Duncan Posted January 3, 2018 Author Posted January 3, 2018 Just to confirm, Joseph F. Smith was set apart to be the President of the Church by his half brother Patriarch John Smith, Oct. 17, 1901. 2
CMZ Posted January 3, 2018 Posted January 3, 2018 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: 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. Yeah, I guess his quote hearkens back to times when people weren't so particular about words. As far as keys goes I think it's more that in the setting apart (and/or "ordination") that the keys that the man, say President Nelson, has already been given are activated in the sense that he can now use them all without being subject to any other earthly authority, although I think such a situation kind of already applies to President Nelson since there is no earthly authority above him. So I believe that he has full rein as of last night to use the keys he's held since 1984 and now only being answerable to Jesus Christ for their usage. Edited January 3, 2018 by CMZ
JLHPROF Posted January 3, 2018 Posted January 3, 2018 5 minutes ago, Duncan said: Just to confirm, Joseph F. Smith was set apart to be the President of the Church by his half brother Patriarch John Smith, Oct. 17, 1901. Which is interesting in light of D&C 124 and the Patriarch vs Apostle history as discussed in "Lost Legacy". D&C 124:123 Verily I say unto you, I now give unto you the officers belonging to my Priesthood, that ye may hold the keys thereof, even the Priesthood which is after the order of Melchizedek, which is after the order of mine Only Begotten Son.124 First, I give unto you Hyrum Smith to be a patriarch unto you, to hold the sealing blessings of my church, even the Holy Spirit of promise, whereby ye are sealed up unto the day of redemption, that ye may not fall notwithstanding the hour of temptation that may come upon you.125 I give unto you my servant Joseph to be a presiding elder over all my church, to be a translator, a revelator, a seer, and prophet.126 I give unto him for counselors my servant Sidney Rigdon and my servant William Law, that these may constitute a quorum and First Presidency, to receive the oracles for the whole church. There have been those in time past who feel based on these verses that the Patriarch to the Church (when we had one) is a higher office than Presiding Elder (President). Having the Patriarch set apart the President would lend credence to that theory. 2
Duncan Posted January 3, 2018 Author Posted January 3, 2018 4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Which is interesting in light of D&C 124 and the Patriarch vs Apostle history as discussed in "Lost Legacy". D&C 124:123 Verily I say unto you, I now give unto you the officers belonging to my Priesthood, that ye may hold the keys thereof, even the Priesthood which is after the order of Melchizedek, which is after the order of mine Only Begotten Son.124 First, I give unto you Hyrum Smith to be a patriarch unto you, to hold the sealing blessings of my church, even the Holy Spirit of promise, whereby ye are sealed up unto the day of redemption, that ye may not fall notwithstanding the hour of temptation that may come upon you.125 I give unto you my servant Joseph to be a presiding elder over all my church, to be a translator, a revelator, a seer, and prophet.126 I give unto him for counselors my servant Sidney Rigdon and my servant William Law, that these may constitute a quorum and First Presidency, to receive the oracles for the whole church. There have been those in time past who feel based on these verses that the Patriarch to the Church (when we had one) is a higher office than Presiding Elder (President). Having the Patriarch set apart the President would lend credence to that theory. Read this, this can explain things better than I can! https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/joseph-f-smith-reflections-man-and-his-times/joseph-f-smith-s-encouragement-his-brother
JLHPROF Posted January 3, 2018 Posted January 3, 2018 (edited) 27 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. There is also a difference between "prophet" and "prophet to the Church". The same applied to second anointings. These ordinances, depending on the person’s ecclesiastical position, made the recipient a “king and priest,” “in,” “in and over,” or (as only in Joseph Smith’s case) “over” the Church. Moreover, the recipient had sealed upon him the power to bind and loose on earth as Joseph explained in his definition of the fullness of the priesthood. There is a big difference between prophet and prophet to the Church. Just as there is a difference between "ordain to an office" and "set apart to a calling". Edited January 3, 2018 by JLHPROF
Scott Lloyd Posted January 3, 2018 Posted January 3, 2018 1 hour ago, CMZ said: 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." I've seen that a lot with former bishops; not so much with former presidents. That would make sense in that bishop is an office in the priesthood, but president is not. 1
Popular Post Kenngo1969 Posted January 3, 2018 Popular Post Posted January 3, 2018 When my brother, who has served both as a bishop and as a stake president, moved to a new area, a brother in his new ward, thinking he recognized our surname, asked what positions my brother had held previously in the Church. He said, "Well, recently, I was released as president of the high priests quorum, and before that, I was president of the priests quorum in our ward for awhile ..." 5
Atheist Mormon Posted January 3, 2018 Posted January 3, 2018 14 hours ago, Duncan said: https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/president-thomas-monson-passes-away well, that is sad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I disagree,,,, He lived a great life and was his time to go..... 1
Duncan Posted January 3, 2018 Author Posted January 3, 2018 6 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said: I disagree,,,, He lived a great life and was his time to go..... I know but still sad
Avatar4321 Posted January 4, 2018 Posted January 4, 2018 4 hours 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. Seems strange to ordain someone to be a prophet when he already has been a prophet for years
MiserereNobis Posted January 4, 2018 Posted January 4, 2018 My condolences to you on the loss of your leader. It's been interesting reading through this thread and trying to put together what happens after one president dies and before the next is chosen. As you are probably aware, there is quite a big tradition on how this works in the Catholic Church. Thanks for being informative, as usual. I was confused for a bit why in the picture of the 12 apostles on the first page there were actually 13 apostles, but someone did explain that later on. I guess the number "12" is more figurative than an absolute. 2
kiwi57 Posted January 4, 2018 Posted January 4, 2018 30 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: My condolences to you on the loss of your leader. It's been interesting reading through this thread and trying to put together what happens after one president dies and before the next is chosen. As you are probably aware, there is quite a big tradition on how this works in the Catholic Church. Thanks for being informative, as usual. I was confused for a bit why in the picture of the 12 apostles on the first page there were actually 13 apostles, but someone did explain that later on. I guess the number "12" is more figurative than an absolute. Well, the number twelve represents the Quorum as it is normally constituted. The former counselors in the First Presidency were drawn from the Quorum, and so they return to the Quorum, in their original positions of seniority, when the First Presidency is dissolved; so for a short time, the Quorum has more than 12 members. After the First Presidency is organised, presuming the new prophet calls two of the Quorum as his counselors, the Quorum will be down to 10, and will be considered as having two vacancies. Which, I imagine, will probably be filled fairly soon. I hope this helps. 2
hope_for_things Posted January 4, 2018 Posted January 4, 2018 1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said: Thanks for being informative, as usual. I was confused for a bit why in the picture of the 12 apostles on the first page there were actually 13 apostles, but someone did explain that later on. I guess the number "12" is more figurative than an absolute. Yeah, it’s kind of like the Big 12 in NCAA football with 10 member schools or the Big 10 which has 14 member schools. The number is a tradition but hasn’t always been an accurate description throughout time as there are exceptions.
JAHS Posted January 4, 2018 Posted January 4, 2018 Wow. Check out the New York Times so-called obituary of President Monson and then read the comments chastising the paper for writing an article that is "less of an obituary and more of a laundry list of LDS Church-related controversies" to quote a commentator. OBITUARIES - Thomas Monson, President of the Mormon Church, Dies at 90 1
clarkgoble Posted January 4, 2018 Posted January 4, 2018 7 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said: I disagree,,,, He lived a great life and was his time to go..... Yup. By many accounts he was suffering dementia which is not something I'd wish on anyone. His health was bad. While I was constantly amazed at how he marshaled himself for conference this was a mercy by Father. 3
Kenngo1969 Posted January 4, 2018 Posted January 4, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, JAHS said: Wow. Check out the New York Times so-called obituary of President Monson and then read the comments chastising the paper for writing an article that is "less of an obituary and more of a laundry list of LDS Church-related controversies" to quote a commentator. OBITUARIES - Thomas Monson, President of the Mormon Church, Dies at 90 Meh. Controversy ... especially controversy concerning matters of faith ... is the secular media's stock-in-trade when it comes to reporting on religion: If it cannot find a controversy with which to paint the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (indeed, with which to paint faiths and their adherents in general) in an unflattering light, it will manufacture one. And of course, the secular media cannot countenance the idea that, perhaps, just perhaps, the things it sees as controversial are the way they are in the Church of Jesus Christ because God wants them that way: No, no; that simply won't do. And so, the buck stops with "Mr. Monson." I'm reminded of Elder Bruce R. McConkie's address from the 154th Semiannual General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (October 1984), "The Caravan Moves On," available here and last accessed January 3, 2018: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1984/10/the-caravan-moves-on?lang=eng. In the end, all the cynical media are are barking dogs snapping at a heel here and there. At the close of that address, he says this: Quote The Church is like a great caravan—organized, prepared, following an appointed course, with its captains of tens and captains of hundreds all in place. What does it matter if a few barking dogs snap at the heels of the weary travelers? Or that predators claim those few who fall by the way? The caravan moves on. Is there a ravine to cross, a miry mud hole to pull through, a steep grade to climb? So be it. The oxen are strong and the teamsters wise. The caravan moves on. Are there storms that rage along the way, floods that wash away the bridges, deserts to cross, and rivers to ford? Such is life in this fallen sphere. The caravan moves on. Ahead is the celestial city, the eternal Zion of our God, where all who maintain their position in the caravan shall find food and drink and rest. Thank God that the caravan moves on! Edited January 4, 2018 by Kenngo1969 1
Kenngo1969 Posted January 4, 2018 Posted January 4, 2018 47 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: Yup. By many accounts he was suffering dementia which is not something I'd wish on anyone. His health was bad. While I was constantly amazed at how he marshaled himself for conference this was a mercy by Father. If someone were to ask me, "Aren't you concerned about the health [reported dementia, fill-in-the-blank] of [fill-in-the-blank with Church leader's name here]?" I'd say, "Yes, insofar as it affects him and his family. I wouldn't want him/them to have to endure such a burden for one nanosecond longer than he/they were appointed to do so on this earth. And yes, I would miss vigorous leadership, the opportunity for wide travel to see the Prophet among the Saints, to have him address us, and so on." That said, as an erstwhile poster, Mark Beesley, once paointed out, all we really need a Prophet, Seer, Revelator, and President to do is to hold keys, and he can do that in whatever condition he might be in, come what may among the ravages of time. And can an Omnipotent God bless even a frail human, advanced in age and perhaps even afflicted with dementia, with enough momentarily keen insight and inspiration to direct His Church? Others' mileage may vary, but I believe He can, and, more to the point, I believe he does. 2
CMZ Posted January 4, 2018 Posted January 4, 2018 9 hours ago, JLHPROF said: There is also a difference between "prophet" and "prophet to the Church". Yes, that is one of those things I know about but couldn't get into in the referenced post.
CMZ Posted January 4, 2018 Posted January 4, 2018 5 hours ago, Avatar4321 said: Seems strange to ordain someone to be a prophet when he already has been a prophet for years To me too since being a prophet is not a position in the church, but rather a characteristic of being a faithful member with a revealed testimony of Jesus Christ. But I guess when they say that a particular person was "ordained a prophet" that it might be shorthand, or slightly different wording, for saying, in essence, "set apart as president of the Church." At least that's what I'm telling myself.
Bobbieaware Posted January 4, 2018 Posted January 4, 2018 47 minutes ago, CMZ said: To me too since being a prophet is not a position in the church, but rather a characteristic of being a faithful member with a revealed testimony of Jesus Christ. But I guess when they say that a particular person was "ordained a prophet" that it might be shorthand, or slightly different wording, for saying, in essence, "set apart as president of the Church." At least that's what I'm telling myself. When the new Church President is set apart in his new calling, the soon-to-be President of the Quorum of the Twelve (the second most senior apostle) sets the new president apart to be the senior-most prophet, seer and revelator of the Church, with all the authority and priesthood keys needed for him to effectively preside over the entire Church. In the restored Church, there’s a difference between a prophet, seer and revelator (an apostle) and THE presiding prophet, seer and revelator who holds all the priesthood keys and authority. Simple. 1
CMZ Posted January 4, 2018 Posted January 4, 2018 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: When the new Church President is set apart in his new calling, the soon-to-be President of the Quorum of the Twelve (the second most senior apostle) sets the new president apart to be the senior-most prophet, seer and revelator of the Church, with all the authority and priesthood keys needed for him to effectively preside over the entire Church. In the restored Church, there’s a difference between a prophet, seer and revelator (an apostle) and THE presiding prophet, seer and revelator who holds all the priesthood keys and authority. Simple. Yes, I am aware of that. The question is why has wording been used in the past to the effect of, "ordaining someone to be the prophet." (Tangentially, one does not have to be an apostle to be sustained as prophet, seer and revelator. There are instances in this dispensation, and not even all that long ago, of men who were high priests and patriarchs who were sustained as sustained as prophets, seers and revelators. Edited January 4, 2018 by CMZ
Bobbieaware Posted January 4, 2018 Posted January 4, 2018 (edited) 23 minutes ago, CMZ said: Yes, I am aware of that. The question is why has wording been used in the past of "ordaining someone to be the prophet." (Tangentially, one does not have to be an apostle to be sustained as prophet, seer and revelator. There are instances in this dispensation, and not even all that long ago, of men who were high priests and patriarchs who were sustained as sustained as prophets, seers and revelators. Those who were so ordained were ordained apostles before being formally set apart to serve in the First Presidency. I say they were ordained apostles but not apostles who were members of the Quorum of the Twelve. Look up Alvin R Dyer on Wikipedia to see an example of this. Edited January 4, 2018 by Bobbieaware
CMZ Posted January 4, 2018 Posted January 4, 2018 4 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: Those who were so ordained were ordained apostles before being formally set apart to serve in the First Presidency. I say they were ordained apostles but not apostles who were members of the Quorum of the Twelve. Look up Alvin R Dyer on Wikipedia to see an example of this. Yes, there is him, but there have been counselors in the First Presidency who never received the ordination of apostle. One example was Thorpe B. Isaacson, who served in the First Presidency at the same time as Alvin R. Dyer.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 4, 2018 Posted January 4, 2018 29 minutes ago, CMZ said: Yes, I am aware of that. The question is why has wording been used in the past of "ordaining someone to be the prophet." (Tangentially, one does not have to be an apostle to be sustained as prophet, seer and revelator. There are instances in this dispensation, and not even all that long ago, of men who were high priests and patriarchs who were sustained as sustained as prophets, seers and revelators. President of the Church is an apostolic office. Always has been. President Monson remained an apostle of Jesus Christ throughout the time he was Church president. This came up last night as I was proofreading a news story. It said President Monson had been an apostle for x number of years. I changed it to read that he had been a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles for that length of time. I knew he hadn’t ceased to be an apostle when he became Church president.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 4, 2018 Posted January 4, 2018 18 minutes ago, CMZ said: Yes, there is him, but there have been counselors in the First Presidency who never received the ordination of apostle. One example was Thorpe B. Isaacson, who served in the First Presidency at the same time as Alvin R. Dyer. When the office of Patriarch to the Church was operative in the Church (which it hasn’t been for many years) the holder of that office was the only man other than the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve who was sustained in general conference as a prophet, seer and revelator.
Recommended Posts