Expectations of a prophet…

[MiserereNobis]

3 minutes ago, James 1 5 said:

D&C 107: 

21 Of necessity there are presidents, or presiding officers growing out of, or appointed of or from among those who are ordained to the several offices in these two priesthoods.

22 Of the Melchizedek Priesthood, three Presiding High Priests, chosen by the body, appointed and ordained to that office, and upheld by the confidence, faith, and prayer of the church, form a quorum of the Presidency of the Church.

23 The twelve traveling councilors are called to be the Twelve Apostles, or special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world—thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling.

24 And they form a quorum, equal in authority and power to the three presidents previously mentioned.

25 The Seventy are also called to preach the gospel, and to be especial witnesses unto the Gentiles and in all the world—thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling.

26 And they form a quorum, equal in authority to that of the Twelve special witnesses or Apostles just named.

27 And every decision made by either of these quorums must be by the unanimous voice of the same; that is, every member in each quorum must be agreed to its decisions, in order to make their decisions of the same power or validity one with the other—

28 A majority may form a quorum when circumstances render it impossible to be otherwise—

29 Unless this is the case, their decisions are not entitled to the same blessings which the decisions of a quorum of three presidents were anciently, who were ordained after the order of Melchizedek, and were righteous and holy men.

30 The decisions of these quorums, or either of them, are to be made in all righteousness, in holiness, and lowliness of heart, meekness and long-suffering, and in faith, and virtue, and knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness and charity;

31 Because the promise is, if these things abound in them they shall not be unfruitful in the knowledge of the Lord.

32 And in case that any decision of these quorums is made in unrighteousness, it may be brought before a general assembly of the several quorums, which constitute the spiritual authorities of the church; otherwise there can be no appeal from their decision.

33 The Twelve are a Traveling Presiding High Council, to officiate in the name of the Lord, under the direction of the Presidency of the Church, agreeable to the institution of heaven; to build up the church, and regulate all the affairs of the same in all nations, first unto the Gentiles and secondly unto the Jews.

34 The Seventy are to act in the name of the Lord, under the direction of the Twelve or the traveling high council, in building up the church and regulating all the affairs of the same in all nations, first unto the Gentiles and then to the Jews—

35 The Twelve being sent out, holding the keys, to open the door by the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and first unto the Gentiles and then unto the Jews.

36 The standing high councils, at the stakes of Zion, form a quorum equal in authority in the affairs of the church, in all their decisions, to the quorum of the presidency, or to the traveling high council.

37 The high council in Zion form a quorum equal in authority in the affairs of the church, in all their decisions, to the councils of the Twelve at the stakes of Zion.

38 It is the duty of the traveling high council to call upon the Seventy, when they need assistance, to fill the several calls for preaching and administering the gospel, instead of any others.

Ah, this is your Code of Canon Law that answers my questions. Thank you.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

if his revelation can be vetoed by someone else.

It is about accepting it as binding on the membership rather than determining if it is truth….at least that is how I understand it.

[Stormin' Mormon]

14 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

 My initial reaction to this new info is that it seems to water down the claim of "a living prophet," the phrase I've heard many times, if his revelation can be vetoed by someone else.

 

Depends on what you mean by "water down." It would be more accurate for us to claim "living prophets." But rather than watering down the voice of the man at the top of the earthly hierarchy (commonly referred to as The Prophet), I prefer to think that his prophetic voice is bolstered by 14 other men, each of whom have the same revelatory witness and message.  If the truth is to be established in the mouth of two or three witnesses (see 2 Cor 13:1), certainly 15 witnesses is better.

Edited February 9, 2022 by Stormin' Mormon
added scriptural citation and other clarifications

[CV75]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Interesting. I guess I erroneously put my understanding of the papacy onto the LDS presidency. My initial reaction to this new info is that it seems to water down the claim of "a living prophet," the phrase I've heard many times, if his revelation can be vetoed by someone else.

Since you quote me here as I speak of the pope, it seems as if you are trying to make point about my statement. Of course Catholics also believe that the Lord has the supreme power over His Bride, Holy Mother Church. I was speaking of how the Church and the pope operate here, temporally, and was not trying to say that the pope has more power than Christ.

A living prophet is significant in that the keys of the kingdom have been restored and he holds them. Whatever differences between how he and the Pope operate, checks and balances would protect and preserve the keys upon the earth should either go off the rails. This is how the President / Prophet cannot lead the Church astray: the keys are with Apostles and they choose and ordain a new President. So, the expectation is that the he has the keys and there are checks and balances to his fallibility.

Our councils do not use a veto function. Procedurally, the presiding officer proposes a motion for a sustaining vote within the council, typically seeking unanimity, i.e., multiple witnesses to a revelation or inspired action. Now that I think of it, the article in the OP covers much of this so I’ll refer you to that.

I was quoting you not to make a point about your statement, but to attempt to relate on your terms. Christ has the keys and delegates them to His servant, who may further delegate them by inspiration according to our Church articles and covenants. I cannot speak to how this is said to operate in the “Holy Mother Church.”

[california boy]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

The President has the keys of the kingdom, but so do his counselors and the Twelve. While he presides over the whole Church, there are checks and balances*. For example, when he receives a revelation, it needs to be sustained by the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve, and eventually the Church membership if it is to become canon. Doctrinal policy is a bit different; that is more of an administrative process but still needs the unanimity of the  First Presidency and Council of the Twelve. Administrative policy decisions are typically delegated to the organization set up to take care of that scope of activity. The President can be removed from office for transgression, by the Twelve (this is described in teh Doctrine and Covenants).

* We recognize that the Lord "has supreme and universal power of the Church."

So basically you are saying that the prophet could receive a revelation, and the apostles could say no to the revelation from God??

[LoudmouthMormon]

On 2/7/2022 at 4:09 PM, ttribe said:

Oh really? Have you ever left?

Yes.  I left shortly after declining to serve a mission, and was inactive and unbelieving for around 6 years.  

 

Quote

Do you spend much time with people who've left and tried to actually understand their reasons? 

Yes.  Both here on line, interacting with folks like you, and IRL.  Random acquaintances, friends, peers, co-workers, family members.  

 

Quote

I can tell you that I've left and I regularly associate with a number of exmos and your "most common reason" narrative doesn't begin to apply to me or the people I know.

I believe you are describing your experience accurately and truthfully.  Do you believe me?

[Robert F. Smith]

On 2/7/2022 at 8:41 PM, Moneymaking said:

If cops are not held to a higher standard how are they more likely to go to jail? Doesn’t make sense. 

I am describing, not prescribing.  Cops are simply more likely to go to jail these days -- for the reasons I stated.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 2/7/2022 at 8:40 PM, Moneymaking said:

Yea it is sad that even that recently the membership on average was racist. 

I don't agree.  Most Latter-day Saints, and most Americans generally, were not racist.  However, there were enough of them to make a sea change difficult to negotiate.  When the time came, Pres Kimball was in the cat-bird seat.  The CRT myth of systemic racism is just that, a myth -- a very destructive myth.

[Hamba Tuhan]

17 hours ago, MrShorty said:

To me, this seems like Elder McConkie is trying to include a long list of people in this, and, of course, it is easy to find statements (especially from Brigham Young) that claim very much that the priesthood and temple ban and the reasons for it were revelation.

This suggests to me that you think Elder McConkie once believed that the restrictions were revelation, but then he changed his mind. But you won't find that in the speech you are referencing. He admits to misinterpreting the timing despite previous revelations but not much more than that. Consider the following:

Quote

One underlying reason for what happened to us is that the Brethren asked in faith; they petitioned and desired and wanted an answer—President Kimball in particular. And the other underlying principle is that in the eternal providences of the Lord, the time had come for extending the gospel to a race and a culture to whom it had previously been denied, at least as far as all of its blessings are concerned. So it was a matter of faith and righteousness and seeking on the one hand, and it was a matter of the divine timetable on the other hand. The time had arrived when the gospel, with all its blessings and obligations, should go to the Negro.

I currently have a West Africa-born housemate, and I had one some years ago as well, both of them adult converts. They would fully agree with Elder McConkie here regarding a 'divine timetable'. (They have both told me as much.)

The question for me is, if race is nothing more than a social construct (which I 100 per cent accept), why did the Lord either inspire or allow policies based on race to exist in the Church for a time? I have found possible answers to that question -- both ones that have come to my mind and ones that have been shared with me by my black brothers -- to be essential in shaping me as a disciple of Jesus Christ.

Such understanding is unlikely if the 'answer' is merely to label the Church or past leaders as racist. I know one can find black members online who do that, but I've lived around and worshipped alongside black Saints for most of my adult life (including in predominantly black congregations), and none that I know personally think that is the answer.

Edited February 9, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[Robert F. Smith]

On 2/7/2022 at 8:18 PM, Moneymaking said:

How hard is it to not be racist in 1978? Maybe my opinion of our leaders was away to high?

There were at least a couple of members of the Twelve in 1978 who needed to overcome their racist tendencies.  Fortunately, Pres Kimball handled them with aplomb.  Reminds me of Peter being forced to accept the end of kosher rules by God Himself -- a hard lesson to learn.  Similar to Paul finding out the difficult truth on the road to Damascus -- he was on his way there to persecute the Christians, but ended by becoming one of them.

The general membership of the Church was ready for a shift.  It had been a long time coming.  Getting back to the actual teachings and actions of Joseph Smith, which in the meantime had been abandoned.

[CV75]

14 hours ago, california boy said:

So basically you are saying that the prophet could receive a revelation, and the apostles could say no to the revelation from God??

Not at all. Nor could they veto.

[Thinking]

On 2/6/2022 at 1:02 PM, rchorse said:

Mistakes happen...

How big of a mistake is a prophet allowed to make and still be a prophet?

[The Nehor]

37 minutes ago, Thinking said:

How big of a mistake is a prophet allowed to make and still be a prophet?

When he stops leading people to exaltation.

[CV75]

38 minutes ago, Thinking said:

How big of a mistake is a prophet allowed to make and still be a prophet?

Anything short of doing whatever it takes to mistakenly create another Great Apostasy, in which case the keys are removed from the earth (one way or another) and there is no prophet.

Of course, you may want to define "mistake."

I think that whether or not we are in the midst of a Great Apostasy is a matter of personal revelation.

[MrShorty]

21 hours ago, CV75 said:

I wouldn’t call a lack of light and knowledge a lack of discernment, and I wouldn’t call either of these a mistake, any more than the brother of Jared and his contemporaries made a mistake in not knowing for who-knows-how-long “that the Lord had flesh and blood.” Fallibility takes many forms.

Those whom we might assess acted without light and knowledge or without discernment still had the keys to preside over the Church, and the keys were not taken away, and everybody’s ordinances – the most important exercise of the keys -- remain intact.

I believe everybody is unaware of their own blindness until they know better. I think our curriculum shows this principle applies for everyone in the Church. So, President Y declares R and T and you have a witness or disposition to the contrary. I would say that is an opportunity for growth.

I'm not sure about the equivalence of "brother of Jared suddenly learns that God is (is to be) embodied" is the same as "amidst the strife and such around racial issues in mid 20th century America, church leaders suddenly learn that God wants all, regardless of race, to have access to salvific ordinances". The revelation to the brother of Jared appears to have taken place in complete vacuum on the embodied nature of God. The '78 revelation did not take place in a vacuum. I don't know why it took until '78, but there are allegations that Pres. Brown had, for years (in the '50s at the earliest??) called for change. I am uncertain how it can be anything but a lack of discernment on the part of those present during that time. If a few of your apostle colleagues in the quorum are calling for change (a change that in hindsight seems more correct than the tradition) or are open to change, and you resist that change (and I realize we don't have the public records that can really tell us who advocated for change and who resisted change almost everything is inferred from public statements), somehow that represents a failure of discernment to me. Fallibility takes many forms, but the priesthood and temple ban still feels to me like a failure on someone's part in discerning God's truth (usually some form of putting personal opinion or tradition in the place of God's truth).

I feel to resist the idea of the Church as a mere dispenser of salvific sacraments/ordinances. In the end, maybe it is true, though, that is all the Church is. If so, can we therefore say that the Church may not always be a good source of moral teaching? Do we need to more carefully separate the two Church functions (dispense sacraments is very different from teaching moral truth)?

I agree that it can be an opportunity for growth. I guess the question that hangs in my mind is whether or not participation in the Church is the best way to grow? In hindsight, it seems like growth on racial issues is best accomplished outside the Church where one can interact with other races as equals and not in the Church where one is taught that race is in some way an indicator of God's favor/disfavor. Should we be more open to the possibility that some people's best growth is going to occur when they leave the Church behind and seek growth from other sources?

[MrShorty]

13 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

why did the Lord either inspire or allow policies based on race to exist in the Church for a time? I have found possible answers to that question -- both ones that have come to my mind and ones that have been shared with me by my black brothers -- to be essential in shaping me as a disciple of Jesus Christ.

I think myself (and if the bruhaha over Br. Wilcox's talk is any indication, the Church as a whole) is wanting the answers you seem to have found. Obviously, it is between you and God whether or not it is appropriate for you to publicly share the inspiration/revelations/answers you feel you have received and in what venue (an obscure thread on MDDB might not be the right place), but I think the Church wants these answers.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

I think myself (and if the bruhaha over Br. Wilcox's talk is any indication, the Church as a whole) is wanting the answers you seem to have found.

Thanks for the invitation. 

I know with certainty that there are people (of all races) who struggle with this issue. I respect that. I've had my own struggles.

At the same time, I know with certainty that those who struggle are not the whole Church. For example, my housemate doesn't, and neither do the other black families in my current ward. I know. I was instrumental in the conversion of one of these families, and we've discussed the issue thoroughly. The other family have spoken openly in sacrament meeting talks on this topic. (He's also my GP!)

My branch in the Caribbean was predominantly black, and I served in the branch presidency. None of the other men in the presidency struggled with a lack of satisfying answers, and we weren't aware of any families in the branch who did either.

Once again, I emphasise that I know people who do struggle. There's a whole spectrum on this issue, but interestingly most of the people I know who struggle aren't black. (Pure anecdote, for what it may be worth!)

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

there are allegations that Pres. Brown had, for years (in the '50s at the earliest??) called for change.

If I recall correctly President McKay spent a good deal of time pondering and praying over the issue, but was instructed to leave things as they were for the time.

At the moment I don't recall if I read this in a biography of President McKay or one of President Kimball.  What I do know is that it happened at the time that the Lord deemed right and felt the church was sufficiently prepared for the change.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I'm not sure about the equivalence of "brother of Jared suddenly learns that God is (is to be) embodied" is the same as "amidst the strife and such around racial issues in mid 20th century America, church leaders suddenly learn that God wants all, regardless of race, to have access to salvific ordinances". The revelation to the brother of Jared appears to have taken place in complete vacuum on the embodied nature of God. The '78 revelation did not take place in a vacuum. I don't know why it took until '78, but there are allegations that Pres. Brown had, for years (in the '50s at the earliest??) called for change. I am uncertain how it can be anything but a lack of discernment on the part of those present during that time. If a few of your apostle colleagues in the quorum are calling for change (a change that in hindsight seems more correct than the tradition) or are open to change, and you resist that change (and I realize we don't have the public records that can really tell us who advocated for change and who resisted change almost everything is inferred from public statements), somehow that represents a failure of discernment to me. Fallibility takes many forms, but the priesthood and temple ban still feels to me like a failure on someone's part in discerning God's truth (usually some form of putting personal opinion or tradition in the place of God's truth).

I feel to resist the idea of the Church as a mere dispenser of salvific sacraments/ordinances. In the end, maybe it is true, though, that is all the Church is. If so, can we therefore say that the Church may not always be a good source of moral teaching? Do we need to more carefully separate the two Church functions (dispense sacraments is very different from teaching moral truth)?

I agree that it can be an opportunity for growth. I guess the question that hangs in my mind is whether or not participation in the Church is the best way to grow? In hindsight, it seems like growth on racial issues is best accomplished outside the Church where one can interact with other races as equals and not in the Church where one is taught that race is in some way an indicator of God's favor/disfavor. Should we be more open to the possibility that some people's best growth is going to occur when they leave the Church behind and seek growth from other sources?

Of all the differences that might be pointed out, the brother of Jared lacked light and knowledge until it was revealed, and this was not called out by the Lord as a mistake. This is the parallel with lifting the ban.

The quorum discussed lifting the ban from various points of view, and along the way to unanimity the prophet shared his revelation. No one is calling out those who thought differently as having made a mistake, or those who changed their mind toward the unanimous decision as having previously lacked discernment. This is how a Zion society works and moves forward. The Lord is training and teaching us collectively, and is accessible individually according to our various rates of growth (or, most often, lack thereof) in various divine attributes. This is grace in action.

From the ordinances come the fruits (too many to mention here), a holy people who gather together to build Zion. For this reason, the Church is a good place to grow, both in getting the ordinances and developing the fruits through participation of all kinds.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Thanks for the invitation. 

I know with certainty that there are people (of all races) who struggle with this issue. I respect that. I've had my own struggles.

At the same time, I know with certainty that those who struggle are not the whole Church. For example, my housemate doesn't, and neither do the other black families in my current ward. I know. I was instrumental in the conversion of one of these families, and we've discussed the issue thoroughly. The other family have spoken openly in sacrament meeting talks on this topic. (He's also my GP!)

My branch in the Caribbean was predominantly black, and I served in the branch presidency. None of the other men in the presidency struggled with a lack of satisfying answers, and we weren't aware of any families in the branch who did either.

Once again, I emphasise that I know people who do struggle. There's a whole spectrum on this issue, but interestingly most of the people I know who struggle aren't black. (Pure anecdote, for what it may be worth!)

I wonder if that's because they aren't African Americans?  I think that race relations here in the US can be incredibly fraught, and our history, even from just 50 years ago, on the issue is horrible.  There is so much baggage that comes with these conversations here in the states that it must impact how everything is viewed in the church as well. 

Is it different in places without that history and baggage, to the point that people see it in ways that we can't really imagine from our neck of the woods?

[Hamba Tuhan]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I wonder if that's because they aren't African Americans?  I think that race relations here in the US can be incredibly fraught, and our history, even from just 50 years ago, on the issue is horrible.  There is so much baggage that comes with these conversations here in the states that it must impact how everything is viewed in the church as well. 

Is it different in places without that history and baggage, to the point that people see it in ways that we can't really imagine from our neck of the woods?

I think that's entirely possible. Every black member I know personally who has struggles with past priesthood/temple policies is an African-American. At the same, not all of my African-American friends have those struggles.

One of the African-American missionaries from my mission, then a recent convert, assured everyone that he was fine on this topic, and I believe he was. But over time, he's grown less fine. From a distance, it appears to me that things he and his family (especially his children) have experienced have contributed to that shift. I get that.

Again, pure anecdote for what it may be worth.

[rchorse]

7 hours ago, Thinking said:

How big of a mistake is a prophet allowed to make and still be a prophet?

Not my call, but there are some big mistakes by prophets in the scriptures. Each person has to determine for him- or herself what is over the line. As others have said, I imagine it has something to do with whether the prophet is doing more harm than good in accomplishing the work of exaltation.

[MrShorty]

19 hours ago, CV75 said:

The quorum discussed lifting the ban from various points of view, and along the way to unanimity the prophet shared his revelation. No one is calling out those who thought differently as having made a mistake, or those who changed their mind toward the unanimous decision as having previously lacked discernment. This is how a Zion society works and moves forward.

I am not sure if the "discussion along the way to unanimity" is speaking into the short term discussions in the days/months before OD2 or longer term. Choosing to see it as a longer term view, it seems that those discussions leading up to OD2 took years to decades. If it takes hours or days or weeks for Zion to dismiss false traditions in favor of new revelations, I would agree that seems like what I would expect from a prophetic discernment process. When it takes years and decades for Zion to dismiss its false traditions, that feels to me like a discernment problem. Maybe this comes back to the title of the thread (and brother Erekson's talk/fireside) but what kind of expectation should we have for our leadership? Perhaps my expectation that prophets/apostles should overcome false tradition in days or months but not decades is too high??

Another thing that I see in a decades long process to overcome false tradition is that the process seems to strongly favor a conservative approach, which I think creates a real problem for progressive members. If it is reasonable to expect that leadership needs years and decades to overcome false traditions, what is a progressive member supposed to do? This seems like a big part of the cognitive dissonance that progressives experience (and that oftentimes drives them out of the Church). In hindsight, there were many progressive members in the mid 20th century believing that the ban should be changed, but they had to sit on the margins waiting for Revelation to trickle through the stubbornness of the conservative contingent that didn't want things to change.

Expectations is a powerful concept here. It seems that the discussion suggests that one should expect conservatism to dominate the Church. One should expect change -- no matter how false the traditions that block the change -- should be slow as one cannot expect members or leaders to overcome their false traditions easily or timely. Maybe I just have a hard time reconciling these kinds of conservative expectations with a Church that claims to be led by revelation.

[Thinking]

17 hours ago, rchorse said:

I imagine it has something to do with whether the prophet is doing more harm than good in accomplishing the work of exaltation.

 

On 2/9/2022 at 12:21 PM, The Nehor said:

When he stops leading people to exaltation.

 

On 2/9/2022 at 12:35 PM, CV75 said:

Anything short of doing whatever it takes to mistakenly create another Great Apostasy

How do we know if the prophet is still leading people to exaltation and has not created another Great Apostasy?

[James 1 5]

4 minutes ago, Thinking said:

 

 

How do we know if the prophet is still leading people to exaltation and has not created another Great Apostasy?

I would have bore my testimony on that subject if I had attended my last Sacrament meeting in person.  I'm still doing the Zoom thing.  Anyway I was thinking about this question as I listened to the people who were bearing their testimony and I hoped somebody would touch on that point.  The "how" part of what we know.  Some of them may have explained how they know what they know in their own way, without specifically explaining the process, but I was hoping for a more direct and detailed explanation.  And I would have explained it myself if I had been there in person.

Anyway, maybe next time, or sometime soon.  I know how I know what I know but I like to hear other people explain how they know what they know.  Most people seem to just want to tell us what they know without explaining the how part.