Apostasy and the Removal of the President

[RevTestament]

9 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints exempt from this?  So long as we keep moving the senior-most apostle to the head of the church, will the church never apostatize?

I didn't say or even infer that we are exempt. Indeed, I said our leaders, including Joseph Smith, have made mistakes. In fact I do not agree about the tradition or policy of making the senior-most apostle the next president. There is no scriptural requirement that a new President even be an apostle - he only need be a high priest who is chosen by the body of the Church. This has been recognized for his counselors, but for some reason the tradition of Presidential succession has proven too strong to recognize it for the president himself.  I did, however, state that the true priesthood will not be taken again from the earth until the Levites make an offering in righteousness. After that we have no guarantees.

[SouthernMo]

12 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I did, however, state that the true priesthood will not be taken again from the earth until the Levites make an offering in righteousness.

 My experience has been that many LDS do not mention the offering noted in this scripture. What do you think it means? 

 Does it mean that the priesthood will be taken from the earth after some point? 

[3DOP]

31 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Where did Christ appoint the presiding bishopric? Where did Christ appoint patriarchs? For that matter, where did Christ appoint bishops and deacons (and teachers and elders and high priests)? And why do you have 15 apostles when Christ only had 12?

I think trying to lay the organizational structure of the LDS church alongside the original church and saying they are the same is quite problematic. So seeing some structural differences between the Catholic church and what is in the Bible shouldn't be a problem, either.

It was the apostles, with the authority of Christ, that created the structure of the original church. They passed on the apostolic keys to the bishops. Obviously this is the Catholic view, but it isn't irrational or incoherent.

And just to be clear, cardinals are an administrative appointment, meaning it is not another type of priesthood. In Catholicism, you have deacon, priest, and bishop.

Deacons can be married in the RCC. Priests can be married in Eastern Catholic Churches. The celibacy of the priesthood is not doctrine, but tradition. Hard and fast and not going to change, but it is not dogma.

By the way, do you have any married deacons in your ward?  

Well said...Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Christ gave the Church authority to legislate its own laws and to a degree her structural hierarchy. The church could get rid of cardinals. I would like to get ride of virtually all of them myself! There is nothing in the Bible about the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith either. So what? As you point out, the LDS are not slavishly tied to structures that can be traced directly to Scripture either. I have one slight correction that you will appreciate I hope. Tradition is not ordinarily, and certainly not necessarily, distinguished from doctrine. But doctrine must be distinguished from discipline. Cardinals, married priests, celibate priests, etc. It is doctrinal that priests must be male. It is not doctrinal that they be celibate. Also, there are some married priests in the Latin Rite too, (even if it is usually a bad idea).  

Edited April 25, 2019 by 3DOP

[MiserereNobis]

1 minute ago, 3DOP said:

Tradition is not ordinarily, and certainly not necessarily, distinguished from doctrine. But doctrine must be distinguished from discipline.

Yes, this is a much more Catholic way to say it. Thanks!

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Where did Christ appoint the presiding bishopric? Where did Christ appoint patriarchs? For that matter, where did Christ appoint bishops and deacons (and teachers and elders and high priests)? And why do you have 15 apostles when Christ only had 12?

I think trying to lay the organizational structure of the LDS church alongside the original church and saying they are the same is quite problematic. So seeing some structural differences between the Catholic church and what is in the Bible shouldn't be a problem, either.

It was the apostles, with the authority of Christ, that created the structure of the original church. They passed on the apostolic keys to the bishops. Obviously this is the Catholic view, but it isn't irrational or incoherent.

And just to be clear, cardinals are an administrative appointment, meaning it is not another type of priesthood. In Catholicism, you have deacon, priest, and bishop.

Fair enough. The issue was whether the Catholic Churches hold a direct lineage back to Christ, and I addressed what I feel are the very arguable points In that regard against the proposition. In the modern Church the structure is not exactly the same. However, it was set up by Christ to fulfill the needs of His restored Church. The Bible doesn't mention Christ appointing bishops. I don't think His Church had the need until He departed. We only know that they were set up by the apostles, and were authorized by the time of Timothy because Paul speaks of them, and from the early patristic evidence.

I do believe the structure of the modern Church to be a little different, because I believe it to be revealing more about the order of heaven than was revealed in the early Church. For instance every leadership calling has two counselors. I think this organization holds true for heaven - even God. The Father has His only begotten Son, but I believe the Holy Spirit to be another son - essentially counselor #2. I don't think the Catholic Church makes such claims though. Nor was Peter a pope - he was a married apostle. I suppose it is possible that bishops could receive apostolic keys, but am pointing out that structure doesn't lead back to Christ Himself. I also feel constrained to point out that Revelation warns against those who say they are apostles and who are not - this warning goes out to those of the seven churches.

Quote

Deacons can be married in the RCC. Priests can be married in Eastern Catholic Churches. The celibacy of the priesthood is not doctrine, but tradition. Hard and fast and not going to change, but it is not dogma.

By the way, do you have any married deacons in your ward?  

Not that I know of currently, but I have known of some - they converted as married adults. Actually, I am although I rarely function in that capacity anymore. I continue to hold all the offices of both priesthoods. So I am a deacon, teacher, priest, elder and high priest. I set apart each of my three sons as an elder. I realize that priests and bishops can be married in the Catholic Church, but that is basically only if they were married when they became a priest. The tradition as you call it still disallows marriage once one becomes a priest. That doesn't change the fact that there does seem to be scripture covering the point - not that our Church is perfect about following scripture either. 

Edited April 25, 2019 by RevTestament

[RevTestament]

28 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

 My experience has been that many LDS do not mention the offering noted in this scripture. What do you think it means? 

I believe this to refer to the prophesied day when Jerusalem shall inherit the name YHVH. 

Jeremiah 33:16 In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The Lord our righteousness.

I believe what will happen has already been recognized in the temple. They will be crucified.

That's probably beyond the response you were expecting or that the Church is currently prepared for.

28 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

 Does it mean that the priesthood will be taken from the earth after some point? 

I don't know. If so, it doesn't sound like it will happen until after the millennium when Satan is loosed again. I would say though, that I currently don't believe it will happen because I believe the priesthood will still be in operation for the last resurrection.

[Anijen]

2 hours ago, snowflake said:

There never was an apostasy, the greek orthodox and catholic churches have clear lineages to the time of Christ. 

CFR on clear lines. IOW sometype of proof (which makes the clear lines), not just a Catholic utterance. Oh, and while you are at it, could you explain the no apostasy thing, yrt, in that same sentence you refer two churches that today are separate from each other. That separation means one or the other must have broke off (apostatized) from the other one.

[clarkgoble]

46 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

 My experience has been that many LDS do not mention the offering noted in this scripture. What do you think it means? 

It's almost always interpreted as sometime before the 2cd coming Levites offering sacrifices again. Although some like Joseph Fielding Smith thought it in the millennium. Joseph talks about it in a few places. Oct 5, 1840; Aug 27, 1843. 

• then shall the sons of Levi offer an acceptable sacrifice to the Lord Se[e] Malichi 3 Chap. 3&4 And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of Silver; and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord 

  ¶ It will be necessary here to make a few observations on the doctrine, set forth in the above quotation, As it is generally supposed that Sacrifice was entirely done away when the great sacrife was offered up--and that there will be no necessity for the ordinance of Sacrifice in future, but those who assert this, are certainly not aquainted with the duties, privileges and authority of the priesthood. or with the prophets The offering of Sacrifice has ever been connected [with] and forms a part of the duties of the priesthood. It began with the priesthood and will be continued untill after the coming of Christ from generation to generation--

  We frequently have mention made of the offering of Sacrifice by the servants of the most high in antient days prior to the law of moses, which ordinances will be continued when the priesthood is restored with all its authority power and blessings. Elijah was the last prophet that held the keys of this priesthood, and who will, before the last dispensation, restore the authority and delive the Keys of this priesthood in order that all the ordinances may be attended to in righteousness. 

  ¶ It is true that the Savior had authority and power to bestow this blessing but the Sons of Levi were too predjudi

Typically it's thought this will take place at the future temple in Jackson County due to scriptures like D&C 124:39. None of the temples constructed thus far have a place for sacrifice. The plat for the Jackson County Temple was drawn up in 1833. There were claims that animal sacrifices were done at both Kirtland and Nauvoo. The former is from the Wandle Mace autobiography. "Joseph told them to go to Kirtland and cleanse and purify a certain room in the temple, that they must kill a lamb and offer a sacrifice unto the Lord which should prepare them to ordain Willard Richard a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles" The latter was a Bennett claim I don't believe collaborated by anyone. Wilford Woodruff wrote in his diary that Brigham was going to make a place for such sacrifices in the Salt Lake City temple although he apparently never did it. "Under the pulpit in the west end will be a place to offer sacrifices. There will be an altar prepared for that purpose so that when any sacrifices are to be offered, they should be offered there." (Journal of Wilford Woodruff, December 18, 1857) The assembly room in the temple has a place for the Aaronic Priesthood though - although that may just parallel the Kirtland temple more.

I hear this discussed fairly regularly so I'm surprised some think it a minor teaching. 

Edited April 25, 2019 by clarkgoble

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Metis_LDS said:

I think we have the wrong angle on this.  All three members of the Presidency form a quorum.  All three would have to go off the tracks so to speak or else if just one did it would become quickly known. 

I am not sure it would become quickly known given the love and respect the leaders at that level likely have for each other, but that would also tend to work in the favor of keeping a leader on track.

[SouthernMo]

16 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I hear this discussed fairly regularly so I'm surprised some think it a minor teaching. 

I think the people you associate with in may be more theological than those I do.

I once asked our Sunday school teacher what it meant. His response was that it doesn’t matter what it means because we know the priesthood will never be taken from the earth. Period.

He just ignored the word “until...” and every word after it.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

John 12:24 is Jesus speaking of His own death and then applying it to our lives. I know you said it applies in principal, but that is exegesis that doesn't seem to be supported by the text. I would say it applies to individual lives. The apostles gave their lives to the Church, and look at all the seeds that came from that.

It's also odd to say that the original church had to go into apostasy so that there would be more seeds, when the original church has produced far more Christian and Christian works than the LDS church.

I guess I don't buy that reasoning.

Can you give specific examples, since I obviously don't believe the original church went into apostasy? Thanks.

Can you elaborate since I'm not familiar with the part of the D&C that applies? More specific answers from you would be great, thanks  

There were those in the other thread who said God would kill him before he did, so I take it you disagree with them.

I'm just thinking for those who believe that God will kill the prophet before he leads the church astray, then you don't have to worry about him leading the church astray, so then you can act as if he were infallible.

Why did you put quotes around "attempt"? Care to elaborate?

Also, what do you think "astray" means in this context?

Thanks!

I’ll give examples in a thread about the Great Apostasy.

RE: Disciplinary councils are discussed here http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/102 and discipline for the prophet here: http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/107 (see verses 71 – 84).

I don’t disagree that God could kill a prophet as a means to remove him from his place, but it is not the only way, I imagine. I’m sure people can believe all sorts of things, and can come with some pretty crazy things to say others believe.

The context for “attempt” and “astray” is President Woodruff’s plea for the saints to sustain the revelation he received and the brethren in making this change: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/1

“The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. (Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.)”

All a prophet has to do is attempt to lead the people astray and his removal by God or discipline by the councils can be set in motion. Astray refers to leaving the correct oracles (meaning both revelations and revelators) and one’s covenant duties.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Interesting. I was under the impression that the president was fully in charge. Is he able to remove under his own authority members of other quorums?

(side note: I've always been intrigued with the LDS use of the word quorum, since it doesn't mean what quorum means. It took me awhile to figure it out. Is there some sort of history behind the LDS usage?)

Also, can the other quorums then remove the first presidency, since they are equal in authority to it?

Is there any historical examples of such things going on?

The President has to work through the disciplinary councils, and those who are being judged therein have due process as described in D&C 102.

I don't know the history of using "quorum" to describe the organized body of individuals sharing the same priesthood office. I know that general authorities have faced disciplinary councils throughout our history.

The First Presidency would be removed if a disciplinary council determined that was the best course of action. Their council is administered the Quorum of Twelve, and if the Twelve were disbanded for any reason, I imagine the Seventy would replace them.

[RevTestament]

21 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

It's almost always interpreted as sometime before the 2cd coming Levites offering sacrifices again. Although some like Joseph Fielding Smith thought it in the millennium. Joseph talks about it in a few places. Oct 5, 1840; Aug 27, 1843. 

• then shall the sons of Levi offer an acceptable sacrifice to the Lord Se[e] Malichi 3 Chap. 3&4 And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of Silver; and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord 

  ¶ It will be necessary here to make a few observations on the doctrine, set forth in the above quotation, As it is generally supposed that Sacrifice was entirely done away when the great sacrife was offered up--and that there will be no necessity for the ordinance of Sacrifice in future, but those who assert this, are certainly not aquainted with the duties, privileges and authority of the priesthood. or with the prophets The offering of Sacrifice has ever been connected [with] and forms a part of the duties of the priesthood. It began with the priesthood and will be continued untill after the coming of Christ from generation to generation--

  We frequently have mention made of the offering of Sacrifice by the servants of the most high in antient days prior to the law of moses, which ordinances will be continued when the priesthood is restored with all its authority power and blessings. Elijah was the last prophet that held the keys of this priesthood, and who will, before the last dispensation, restore the authority and delive the Keys of this priesthood in order that all the ordinances may be attended to in righteousness. 

  ¶ It is true that the Savior had authority and power to bestow this blessing but the Sons of Levi were too predjudi

Typically it's thought this will take place at the future temple in Jackson County due to scriptures like D&C 124:39. None of the temples constructed thus far have a place for sacrifice. The plat for the Jackson County Temple was drawn up in 1833. There were claims that animal sacrifices were done at both Kirtland and Nauvoo. The former is from the Wandle Mace autobiography. "Joseph told them to go to Kirtland and cleanse and purify a certain room in the temple, that they must kill a lamb and offer a sacrifice unto the Lord which should prepare them to ordain Willard Richard a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles" The latter was a Bennett claim I don't believe collaborated by anyone. Wilford Woodruff wrote in his diary that Brigham was going to make a place for such sacrifices in the Salt Lake City temple although he apparently never did it. "Under the pulpit in the west end will be a place to offer sacrifices. There will be an altar prepared for that purpose so that when any sacrifices are to be offered, they should be offered there." (Journal of Wilford Woodruff, December 18, 1857) The assembly room in the temple has a place for the Aaronic Priesthood though - although that may just parallel the Kirtland temple more.

I hear this discussed fairly regularly so I'm surprised some think it a minor teaching. 

Yeah. The Church still does not get it. Christ clearly did away with animal sacrifice - this is clear in the BoM, but still misinterpreted by the Church. Christ will not be reinstituting any animal sacrifice. It was done away in Him - like physical circumcision. Let's see. Was Peter a sacrifice or not? What says the Church?

Zechariah 12:8
8 In that day shall the Lord defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the Lord before them.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

How many quorums of prophets seers and revelators are there?  I thought there was only one?

Two at least, the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve.

[SouthernMo]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

Two at least, the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve.

Thanks. I looked into it, and there is a distinction. The quorum of the 12 is a priesthood quorum. The first presidency is an administrative quorum.

A bishopric or a stake presidency are also administrative quorums.

[mnn727]

3 hours ago, snowflake said:

There never was an apostasy, the greek orthodox and catholic churches have clear lineages to the time of Christ. 

No, it gets very cloudy quickly. You claim Peter but have no proof, you also have no proof he appointed the Bishops to take over for the Apostles.

Edited April 25, 2019 by mnn727

[SouthernMo]

1 minute ago, mnn727 said:

No, it gets very cloudy quickly. You claim Peter but have no proof, you also have no proof he appointed the Bishops to take over for the Apostles.

There is also no proof that Peter, James, & John gave priesthood to Joseph Smith & Oliver Cowdery.

[RevTestament]

16 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Thanks. I looked into it, and there is a distinction. The quorum of the 12 is a priesthood quorum. The first presidency is an administrative quorum.

A bishopric or a stake presidency are also administrative quorums.

The quorum of the seventy are also equal in authority.

[SouthernMo]

7 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

The quorum of the seventy are also equal in authority.

Only if you believe Joseph Smith!

[RevTestament]

1 minute ago, SouthernMo said:

Only if you believe Joseph Smith!

I believe him, D&C and all scripture.

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Anijen said:

Oh, and while you are at it, could you explain the no apostasy thing, yrt, in that same sentence you refer two churches that today are separate from each other. That separation means one or the other must have broke off (apostatized) from the other one.

Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism both recognize the priesthood of the other -- we would say valid orders. The split is over the pope: does he have primacy or not (and a few other things, that but that's the biggest one).

So it's not apostasy like the LDS believe. All the sacraments (ordinances) in both Orthodoxy and Catholicism are viewed as valid by the other.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Doesn't the LDS term mean a group of that type of priesthood? Like the elder's quorum, which could also be called the group of elders? Maybe I still misunderstand.

The common usage is the minimum number of members of a group/committee that have to be present for the group/committee to officially act. That doesn't seem to fit the way I see it being used by LDS.

From Merriam-Webster on-line (senses 1 and 3 apply to Latter-day Saint usage in my opinion):

Definition of quorum

 

1: a select group

2: the number (such as a majority) of officers or members of a body that when duly assembled is legally competent to transact business

3: a Mormon body comprising those in the same grade of priesthood

Edited April 25, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[JAHS]

28 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

There is also no proof that Peter, James, & John gave priesthood to Joseph Smith & Oliver Cowdery.

It is at least recorded in church records that it happened. The Catholic church pretty much just assumes that it did. 

[member10_1]

9 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

If God would kill the president before he led the church astray, doesn't that mean de facto that he is infallible?

I think you are correct; the President of the church is, for all intents and purposes, infallible in his role as president. The faithful by and large do not allow fallibility in any material way. Argues with his wife occasionally? Sure, fallible. Said a bad word a few years ago? Yes, fallible. Taught an incorrect doctrine to the Saints? Nope, you’re in danger of apostasy thinking that. A while after he’s passed on you may be able to say he was speaking as a man, but that’s not a justification for  disobeying his counsel at the time. Unfaithful to his wife? Nope, you must have the facts wrong; why are you reading anti-Mormon material? 

The idea of fallibility in our Church has less to with individuals studying things out in their minds, and more to do with preserving the authority of the living Prophet.

Edited April 26, 2019 by member10_1

[MiserereNobis]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

From Merriam-Webster on-line (senses 1 and 3 apply to Latter-day Saint usage in my opinion):

Definition of quorum

 

1: a select group

2: the number (such as a majority) of officers or members of a body that when duly assembled is legally competent to transact business

3: a Mormon body comprising those in the same grade of priesthood

Huh. I've never heard #1 used except in the LDS context.