Avatar4321 Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 I've been noticing members online elsewhere who seem not to understand that President Nelson was going to be the new presiding high priest. They kept acting like this press conference was when we found out who the new prophet is. Is it just me or was anyone else noticing this too? 1
rpn Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 God is able to change the pattern and call someone else, no matter how long the pattern has been in place. So while church members know that it is highly likely to be the President of the Quorum, they don't know until it is confirmed that is what happened. 1
JLHPROF Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 I noticed this too. Many people asking "who the next prophet would be", even some Church members.
JLHPROF Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 3 minutes ago, rpn said: God is able to change the pattern and call someone else, no matter how long the pattern has been in place. So while church members know that it is highly likely to be the President of the Quorum, they don't know until it is confirmed that is what happened. Yes, but in order to do that according to D&C 43 President Monson would have received that revelation. Seniority is the default, revelation to the prophet about his successor is the Lord's alternative. If we ever get to the point where the Apostles actually get to choose the new prophet we will be Catholic. 1
JAHS Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 Knowledge of this might not be so common for the younger members. If you are 22 years old there has only been one change in the presidency, besides this time.
The Nehor Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: Yes, but in order to do that according to D&C 43 President Monson would have received that revelation. Seniority is the default, revelation to the prophet about his successor is the Lord's alternative. If we ever get to the point where the Apostles actually get to choose the new prophet we will be Catholic. I do not see the apostles deciding as a body who is in charge. I could see the previous President or the President of the Quorum receiving revelation to change who will next be made prophet but Elder Bednar And Elder Holland would not ever present a joint resolution suggesting President Eyring should be the next prophet. The only input the Quorum as a whole gets is whether to form the First Presidency at all and the default answer for decades has been yes and they stated the decision was unanimous.
Gray Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 2 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Yes, but in order to do that according to D&C 43 President Monson would have received that revelation. Seniority is the default, revelation to the prophet about his successor is the Lord's alternative. If we ever get to the point where the Apostles actually get to choose the new prophet we will be Catholic. Everyone knows the correct way is to pick the new prophet is to draw sticks. 2
Robert F. Smith Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 3 hours ago, rpn said: God is able to change the pattern and call someone else, no matter how long the pattern has been in place. So while church members know that it is highly likely to be the President of the Quorum, they don't know until it is confirmed that is what happened. True, and we have several different jobs focused on one man: Pres of the Church, Presiding High Priest, Prophet, Seer & Revelator. Historically these roles have not always been concentrated in one man. We are merely accustomed to that pattern in the CJCLDS, and that may well remain the pattern until Kingdom come. According to Hugh Nibley, the Twelve (or Fifteen, with three supervising priests at Qumran), and bishops, elders, and deacons were in charge of the earliest Christian churches, as a direct continuation of the officers of the Jewish synagogue,[1] and of the Qumran covenant community.[2] These Twelve presbyters “elders” (or Fifteen, with the three priests) were considered the foundation wall of the New Testament and Qumran communities (1QS 8:1-8, 1QM 2:1-2, CD 7:5, 20:25,7; 4QpIsa [4Q164] 54:12; Numbers 3:4, Matthew 10:1-4, 19:28, Mark 3:13-19, Luke 6:13-16, John 6:70, Acts 1:13, 19:1-7 [the twelve disciples of John the Baptizer were rebaptized by Paul], Revelation 21:14). D. F. Strauss, E. P. Sanders, and J. H. Charlesworth have argued that Jesus selected the Twelve himself,[3] including the three styloi "pillars" among them (Galatians 2:9, Peter, James, and John) being the leaders of the new Church. [1] Hugh Nibley, Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity, CWHN 15 (FARMS/Deseret, 2005); James T. Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church: Public Services and Offices in the Earliest Christian Communities (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992). [2] R. E. Brown in J. H. Charlesworth, ed., John and Qumran (1972); enlarged as John and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Crossroad, 1990), 6-7; R. Brown, New Testament Essays, 27-30 (or 49-53); Joseph Baumgarten, “The Duodecimal Courts of Qumran, Revelation, and the Sanhedrin,” JBL, 95 (1976):59-78. [3] Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism, 136-138, and nn. 8-9; contra Raymond E. Brown, The Churches the Apostles Left Behind (N.Y.: Paulist Press, 1984).
cdowis Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Yes, but in order to do that according to D&C 43 President Monson would have received that revelation. This revelation would only come to the presiding official of the church, after At the death of the prophet. “As the presiding officer of the Church, the President of the Twelve has the prerogative to receive revelation regarding when to reorganize the First Presidency." Edited January 17, 2018 by cdowis
Rain Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 There was quite a bit of talk the latest 2 times. I don't remember before that. We are just more online now.
rongo Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 11 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Yes, but in order to do that according to D&C 43 President Monson would have received that revelation. Seniority is the default, revelation to the prophet about his successor is the Lord's alternative. If we ever get to the point where the Apostles actually get to choose the new prophet we will be Catholic. I don't agree with this. *If* the collective Quorum of the Twelve unanimously felt that the Spirit told them to call a man other than the senior apostle, then that would be God's choice. Even though this departs from precedent. I agree that it would take a powerful manifestation to override the precedent, but if they collectively felt that, then it would depart from tradition and precedent. But, I don't agree that this could only happen if the president named his successor.
provoman Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 Friend, April 2016 “The man who has served as an Apostle the longest, besides the Prophet, is the President of the Quorum of the Twelve. When a prophet dies, the President of the Quorum of the Twelve becomes the next prophet. He prays and calls two new counselors.” Mormon Newsroom: The senior apostle presides at a meeting of the Quorum of the Twelve to consider two alternative propositions: i. Should the First Presidency be reorganized at this time? ii. Should the Church continue to function with the Quorum of the Twelve presiding? 5. After discussion, a formal motion is made and accepted by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. 6. If a motion to reorganize the First Presidency is passed, the Quorum of the Twelve unanimously selects the new president of the Church. The new president chooses two counselors and the three of them become the new First Presidency. Throughout the history of the Church, the longest-serving apostle has always become the president of the Church when the First Presidency has been reorganized.
bluebell Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 11 hours ago, Gray said: Everyone knows the correct way is to pick the new prophet is to draw sticks. I think that only works when picking new apostles. 1
JLHPROF Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 3 hours ago, rongo said: I don't agree with this. *If* the collective Quorum of the Twelve unanimously felt that the Spirit told them to call a man other than the senior apostle, then that would be God's choice. Even though this departs from precedent. I agree that it would take a powerful manifestation to override the precedent, but if they collectively felt that, then it would depart from tradition and precedent. But, I don't agree that this could only happen if the president named his successor. That leads us down a very dangerous path.
rongo Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 (edited) 1 minute ago, JLHPROF said: That leads us down a very dangerous path. How so? Especially if the quorum is unanimous? If it were so vital for it to always be the senior apostle, then it would be codified/canonized. And we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Edited January 17, 2018 by rongo 1
JLHPROF Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, provoman said: 6. If a motion to reorganize the First Presidency is passed, the Quorum of the Twelve unanimously selects the new president of the Church. The new president chooses two counselors and the three of them become the new First Presidency. Throughout the history of the Church, the longest-serving apostle has always become the president of the Church when the First Presidency has been reorganized. This is the interesting policy. Upon the death of the Prophet, the priesthood mantle falls upon their successor immediately. The setting apart as President of the Church is a calling which is why any of the Apostles can be voice in setting apart somebody senior to them in priesthood. If it were a priesthood office and not a calling it would be like an Elder ordaining a High Priest. But it's not. They are all Apostles, any of them can set any of them apart as President of the Church. But the one man who is God's mouthpiece cannot be ordained by one who is not. From a priesthood perspective, what would this mean if the President of the Church (calling) and the man on whom the priesthood fell at the time of the Prophets death (priesthood) were two different people? Remember, in Joseph's day he wanted Hyrum to be President of the Church, even though he himself was the presiding priesthood authority. It never happened, but there is a precedent there. And Brigham in his discourse against Sidney Rigdon stated it didn't matter who led the Church, but that the priesthood authority was more important. If President Nelson was God's mouthpiece on earth upon the death of President Monson, but the Quorum elected someone else as President of the Church, you could conceivably have the separation of those two positions as Joseph described. Edited January 17, 2018 by JLHPROF
RevTestament Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 10 hours ago, cdowis said: This revelation would only come to the presiding official of the church, after At the death of the prophet. “As the presiding officer of the Church, the President of the Twelve has the prerogative to receive revelation regarding when to reorganize the First Presidency." Personally, it seems revelation trumps the Church Manual. Joseph Smith apparently believed the President could receive revelation as to his successor: Oliver Cowdery being present every time priesthood keys were restored: 'The Lord called Oliver Cowdery as the second witness to stand at the head of this dispensation assisting the Prophet in holding the keys. The records inform us that every time the Prophet received authority and the keys of the priesthood from the heavens, Oliver Cowdery shared in the conferring of those powers with the Prophet. Had Oliver Cowdery remained faithful and had he survived the Prophet under those conditions, he would have succeeded as President of the Church by virtue of this divine calling" (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [1954-56], 1:213; emphasis added). On January 19, 1841, because Oliver did not remain faithful, "the Lord commanded Joseph Smith to ordain Hyrum Smith and confer upon him all the keys, authority, and privileges placed upon the head of Oliver Cowdery, and make him the 'Second President' of the Church" (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:220). President Brigham Young (1801-77) noted: "If Hyrum had lived he would not have stood between Joseph and the Twelve but he would have stood for Joseph. — Did Joseph ordain any man to take his place? He did. Who was it? It was Hyrum, but, Hyrum fell a martyr before Joseph did. If Hyrum had lived he would have acted for Joseph" ("Conference Minutes," Times and Seasons, Oct. 15, 1844, 683). There is no requirement that the President be an apostle. He only need be a high priest elected/chosen for the office by the body of the Church. It seems to me the two surviving counselors constitute a quorum also capable of receiving revelation about the successor. 1
JLHPROF Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 10 minutes ago, rongo said: How so? Especially if the quorum is unanimous? If it were so vital for it to always be the senior apostle, then it would be codified/canonized. And we wouldn't even be having this discussion. We can assume, and perhaps rightly so, that these men are so filled with the spirit and unified that they would always agree and execute God's will. But the history of the Catholic Church where the Cardinals (Apostles) meet and pray and vote on the Pope (President of the Church) shows how easily that can fall into dangerous paths. Political lobbying, favors, campaigning, and more. We may like to believe those 14 Apostles are above such behavior, and they may be right now. I would bet there have been many times the Cardinals of the Catholic Church were above such behavior too and were united and humble. God's mouthpiece is chosen by revelation, not vote. If the Apostles all receive revelation that's one thing. In the absence of revelation a policy of voting becomes dangerous.
JLHPROF Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 12 minutes ago, RevTestament said: Personally, it seems revelation trumps the Church Manual. Joseph Smith apparently believed the President could receive revelation as to his successor: Oliver Cowdery being present every time priesthood keys were restored: 'The Lord called Oliver Cowdery as the second witness to stand at the head of this dispensation assisting the Prophet in holding the keys. The records inform us that every time the Prophet received authority and the keys of the priesthood from the heavens, Oliver Cowdery shared in the conferring of those powers with the Prophet. Had Oliver Cowdery remained faithful and had he survived the Prophet under those conditions, he would have succeeded as President of the Church by virtue of this divine calling" (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [1954-56], 1:213; emphasis added). On January 19, 1841, because Oliver did not remain faithful, "the Lord commanded Joseph Smith to ordain Hyrum Smith and confer upon him all the keys, authority, and privileges placed upon the head of Oliver Cowdery, and make him the 'Second President' of the Church" (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:220). President Brigham Young (1801-77) noted: "If Hyrum had lived he would not have stood between Joseph and the Twelve but he would have stood for Joseph. — Did Joseph ordain any man to take his place? He did. Who was it? It was Hyrum, but, Hyrum fell a martyr before Joseph did. If Hyrum had lived he would have acted for Joseph" ("Conference Minutes," Times and Seasons, Oct. 15, 1844, 683). There is no requirement that the President be an apostle. He only need be a high priest elected/chosen for the office by the body of the Church. It seems to me the two surviving counselors constitute a quorum also capable of receiving revelation about the successor. This is what I've been saying. Senior apostle is the default since death is not always anticipated. Scripture and these quotes show that the Prophet can name a successor if needed. Joseph named Oliver, then Hyrum. But due to apostasy and death the default senior Brigham Young became his successor. Brigham was then sustained by a solemn assembly because common consent is required in the Church and wasn't set apart by the 12 for many years. But he was Joseph's successor as the one man and mouthpiece as soon as Joseph died.
RevTestament Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: This is what I've been saying. Senior apostle is the default since death is not always anticipated. Scripture and these quotes show that the Prophet can name a successor if needed. Joseph named Oliver, then Hyrum. But due to apostasy and death the default senior Brigham Young became his successor. Brigham was then sustained by a solemn assembly because common consent is required in the Church and wasn't set apart by the 12 for many years. But he was Joseph's successor as the one man and mouthpiece as soon as Joseph died. As I recall the whole church voted on the successor, and BY was confirmed over Sidney Rigdon. The presidency essentially apostatized after BY was sustained by the membership. I do not hold myself as an expert in Church history, but that's how I've always seen it. BY himself seemed to recognize that he may only hold the office in a type of receivership for Joseph's son, who BY believed Joseph also wished to be the Church president, but that of course is ridiculous. Joseph's son was not a high priest, and so was not eligible, and Emma did not follow the Church out West. I think BY waited entirely too long to be confirmed or set apart, but that's just me. When the Church voted for him, that was enough to confirm the will of the Lord. The idea that the Church cannot receive revelation on the matter, I believe is erroneous. I think BY was very concerned about setting precedent, and trying to honor the wishes of Joseph, so I give him kudos for that. The upside is that succession has been a very peaceful process since no presidential quorum has intonated receiving revelation about the successor.
JLHPROF Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 2 minutes ago, RevTestament said: As I recall the whole church voted on the successor, and BY was confirmed over Sidney Rigdon. Correct. But he was already the one man on the earth and God's mouthpiece. All that vote did was make him President of the Church, which he himself said was irrelevant compared to the priesthood position. Quote BY himself seemed to recognize that he may only hold the office in a type of receivership for Joseph's son, who BY believed Joseph also wished to be the Church president, but that of course is ridiculous. Joseph's son was not a high priest, and so was not eligible, and Emma did not follow the Church out West. Not all that ridiculous. Joseph view the Presidency of the Church as a Patriarchal position. That is why in keeping with the D&C he wanted Hyrum to be President, and why Brigham felt Joseph's son had the right to be President of the Church. But Joseph and Brigham also considered there to be priesthood offices and callings higher than President of the Church.
USU78 Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 15 hours ago, JLHPROF said: If we ever get to the point where the Apostles actually get to choose the new prophet we will be Catholic. ... not that there's anything wrong with that. 1
RevTestament Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 13 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Correct. But he was already the one man on the earth and God's mouthpiece. All that vote did was make him President of the Church, which he himself said was irrelevant compared to the priesthood position. I disagree. He was not "the man" until the Church confirmed him. The office of Church President is not separate from the presiding office of the priesthood as far as I can tell, so I don't know what separate "priesthood position" you are talking about. Doctrine and Covenants 107:22-23 22 Of the aMelchizedek Priesthood, three bPresiding High Priests, chosen by the body, appointed and ordained to that office, and cupheld by the confidence, faith, and prayer of the church, form a quorum of the Presidency of the Church.
JLHPROF Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, RevTestament said: I disagree. He was not "the man" until the Church confirmed him. The office of Church President is not separate from the presiding office of the priesthood as far as I can tell, so I don't know what separate "priesthood position" you are talking about. Doctrine and Covenants 107:22-23 22 Of the aMelchizedek Priesthood, three bPresiding High Priests, chosen by the body, appointed and ordained to that office, and cupheld by the confidence, faith, and prayer of the church, form a quorum of the Presidency of the Church. I disagree completely. And so does Elder McConkie: And as the last heartbeat of President Lee ceased, the mantle of leadership passed to President Kimball, whose next heartbeat was that of the living oracle and presiding authority of God on earth. From that moment the Church continued under the direction of President Kimball. - Bruce R. McConkie https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie_succession-presidency/ If your statement was correct then God had no mouthpiece on the earth from June 27, 1844 until December 27, 1847, But D&C 132:7 applied to Brigham Young as soon as Joseph Smith died. 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. Quote The office of Church President is not separate from the presiding office of the priesthood They most certainly are. Brigham said so. So did Joseph. And historical precedent agrees. Edited January 17, 2018 by JLHPROF
Scott Lloyd Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 17 hours ago, JAHS said: Knowledge of this might not be so common for the younger members. If you are 22 years old there has only been one change in the presidency, besides this time. I would be disappointed to learn that young Church members by and large are not being taught the principle of succession in the presidency of the Church, even if they have not lived long enough to have observed it firsthand.
Recommended Posts