Brother Smith (name changed) was a bishop in the ward he moved from so he can be addressed as Bishop Smith here even though he is not the bishop of this ward." 1
CMZ Posted January 3, 2018 Posted January 3, 2018 (edited) 9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: He couldn't. Anyone with authority over the entire Church could perform the setting apart of the Presidency of the Church. According to D&C 107:22-26 that allows for several options. But again, that is the setting apart (calling in the Church), not ordination. D&C 132:7 is the more important office than Church President (even though they are the same person). 7 And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations,oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead. I think Avatar took it to mean that the President of the Quorum of the Twelve (Russell M. Nelson) sets himself (Russell M. Nelson) apart as the President of the Church, rather than seeing it as the new (brand spanking new) President of the Quorum of the Twelve (Dallin H. Oaks) sets apart the guy who had been serving as President of the Quorum of the Twelve (Russell M. Nelson) to become President of the Church. Edited January 3, 2018 by CMZ
Scott Lloyd Posted January 3, 2018 Posted January 3, 2018 3 hours ago, blueglass said: Brigham was "ordained as president" ? Do you have a reference for this? I'll have to admit this is an assumption on my part that I have not yet been able to document after several minutes of searching just now. I have the following from President Hinckley, and I just assumed the procedure was the same back in President Young's day, but I suppose I could be wrong in that assumption: Quote In the natural course of events, vacancies occur in that council and new appointments are made. Under this process a particular man becomes the senior Apostle. Residing latent in him, and in his associate Brethren, given to each at the time of ordination, are all of the keys of the priesthood. But authority to exercise those keys is restricted to the President of the Church. At his passing, that authority becomes operative in the senior Apostle, who is then named, set apart, and ordained a prophet and President by his associates of the Council of the Twelve” (“Come and Partake,” Ensign, May 1986, 46–47). (Emphasis mine)
CMZ Posted January 3, 2018 Posted January 3, 2018 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: I'll have to admit this is an assumption on my part that I have not yet been able to document after several minutes of searching just now. I have the following from President Hinckley, and I just assumed the procedure was the same back in President Young's day, but I suppose I could be wrong in that assumption: (Emphasis mine) Ordaining someone to be a prophet does not make sense to me since "prophet" is not a priesthood office, and since you don't even need to hold the priesthood to be a prophet, and since ordinations are to priesthood offices and settings apart are to callings. Being a prophet simply indicates that you have a revealed testimony of Jesus Christ (although, yes, I know about other facets and dimensions and meaning to the term; but the point here is that "prophet" is not a priesthood office). So, yes, it makes way more sense to me that someone be set apart, rather than ordained, to be President of the Church.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 3, 2018 Posted January 3, 2018 4 minutes ago, CMZ said: Ordaining someone to be a prophet does not make sense to me since "prophet" is not a priesthood office, and since you don't even need to hold the priesthood to be a prophet, and since ordinations are to priesthood offices and settings apart are to callings. Being a prophet simply indicates that you have a revealed testimony of Jesus Christ (although, yes, I know about other facets and dimensions and meaning to the term; but the point here is that "prophet" is not a priesthood office). So, yes, it makes way more sense to me that someone be set apart, rather than ordained, to be President of the Church. Well, as the quote from President Hinckley implies, sometimes the terms are used interchangeably. I would venture the opinion that in this instance, there is a conferral of keys involved** that might necessitate an ordination of some sort. **i.e. a transfer of keys held by the quorum as a body to an individual man who then becomes president of the Church. 1
Recommended Posts