How to become the LDS President

[BRMC]

12 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Has that happened? Where an absolute unknown was called? 

I don't know.

[strappinglad]

In the early days of the church several men were called who were hardly well known. Some were recent converts. Occasionally this lead to bad results. Currently , Time in the trenches, tends to weed out the mercurial ones( with the odd exemption )

[Navidad]

48 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Hi Navidad. 

I think I probably qualify as a formerly professional/paid clergy as most LDS would understand it, along with you. 

From my current perspective...I would not now claim to have been a cleric. But I did receive money for being an unordained, and from the LDS and Catholic point of view, unauthorized minister of the Gospel. 

I agree with you against the LDS, if you are defending the idea of ordained ministers being supported financially by their flocks. But I do not claim to have been an ordained minister. I think that only the one true church can ordain true ministers. If it is the LDS, they need to be married, and make their own living. If Catholic, unmarried, and be minimally supported. If from some sect that doesn't claim exclusive authority? 

Navidad...You try to go LDS, but you are not, and apparently will never go all the way. I am glad for that! But...as a Catholic, rejecting all LDS claims to authority, I am closer to being LDS than you, without trying. Heh.

Navidad...do not be upset with me. Our backgrounds are the same. My former heroes are yours. God love you, and bless you.  But you retain a belief in an invisible church without a visible structure. Along with LDS, I, as a Catholic, believe that there is a visible structure. 

Anyway, Iet us be friends at this season, and try to understand each other.

Merry, merry Christmas to you, Navidad, and to our LDS friends.

3DOP

 

 

 

Greetings: I am your friend and I am not upset in any way with anything you said.

I hope you don't mind if I indicate that I do not retain a belief in an "invisible church." The term "invisible church" as far as I know it, refers to a belief that all baptized Christians are members of the "invisible Christian church." I do not agree with this.

I do not believe that baptism in any way or form makes one, nor is necessary for one to be a member of Christianity (or the Christian church used in its broadest NT sense). It might make someone a member of the LDS, Catholic, or Lutheran church, but not of Christianity. I believe there are many baptized members of Christian churches who are not themselves part of Christianity. I think of Christianity as far far far more important than any Christian individual group or church per se. I may be Catholic, LDS, or Mennonite and therefore am a member of that "church" or group. That in no way impacts my relationship to Christianity as a whole nor does it impact my eternal destiny. When one changes from the Catholic Church to the Baptist Church or vice versa he or she is not "converted." He or she still is, or is not a Christian in the same way as before.

Christ will judge me as Navidad; not as a member of this or that specific Christian group. I therefore accept many of my LDS friends as fully Christian and part of Christianity. I am not sure if you do that? I say "many" because I have a firm conviction that one becomes a part of Christianity as an individual, not as a member of any organized or unorganized church. I accept the authority and spiritual oversight of any ordained minister under whom I would be worshiping or fellowshipping at any give time, regardless of church affiliation. Hence, my wife and I put ourselves voluntarily under the authority of our LDS bishop so long as we were attending church under his pastoral authority. When attending his group,  I would never say his ordination was not valid over me because I am a member of another group. He also recognized my wife's and my gifts and allowed us to minister in ways allowed by his understanding of his local authority as a bishop of the LDS church. He might even have sometimes stretched it! Ha!

You made certain points about me in your post. Fair enough. Let me make one about you. You were involved for much of your early life in a Fundamentalist Protestant church. You are now involved, as I understand it in a conservative or Fundamentalist (choose your word) Catholic church group affiliation. Sometimes you represent things as from a "Catholic" perspective that I believe are really representative of a "conservative" or "Fundamentalist" Catholic church perspective. You went from conservative to conservative. Is that fair? I think if our local quite progressive Catholic priest and you had a great discussion sitting on our patio by the river, you two would disagree on some Catholic things, wouldn't you? You might each be tempted to claim that you represent "true" Catholicism.  If you lived here in our area you might seek out a different type of Catholic with which to worship and fellowship. Is that fair?

I say that in my attempt to understand you too. And I hope that our dialogue might be insightful for our mutual LDS friends on this forum. Sometimes they tend to see non-LDS Christians as somewhat of a monolithic group. That is neither fair nor accurate. Best wishes back at you and all our LDS friends for a wonderful Christmas holiday.

[mfbukowski]

30 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I think that only the one true church can ordain true ministers. If it is the LDS, they need to be married, and make their own living.

Only bishops "need to be married"

Just fyi!  😊

And nowadays we use the term "ministering" for what used to be "home/ visiting teaching", so virtually everyone is a minister 

Edited December 24, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Only bishops "need to be married"

Just fyi!  😊

And nowadays we use the term "ministering" for what used to be "home/ visiting teaching", so virtually everyone is a minister 

Hi my friend. I didn't say "I think that only the one true church can ordain true ministers. If it is the LDS, they need to be married, and make their own living." I was quoting Rory.

[mfbukowski]

46 minutes ago, Navidad said:

You are now involved, as I understand it in a conservative or Fundamentalist (choose your word) Catholic church group affiliation. Sometimes you represent things as from a "Catholic" perspective that I believe are really representative of a "conservative" or "Fundamentalist" Catholic church perspective.

This really is none of my business, but I will stick my nose in anyway, as is my wont. 🤔

Having been a Catholic during Vatican II, I understand a bit, I think about this.

I thought at that time that it was the church which abandoned me, not the other way around.

So for me, as a Catholic, I was not part of anything "fundamentalistic" or "conservative".  I was an abandoned Catholic.

 

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Hi my friend. I didn't say "I think that only the one true church can ordain true ministers. If it is the LDS, they need to be married, and make their own living." I was quoting Rory.

Oh, ok, sorry. I quoted the wrong post

 

Edited December 24, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I find it very interesting that four and five never served a full-time mission or served as a pastor-bishop. I also find the comments about being glad that the church does not have professional clergy very interesting. I don't understand that considering that the vast majority of folks on this forum have never been a professional clergy and therefore cannot possibly personally know what it is like being one or the spouse of one. Probably most have never been served by a professional clergy either, so can't possibly know what that is like either.

Only a couple of things separate a professional clergyman from someone who has served as an LDS bishop. First, the former is paid, but the latter is not. Second, the former generally has to be qualified by recognized education of some kind and by putting his (or her) name forward to be ordained, but the latter has probably not received much theological or any clerical training, and is called to the position without ever having asked for it (asking for it is highly discouraged and would generally result in the man not being considered, lol). 

Beyond that, the work of a bishop is much like the work of a professional clergyman. And ask any bishop's wife how much she has to put up with supporting her husband in caring for the members of his ward. His calling may be of limited duration (generally 5 years for a bishop and 10 years for a stake president), but it's a rather intense 5 years. Some of the LDS members of this forum have served as bishops, including a couple who are no longer believers. I myself served as a branch president of a servicemen's branch in Germany.

I will say that you are correct about someone having never served as a professional clergyman not being able to personally know what it is like being one or the spouse of one, but the shoe is on the other foot for someone who has never served as an amateur clergyman or been the spouse of one.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Am I the only person who has served as a professional (paid) clergy/pastor active on the forum right now? Could simple bias or the presence of "this is how we do it" be the cause of the opposition? Perhaps the use of the old and terrible word -  "priestcraft" - which is still found defined and illustrated on churchofjesuschrist.org guide to the scriptures page, could that be the reason? The idea that "Gentiles shall be filled with "all manner of priestcrafts?" or the Alma quote about "this people" being led to destruction by priestcraft? This epithet is one reason I have never seriously considered joining the LDS church.

You probably are the only one. Based on your posts here in this forum, if I were a betting man, I'd bet that you were a very good one. More power to you for that.

Priestcraft is not the simple act of being paid to be a clergyman. Merriam-Webster has this definition:

Definition of priestcraft

1. professional knowledge and skill in respect to the exercise of priestly functions
2. the scheming and machinations of priests : priestly intriguing

Wiktionary has it similarly: 

1. The craft of performing the duties of a priest.
2. (derogatory) Priestly policy directed towards worldly ends.

In the first instance priestcraft is simply the carrying out of duty. For example, a Roman Catholic priest officiating at a Mass and a young LDS Aaronic priest officiating at the sacrament table are both performing the duties of a priest -- they are carrying out priestcraft in its first sense. But those ministers of the Gospel who use their positions of trust to gain worldly praise and lucre, and prey on their congregations -- they are the ones engaged in the second sense of priestcraft.

In the second version we have the definition for which the Book of Mormon proclaims it to be evil. When Jesus condemned the Pharisees for praying out loud in the public street to demonstrate to all how righteous they were, or when they went about deliberately looking miserable so everyone could see they were fasting, He might not have called it priestcraft, but that's what they were performing. And He said that they had their reward already, meaning they had their worldly reward already (rather than a reward waiting in heaven) -- and the reward was their own self-righteous feeling and the possible high regard of the people who witnessed their faux religiosity.

So it is the Lord Jesus who condemns version 2 of priestcraft. The Book of Mormon merely agrees with Him.

But like I said, your service as a professional clergyman was not priestcraft in the sense spoken of in the Book of Mormon.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

My family and I sacrificed much to be a full-time pastor. I made very personal covenants to God about being ordained a faithful minister. To be considered an ally of Lucifer is very hurtful.

I wouldn't consider anyone who sought to feed the Lord's sheep as a professional clergyman an ally of Lucifer unless he or she were to act at cross-purposes to God's will. I have nothing but respect for those who honestly feel it is their calling to nourish the flock! I've met lots of men and women who do so, and do so honestly, and who am I to claim that they are wrong to do so? Some express the feeling that they were "called to the work" and responded positively to it. I remember the revelation found in D&C 4 where the Lord says in verses 2 and 3:

Therefore, O ye that embark in the service of God, see that ye serve him with all your heart, might, mind and strength, that ye may stand blameless before God at the last day. Therefore, if ye have desires to serve God ye are called to the work.

This section of the D&C may be referring specifically to those embarking in the service of God in the LDS church, but there's no reason why it has to be for them exclusively. I have heard general authorities of the LDS church stating how much they were grateful for the Christian labor that men (and women) in the denominations of Christendom, both in former as well as in latter days have performed, and continue to perform. Personally, I thank God for them. What would we have today if they hadn't fulfilled their duties in righteousness?

Just before posting this, I remembered the story of a Protestant minister named John Heidenreich. He was the pastor of a Congregational church, but had studied with the LDS missionaries occasionally over a period of years. He had gradually grown to have a testimony of the church, but was hesitant to go for it. and then the Lord gave him a dream. Here's a quotation from his story that appeared in the book "No More Strangers, vol. 1" by Hartman and Connie Rector:

Quote

"This question kept recurring to me: How could I ever leave my church? Had not the Lord called me to be a pastor many years ago? I had never doubted that calling. Had I been mistaken? If The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was the true Church of Christ upon the earth, why had the Lord not called me into that Church? These thoughts left me confused and questioning. One afternoon when I was in my bedroom at prayer, the Lord spoke to me clearly these words: 'You can stay in this beautiful garden that you have made, or you can come with me and play for higher stakes.'

"It is so hard for the uninspired human mind to comprehend the mind of the Lord. I was puzzled. It seemed impossible for the Lord to have spoken such words. My puritan upbringing revolted against the thought of the Lord using the terms of a gambler. It also seemed unlikely that the Lord would mix his metaphors in an English sentence. I thought my senses must be deceiving me. Yet I heard the words as clearly as I ever heard words spoken from human lips. 

"It occurred to me some days later that the Lord was telling me that there was a great risk involved in my accepting the concept of the restored gospel as taught by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I had a choice. I could remain where I was, where I had achieved a ministry helpful to many people, also where I had attained a measure of success and material security; I was doing a work of service and mercy that was acceptable to the Lord. Or I could leave it and labor for greater, celestial rewards for myself and my family. Also, there were 'higher stakes' of service to others that I could not imagine at that time. (Sometimes the Lord takes things away from us so that he can give us something better - he took away a ministry I loved and gave me a much larger ministry of teaching the gospel to thousands of youth.) But should I prove unfaithful in the higher calling it would be much better if I remained in 'the garden' of service where I was."

Does the Lord consider a man (or woman) who is honestly seeking to serve His children as a minister of the Gospel to be practicing priestcraft? No way.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Anyway, I appreciate the chart. I find that very informative. Thanks to Stargazer for posting it. Best to all.

Glad to be helpful. 

You gave me food for thought, so I thank you right back.

It occurred to me in regard to our amateur clergy, that the Lord did not attend the school of Gamaliel (considered to be one of the greatest teachers in all the annals of Judaism), and neither did any of the Twelve whom he appointed to be chief shepherds. If the Lord had thought that a professional clergy was necessary for the administration of his church, nothing stopped him (to the best of my knowledge) from attending a rabbinical school; or from founding one of His own, which His apostles could have attended to qualify themselves for the work. But He didn't. He was an amateur, as were all the apostles (with the exception of Paul, I might add!).

Doing a little digging as a result of your post, I came across an interesting article that appeared in The New Era in 1971, written by Hugh Nibley, titled The Day of the Amateur. One part of it relates to the matter at hand:

Quote

If we have no professional clergy in the Church, it is not because the Church cannot use expert knowledge, but because all members should be experts where the gospel is concerned, and as such they should make their contribution. All the same contribution? Not at all! The Church is structured for eternal progression, and that takes place as we all feel our way forward along a broad front. Seeking and searching are among the most common words in our scriptures; we are all supposed to be seeking all the time. Just as missionaries go forth as an amateur army, searching out the honest in heart in the most scattered and unlikely places, on the widest possible front, so the rest of us increase in knowledge, here a little and there a little, not by trusting a few experts to come up with the answers, but by all of us searching all along the line, finding out a fact here and a document there, and reporting the discovery to the whole body.

I am sorry if you have taken offense because of how you perceive your service as a minister is regarded by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or the Book of Mormon, but I hope you realize that it is not your true service that is derogated, but the anti-service of those supposed ministers of the Gospel who are only looking out for #1, those who seek to use their positions for self-aggrandizement, for power over men, for filthy lucre, or to satisfy their lusts. Fortunately, they are few, but they can be found everywhere. And all of us have to labor to disperse their influence over the hearts of our brothers and sisters who have fallen victim to them.

Thanks again for your comments!

 

 

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

It's the proximity principle at play. 9/10's of the First Presidency and Q12 are buddy buddies or related to someone else. Both Elders Gong and Renlund's FIL were prior GA's. I saw a photo of Pres. Hinckley at Elder Gong's wedding. Pres. Monson liked Canadians so it was no wonder then that Elder Merlin Lybbert's son in law got called to be an Apostle by Pres. Monson. You call people you know and don't call people you don't know. Elder Bednar was the BYUI President so he was known to the brethren. Pres. Hugh B. Brown worked in a law office with J. Reuben Clark Jr. and Albert E. Bowen so when new appointees come up of course they would think of someone they know and worked with so why not Pres. Brown and Elder Bowen? They wouldn't call their dumpy neighbor they hardly know or don't like. 

How would they know to call someone if they didn't know them from Adam? The person has to cross their path in some way, or so it seems to me. 

I was reading a General Conference talk by Elder Boyd K. Packer, and he recalled that when he was called as an Assistant to the Twelve, they apparently only knew him by recommendation, because he himself had never met any member of the First Presidency (The Weak and Simple of the Church😞

Quote

For a long time, something else puzzled me. Forty-six years ago I was a 37-year-old seminary supervisor. My Church calling was as an assistant teacher in a class in the Lindon Ward.

To my great surprise, I was called to meet with President David O. McKay. He took both of my hands in his and called me to be one of the General Authorities, an Assistant to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

A few days later, I came to Salt Lake City to meet with the First Presidency to be set apart as one of the General Authorities of the Church. This was the first time I had met with the First Presidency—President David O. McKay and his counselors, President Hugh B. Brown and President Henry D. Moyle.

President McKay explained that one of the responsibilities of an Assistant to the Twelve was to stand with the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as a special witness and to bear testimony that Jesus is the Christ. What he said next overwhelmed me: “Before we proceed to set you apart, I ask you to bear your testimony to us. We want to know if you have that witness.”

I did the best I could. I bore my testimony the same as I might have in a fast and testimony meeting in my ward. To my surprise, the Brethren of the Presidency seemed pleased and proceeded to confer the office upon me.

That puzzled me greatly, for I had supposed that someone called to such an office would have an unusual, different, and greatly enlarged testimony and spiritual power.

It puzzled me for a long time until finally I could see that I already had what was required: an abiding testimony in my heart of the Restoration of the fulness of the gospel through the Prophet Joseph Smith, that we have a Heavenly Father, and that Jesus Christ is our Redeemer. I may not have known all about it, but I did have a testimony, and I was willing to learn.

Was he known by someone else in the heirarchy of the Church, and is that how he came to be called to be a general authority? He doesn't say, but I think it is fairly amazing that they reached "downline" as far as they did to find him. He was apparently a dumpy neighbor of some kind.

[Navidad]

25 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Only a couple of things separate a professional clergyman from someone who has served as an LDS bishop. First, the former is paid, but the latter is not. Second, the former generally has to be qualified by recognized education of some kind and by putting his (or her) name forward to be ordained, but the latter has probably not received much theological or any clerical training, and is called to the position without ever having asked for it (asking for it is highly discouraged and would generally result in the man not being considered, lol). 

Beyond that, the work of a bishop is much like the work of a professional clergyman. And ask any bishop's wife how much she has to put up with supporting her husband in caring for the members of his ward. His calling may be of limited duration (generally 5 years for a bishop and 10 years for a stake president), but it's a rather intense 5 years. Some of the LDS members of this forum have served as bishops, including a couple who are no longer believers. I myself served as a branch president of a servicemen's branch in Germany.

I will say that you are correct about someone having never served as a professional clergyman not being able to personally know what it is like being one or the spouse of one, but the shoe is on the other foot for someone who has never served as an amateur clergyman or been the spouse of one.

You probably are the only one. Based on your posts here in this forum, if I were a betting man, I'd bet that you were a very good one. More power to you for that.

Priestcraft is not the simple act of being paid to be a clergyman. Merriam-Webster has this definition:

Definition of priestcraft

1. professional knowledge and skill in respect to the exercise of priestly functions
2. the scheming and machinations of priests : priestly intriguing

Wiktionary has it similarly: 

1. The craft of performing the duties of a priest.
2. (derogatory) Priestly policy directed towards worldly ends.

In the first instance priestcraft is simply the carrying out of duty. For example, a Roman Catholic priest officiating at a Mass and a young LDS Aaronic priest officiating at the sacrament table are both performing the duties of a priest -- they are carrying out priestcraft in its first sense. But those ministers of the Gospel who use their positions of trust to gain worldly praise and lucre, and prey on their congregations -- they are the ones engaged in the second sense of priestcraft.

In the second version we have the definition for which the Book of Mormon proclaims it to be evil. When Jesus condemned the Pharisees for praying out loud in the public street to demonstrate to all how righteous they were, or when they went about deliberately looking miserable so everyone could see they were fasting, He might not have called it priestcraft, but that's what they were performing. And He said that they had their reward already, meaning they had their worldly reward already (rather than a reward waiting in heaven) -- and the reward was their own self-righteous feeling and the possible high regard of the people who witnessed their faux religiosity.

So it is the Lord Jesus who condemns version 2 of priestcraft. The Book of Mormon merely agrees with Him.

But like I said, your service as a professional clergyman was not priestcraft in the sense spoken of in the Book of Mormon.

I wouldn't consider anyone who sought to feed the Lord's sheep as a professional clergyman an ally of Lucifer unless he or she were to act at cross-purposes to God's will. I have nothing but respect for those who honestly feel it is their calling to nourish the flock! I've met lots of men and women who do so, and do so honestly, and who am I to claim that they are wrong to do so? Some express the feeling that they were "called to the work" and responded positively to it. I remember the revelation found in D&C 4 where the Lord says in verses 2 and 3:

Therefore, O ye that embark in the service of God, see that ye serve him with all your heart, might, mind and strength, that ye may stand blameless before God at the last day. Therefore, if ye have desires to serve God ye are called to the work.

This section of the D&C may be referring specifically to those embarking in the service of God in the LDS church, but there's no reason why it has to be for them exclusively. I have heard general authorities of the LDS church stating how much they were grateful for the Christian labor that men (and women) in the denominations of Christendom, both in former as well as in latter days have performed, and continue to perform. Personally, I thank God for them. What would we have today if they hadn't fulfilled their duties in righteousness?

Just before posting this, I remembered the story of a Protestant minister named John Heidenreich. He was the pastor of a Congregational church, but had studied with the LDS missionaries occasionally over a period of years. He had gradually grown to have a testimony of the church, but was hesitant to go for it. and then the Lord gave him a dream. Here's a quotation from his story that appeared in the book "No More Strangers, vol. 1" by Hartman and Connie Rector:

Does the Lord consider a man (or woman) who is honestly seeking to serve His children as a minister of the Gospel to be practicing priestcraft? No way.

Glad to be helpful. 

You gave me food for thought, so I thank you right back.

It occurred to me in regard to our amateur clergy, that the Lord did not attend the school of Gamaliel (considered to be one of the greatest teachers in all the annals of Judaism), and neither did any of the Twelve whom he appointed to be chief shepherds. If the Lord had thought that a professional clergy was necessary for the administration of his church, nothing stopped him (to the best of my knowledge) from attending a rabbinical school; or from founding one of His own, which His apostles could have attended to qualify themselves for the work. But He didn't. He was an amateur, as were all the apostles (with the exception of Paul, I might add!).

Doing a little digging as a result of your post, I came across an interesting article that appeared in The New Era in 1971, written by Hugh Nibley, titled The Day of the Amateur. One part of it relates to the matter at hand:

I am sorry if you have taken offense because of how you perceive your service as a minister is regarded by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or the Book of Mormon, but I hope you realize that it is not your true service that is derogated, but the anti-service of those supposed ministers of the Gospel who are only looking out for #1, those who seek to use their positions for self-aggrandizement, for power over men, for filthy lucre, or to satisfy their lusts. Fortunately, they are few, but they can be found everywhere. And all of us have to labor to disperse their influence over the hearts of our brothers and sisters who have fallen victim to them.

Thanks again for your comments!

 

 

Thank you my friend. Just as a point of information, my denominational background is Mennonite. Just like the LDS, the Mennonites have more often than not had lay and bi-vocational folks leading their smaller congregations. The concept of the LDS bishop being a lay minister is very common to my thinking. I have no opposition to that whatsoever. I have more often been bi-vocational myself than being a full-time paid pastor. I have done both. I have great respect for both. I am glad to hear what you are saying about "priestcraft." I have only read it used in LDS circles in the #2 definitions. It has almost always been a negative statement of fact about non-LDS ministers. Thanks so much for helping me understand that it is not always used as a negative term. I wonder why then it is never (to my knowledge) used of LDS bishops?  Don't LDS bishops then practice priestcraft in the #1 dictionary definition? Take care and very best wishes.

[Navidad]

36 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

This really is none of my business, but I will stick my nose in anyway, as is my wont. 🤔

Having been a Catholic during Vatican II, I understand a bit, I think about this.

I thought at that time that it was the church which abandoned me, not the other way around.

So for me, as a Catholic, I was not part of anything "fundamentalistic" or "conservative".  I was an abandoned Catholic.

 

Hi my friend - you are welcome to stick your nose into any of my posts any time. I will do my best to respond well!  Here in Mexico, as I believe is true everywhere there are different groups of sects within Catholicism. Sect probably isn't a good word, but I don't know the correct term for them. I think there are even some such Evangelical sects within Catholicism. The group the new Supreme Court justice belongs to comes to mind. I think this tendency has increased since Vatican II. Here is our area of Mexico we have Catholic groups, approved of by the Vatican that practice the pre-Vatican II mass, and various other practices and beliefs that hearken back to what many Catholics believe was a more faithful Catholicism. I am calling these folks/groups/entities fundamentalist or conservative Catholics because they hearken for a return to the way things were, just like some fundamentalist Protestants and even Mormon fundamentalists do.

I will of course yield to either of our Catholic forum members to explain better than I could about these "conservative (to use my term)" Catholic groups. Just from what I read from their posts, I think they both may be affiliated with such Catholic groups. They are both certainly very eloquent and can speak for themselves. They may feel, as did you that they didn't leave, they were abandoned!

[Stargazer]

24 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Don't LDS bishops then practice priestcraft in the #1 dictionary definition?

I sure hope so!

I think the term acquired an overall negative connotation from the verbiage of the Book of Mormon.

[Bob Crockett]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Has that happened? Where an absolute unknown was called? 

J Reuben Clark.   The brethren said they didn't know him.  Not even a high priest.  Due to a conflict with the DC branch pres, not even active. 

[Navidad]

10 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I sure hope so!

I think the term acquired an overall negative connotation from the verbiage of the Book of Mormon.

Thanks. I see you are in England! I am in my last year of a PhD program in Mexican history at the University of Kent in Canterbury! Take care!

[Navidad]

4 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

J Reuben Clark.   The brethren said they didn't know him.  Not even a high priest.  Due to a conflict with the DC branch pres, not even active. 

If I may jump in here and add some more of what I hope will be interesting context. Clark was the head solicitor for the US state department in Washington, DC in the Wilson administration. At the same time Apostle Reed Smoot was a senator. Smoot held sacrament meetings in his living room in Washington to which Clark would not attend. It appears they (Smoot and Clark) were at political odds with each other. They finally came together to work to free an LDS bishop from the Mexican colonies (Morelos, Sonora) named Orson Pat Brown from federal smuggling charges. Brown was caught with 200 Spanish Mauser rifles at the small Hermanas railroad station just west of Columbus, NM. The guns were confiscated and Brown was briefly imprisoned by the US army in El Paso. Smuggling was a treasury offense so both Clark and Smoot tried to persuade the Secretary of the Treasury to free both the guns and Brown. The Treasury Secretary wouldn't budge. Both Smoot and Clark agreed to go together to pressure the treasury secretary to intervene. That worked. Brown was released by the Treasury official in El Paso, Zachary Lamar Cobb, the guns were returned and taken down to Colonia Dublan where they were hidden from Salazar and all was well.

Some years later during the First Cristiada or Cristero War, Clark was the senior solicitor for Dwight Morrow, the ambassador to Mexico. He (Clark) wrote the Modus Vivendi that brought a negotiated end to the Cristero War in 1929. Morrow left Mexico and Clark became the ambassador.  It was just after serving as ambassador to Mexico that the church called him to serve in the First Presidency with virtually no prior church experience. He was called by Heber J. Grant, who I believe was his cousin. Now you know the rest of the story.    

Oh and one more thing, years later in the 1950s or early 1960s Junius Romney, former President of the Juarez Stake and the leader who brought the Saints out of Mexico in the 1912 exodus got on a train and sat next to President Clark on a long cross country trip. Romney had never spoken in public of the exodus. It had been a difficult and controversial decision. On the train ride he talked with Clark about that and Clark encouraged him to talk about both the exodus and Romney's decision making process. Romney then gave a talk at the Garden Ward (not sure of the name) in SLC and broke down under the weight of all those old memories. There is a lot more to the story of the exodus, but I won't bore you with more detail. It is all wonderful history and a bit of a hidden part of Mexican Mormon colony history. The old Carling building in downtown El Paso where Presiding Bishop O.P Miller, Apostle Anthony Ivins, President Junius Romney, and Bishop Charles Bentley debated the ultimate destiny of those in the exodus is now a CVS pharmacy! Bet you didn't know that! Best to all.

[sunstoned]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

This is vastly overstated.

The idea that the Brethren are eagerly making sure second and third cousins get prime leadership positions is silly.

 

Used to be the path involved a UK mission. Sadly I think that credential is fading away so my dreams of apostleship are bursting like soap bubbles.

I'm not sure if this is sarcasm or not (I'm just not that bright).  But, sadly it is not overstated.  Nepotism is alive and well in the church.  It always has been.  This article is slightly dated, but you get the idea.

 

Quote

How does the current Presidency and Quorum of Twelve Apostles measure up? 100% of them are related in some way to current or former general authorities of the LDS Church. In the top 2 leading quorums – consisting of 15 men (The First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve Apostles), five of these men are directly related to each other. Four are related to each other by marriage. Four are directly related to former LDS Presidents. Five are directly related to former apostles. Two are married to wives who are direct descendants of former presidents. Five are married to wives who are directly related to former apostles. Seven are married to wives who are relatives of current general authorities or of their wives. The only apostle who has no blood ties to any other general authority is Apostle Richard G. Scott. But, true to form, his wife is related to several current general authorities and even descends from a former LDS apostle. 

https://www.mrm.org/nepotism

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, sunstoned said:

I'm not sure if this is sarcasm or not (I'm just not that bright).  But, sadly it is not overstated.  Nepotism is alive and well in the church.  It always has been.  This article is slightly dated, but you get the idea.

 

https://www.mrm.org/nepotism

“Directly related”? What does that even mean?

And it is not nepotism. Nepotism originally came into vogue as a word describing appointing nephews to important posts (usually Catholic ones). Nepotism is giving those offices to your kids and nephews and grandkids. Having someone who is the great or great-great grandson of a former apostle called to the office isn’t nepotism unless great grandpappy is still around and made it happen. You can throw nepotism accusations against a few people. Joseph F. Smith was very worried about it when Joseph Fielding Smith was called to the apostleship. President Hinckley made it a point to ‘recuse’ himself when his son was considered for a call to the Seventy and jokingly commented something about how he can say the candidate has a good mother.

If I were called as an apostle tomorrow you could credibly throw that accusation at me due to being related to a few apostles but no one but only a genealogist would consider us related at all. It is a strained assertion. It would be more credible to claim that too many of the apostles grew up in Utah and the surrounding states because that had more impact on becoming an apostle than marrying the second cousin twice removed of a previous apostle.

[jkwilliams]

12 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

I'm not sure if this is sarcasm or not (I'm just not that bright).  But, sadly it is not overstated.  Nepotism is alive and well in the church.  It always has been.  This article is slightly dated, but you get the idea.

 

https://www.mrm.org/nepotism

I used to work with the son-in-law of one of the leaders of the church. He said the interconnected social, ecclesiastical, and business relationships in the church amounted to a system somewhere between an old boys’ network and the British royal family. 

[The Nehor]

42 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I used to work with the son-in-law of one of the leaders of the church. He said the interconnected social, ecclesiastical, and business relationships in the church amounted to a system somewhere between an old boys’ network and the British royal family. 

That I believe to some extent. I have seen some of that. A lot of it doesn’t even involve the apostles and seventies themselves though it sometimes does.

I just don’t think it extends to picking apostles or seventies we would see a lot more sons and nephews and grandkids of current apostles becoming apostles and seventies.

[MiserereNobis]

11 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Are you trying to refute a point that hasn't been made so far?  Or anticipating it?

I was anticipating a possible point. Thanks for asking for clarification (and starting an interesting thread).

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Thanks. I see you are in England! I am in my last year of a PhD program in Mexican history at the University of Kent in Canterbury! Take care!

Way cool! You and I are only about 2 hours distant from each other by road! Study hard!

[Stargazer]

9 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I was anticipating a possible point. Thanks for asking for clarification (and starting an interesting thread).

You're welcome! 

Most of my threads go nowhere particularly fast, so...

Edited December 24, 2021 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

“Directly related”? What does that even mean?

Normally, or at least as far as I understand it, "directly" means immediate family. In this context. In the context of a disciple relationship, a direct disciple is one who was taught by the master himself. An indirect disciple was taught by someone whom the master taught.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

And it is not nepotism. Nepotism originally came into vogue as a word describing appointing nephews to important posts (usually Catholic ones). Nepotism is giving those offices to your kids and nephews and grandkids. Having someone who is the great or great-great grandson of a former apostle called to the office isn’t nepotism unless great grandpappy is still around and made it happen. You can throw nepotism accusations against a few people. Joseph F. Smith was very worried about it when Joseph Fielding Smith was called to the apostleship. President Hinckley made it a point to ‘recuse’ himself when his son was considered for a call to the Seventy and jokingly commented something about how he can say the candidate has a good mother.

I remember that! 

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

If I were called as an apostle tomorrow you could credibly throw that accusation at me due to being related to a few apostles but no one but only a genealogist would consider us related at all. It is a strained assertion. It would be more credible to claim that too many of the apostles grew up in Utah and the surrounding states because that had more impact on becoming an apostle than marrying the second cousin twice removed of a previous apostle.

Well, I wonder how many relatives you have among the current apostles and first presidency? I checked relativefinder.org and here's all my cousins among today's Brethren:

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I used to work with the son-in-law of one of the leaders of the church. He said the interconnected social, ecclesiastical, and business relationships in the church amounted to a system somewhere between an old boys’ network and the British royal family. 

Not surprising, actually. Human relationships being what they are, even when there are no familial relationships in a network, such as among the men (and the few women) who constitute the leaders in the Vatican, such systems will naturally arise. It would be odd if such associations didn't arise.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Stargazer said:

Not surprising, actually. Human relationships being what they are, even when there are no familial relationships in a network, such as among the men (and the few women) who constitute the leaders in the Vatican, such systems will naturally arise. It would be odd if such associations didn't arise.

Indeed. It seems a natural product of any human organization over time.