Expectations of a prophet…

[Stormin' Mormon]

8 minutes ago, Moneymaking said:

You have a good point. Spencer W Kimball himself believed  Navajos getting the gospel would literally turn them white. He said as much in conference so maybe he was the one with the hang up. That’s kinda racist. 

So, one member of the fifteen was racist, so they all must have been? And your go-to anecdote to prove how racist they all were in 1978 is an incident from 1960? 

[MrShorty]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

Some mistakes discussed in Saints Volumes 1 and 2: pestering the Lord to share a manuscript, various and sundry financial decisions, trusting a betrayer despite the red flags and warning of others, poor behavior on excursions, poor decisions at all levels on moving to OH, IL, MO, westward, etc. -- too many to mention.

Yes, these are examples of relatively mundane mistakes by early Church leaders. Zeroing in on Elder McConkie's famous "forget everything..." comment, the kinds of mistakes that I think we need to work harder to understand are those related to how prophets/apostles receive revelation on behalf of the Church and transmit those truths to the Church. The big question that I get from Elder McConkie's statement isn't just that prophets/apostles make mistakes, but that they make mistakes discerning revelation from God for the Church. It's not difficult to go back through the history of the Priesthood and Temple Ban and see many prophets and apostles -- speaking with limited light and knowledge if Elder McConkie is to be believed -- declaring with absolute certainty that the ban was justified for several reasons (all of which have officially been disavowed, whatever that means). The problem I see is that prophets and apostles seemed unaware of their own blindness while telling the Church what God wanted the Church to believe and do. IMO, this is the part of the whole "prophets have made mistakes" that we are failing to wrestle with -- that prophets can call something Revelation or Truth (big R big T intentional) that is neither truth nor revelation.

[Stormin' Mormon]

35 minutes ago, Moneymaking said:

To be fair, the Indian placement program didn’t end until 1996 and that is a long ways after 1978. 

I don't know enough about the Indian Placement Program to have an informed opinion about it, but the wikipedia entry is generally pretty positive.

Rather than get further off topic, I'd welcome a separate thread discussing the IPP and its impacts. 

Quote

In the 1970s, the Indian Placement Program was directed to emphasize creating stronger bonds and increased communication between the natural families and the selected foster families. The goal of the program was to "introduce Native Americans to mainstream values and social roles without demanding the abandonment of the old for the new."^[7] According to the Maxwell Institute of BYU, it attempted to help Native Americans receive more formal education and training, while helping them maintain their identity.^[6]

Students who did drop out were still more likely to finish high school than were Native American peers who had not participated in the program. Students in the Indian Placement Program had an 82 percent graduation rate. Studies found that the "longer students remained in the program, the more likely they were to be employed and to earn high incomes" and also to marry.^[6]

In 1977, the U.S. government commissioned a study to investigate accusations that the church was using its influence to push children into joining the program. The commission found that the program was largely positive, and enjoyed emphatic support both from Native American parents and white foster parents.^[13

[Stormin' Mormon]

I'm not sure it's possible to win an argument against someone who is bound and determined to see your actions as racist. Deny a race the opportunity to advance in the priesthood? Racist! Help another race to advance in life through education? Also racist!

The only way to win is not to play. It's late and I'm going to bed. Good night.

Edited February 8, 2022 by Stormin' Mormon

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

wikipedia entry is generally pretty positive.

I may have just passed on the book yesterday, but my memory of an appraisal/survey of participants was it had a positive effect (name of the book is iirc Latter-day Saint Social Life).. Not a huge one as there were some high costs to it. I will check later to see if it is in the last donation box or not. 

Edited February 8, 2022 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

47 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Zeroing in on Elder McConkie's famous "forget everything..." comment, the kinds of mistakes that I think we need to work harder to understand are those related to how prophets/apostles receive revelation on behalf of the Church and transmit those truths to the Church.

You write as if Elder McConkie claimed that what he had had said in the past -- much of it prior to his call as an apostle -- was revelation. Instead, if you read what he wrote immediately before he asked people to 'Forget everything that I have said' on this topic, that does not appear to be the case.

Quote

We have revelations that tell us that the gospel is to go to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people before the Second Coming of the Son of Man. And we have revelations which recite that when the Lord comes he will find those who speak every tongue and are members of every nation and kindred, who will be kings and priests, who will live and reign on earth with him a thousand years. That means, as you know, that people from all nations will have the blessings of the house of the Lord before the Second Coming.

We have read these passages and their associated passages for many years. We have seen what the words say and have said to ourselves, “Yes, it says that, but we must read out of it the taking of the gospel and the blessings of the temple to the Negro people, because they are denied certain things.” There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet.

I'm certainly happy to be corrected if you have past statements where Elder McConkie claimed that his words regarding when priesthood blessings would be extended to all men/women were revelation.

Edited February 8, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[MrShorty]

8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

, if you read what he wrote immediately before he asked people to 'Forget everything that I have said' on this topic, that does not appear to be the case.

Partially correct, he started by referring to himself, then goes on to include "Brigham Young or George Q. Cannon or whomseover" and then says, "We spoke with limited understanding..." 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.

In a different direction, if we decide that there never was explicit claims to revelation for the reasons behind the ban, that doesn't seem like a better angle, to me. Are we going to say that the process of implementing and/or perpetuating a ban on salvific ordinances for an entire race of people was done without claiming Revelation (capital R again)?

It's a difficult issue, there's no question about it. Do prophets and apostles make mistakes? Yes. Do those mistakes sometimes include significant difficulty in discerning Truth and Revelation? If yes, what are the implications for past and present difficult issues? If no, how do we understand historical issues like the ban and modern issues?

[sunstoned]

10 hours ago, Moneymaking said:

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

To get to the roots of member racism, one has only to look to the leaders. Blaming the priesthood ban (I'm not accusing you of this) on members is a red herring  Read some of the talks of Brigham Young, Mark E. Peterson, Harold B. Lee and others. We are told to follow the prophet.  These guys were the leaders and the tone setters.

[california boy]

11 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

All 15 members of the policy quorums of the Church had to be in unanimous agreement before the ban could be overturned. There is documentary evidence that leaders had been attempting to overturn the ban for decades before 1978. 

If 7% of the policy quorums can prevent a change like that, you can't draw conclusions about how racist the other 93% were.

I am a bit confused as to what you are saying.  So did President Kimball receive a revelation or not?  And if he did receive a revelation, are you saying that his own apostles did not believe him?  Are you claiming that previous prophets had received the same revelation, but even more apostles didn't believe the prophet actually received a revelation from Christ?  This whole issue kinda brings up a lot about claims of revelation and what that means even to apostles.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

Maybe it's time that we all admit that when we talk about why we stay or why we left, it can legitimately sound like assigning bad faith motives to those who have chosen the opposite course.  And then we could decide to ignore the temptation to take such things personally (and save the fights and bad-motive assigning to other things )

While I agree with your post, I will point out there is a fundamental difference between allowing people to say why they stay and why they go on the one hand, and telling others why they stay or go on the other hand. And John was specifically referring to the latter. 

[Stormin' Mormon]

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am a bit confused as to what you are saying.  So did President Kimball receive a revelation or not?  And if he did receive a revelation, are you saying that his own apostles did not believe him?  Are you claiming that previous prophets had received the same revelation, but even more apostles didn't believe the prophet actually received a revelation from Christ?  This whole issue kinda brings up a lot about claims of revelation and what that means even to apostles.

1.  It's not a question of one person receiving revelation and the other 14 believing the first.  They are all entitled to the same revelation.  All 15 of them had to receive the same revelation before the policy could be removed.

2.  A fundamental principle of revelation is "Ask and ye shall receive." It is very rare for revelation to come to a person, any person, unbidden without them asking for it or doing the necessary preparatory work (such as study, prayer, fasting, etc.) If one or more of the fifteen hadn't received a revelation on priesthood prior to 1978, we don't need to immediately jump to the conclusion that they were charlatans and the revelatory process was a sham.  It could simply have been that one or more of them hadn't thought to ask or hadn't done the necessary preparatory work to receive that revelation. 

3. People are wonderfully varied creatures filled with unique experiences and perspectives.  A person who can easily receive revelation on topic A doesn't necessarily receive revelation on topic B just as easily. We can believe our prophetic leaders are inspired and receive revelation on a daily basis without believing that all the revelation they receive is equally easy for all of them at all times on all topics.   

4.  My original point though, was to push back on the insinuation that all 15 of the prophetic leaders of the Church harbored racist sentiments well into 1978.  The fact that the policy hadn't changed yet only indicated that one person among them harbored hesitation about removal of the ban, not all 15 of them.  Maybe there were more; we don't know.  But knowing there was at least one person uncomfortable with removing the ban tells us absolutely nothing about the racial attitudes of the group as a whole. 

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

While I agree with your post, I will point out there is a fundamental difference between allowing people to say why they stay and why they go on the one hand, and telling others why they stay or go on the other hand. And John was specifically referring to the latter. 

From my perspective that's just a different side of the same coin. 

If someone says "this is why you John have left" then definitely, push back against that.  Or if someone says "this is why everyone leaves" (or everyone stays) then sure, push back on that too.  But it's the how dare you say such a thing about me that follows an "a lot of people leave because of this" type of statement that I'm talking about. 

If a general statement doesn't apply to you, then don't act like the person was applying it to you.  Why can't we skip all the drama of that angle?   

If someone says "the most common reason people leave is..." and you disagree then maybe outline why they are wrong (because they very well could be wrong).  That could do some good and accomplish something useful.

But taking a statement that was meant generally and interpreting it as being about you specifically, and then accuse them of gaslighting in the same sentence, doesn't accomplish anything useful.  

And all of this applies just as much to the ones who have chosen to stay too.  We can be as thin skinned and self-focused as any who have left.

[jkwilliams]

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

Maybe it's time that we all admit that when we talk about why we stay or why we left, it can legitimately sound like assigning bad faith motives to those who have chosen the opposite course.  And then we could decide to ignore the temptation to take such things personally (and save the fights and bad-motive assigning to other things )

I could complain that you are implying in this post that I have to rationalize my motives for staying, or that I have no conscience or a low intellect, or have lowered my standards, for staying.  Because you have basically said here that it's impossible to stay without doing those things.  Especially considering that you and I have very similar knowledge bases, as far as history of the church and all that goes.  

I could 1) assume that you are "telling me the reasons that I'm staying instead of listening to the real reasons" (We could even argue about whether or not you are gaslighting me if you denied that's what you were doing, allowing us to circle that fun drain forever), or I could 2) understand that it's really really hard to explain why you believe you have chosen the better path without sounding like people who have chosen the opposite are inferior in some way.

And I could grant an allowance for the difficulty of such an endeavor and try not to take it personally.  Because there isn't one person on this board that has not had someone from the opposite camp tell them they were ____________ (fill in the blank something bad) for either leaving or staying.  I'd say the score on the 'gaslighting' is pretty even for both sides.

I know that I have not made such allowances in the past and I apologize for being so self-focused in those exchanges.  I'm going to do better, because I don't want to be this annoying anymore.  

It goes without saying that no one should ascribe motivations to other people’s personal beliefs and choices. People leave the church (or stay) for all kinds of reasons. My point was that it’s important to listen. 

[ttribe]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

From my perspective that's just a different side of the same coin. 

If someone says "this is why you John have left" then definitely, push back against that.  Or if someone says "this is why everyone leaves" (or everyone stays) then sure, push back on that too.  But it's the how dare you say such a thing about me that follows an "a lot of people leave because of this" type of statement that I'm talking about. 

If a general statement doesn't apply to you, then don't act like the person was applying it to you.  Why can't we skip all the drama of that angle?   

If someone says "the most common reason people leave is..." and you disagree then maybe outline why they are wrong (because they very well could be wrong).  That could do some good and accomplish something useful.

But taking a statement that was meant generally and interpreting it as being about you specifically, and then accuse them of gaslighting in the same sentence, doesn't accomplish anything useful.  

And all of this applies just as much to the ones who have chosen to stay too.  We can be as thin skinned and self-focused as any who have left.

I disagree that it's "thin skinned" to react to and disabuse the reader of a bad stereotype and a harmful generalization.

[jkwilliams]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

From my perspective that's just a different side of the same coin. 

If someone says "this is why you John have left" then definitely, push back against that.  Or if someone says "this is why everyone leaves" (or everyone stays) then sure, push back on that too.  But it's the how dare you say such a thing about me that follows an "a lot of people leave because of this" type of statement that I'm talking about. 

If a general statement doesn't apply to you, then don't act like the person was applying it to you.  Why can't we skip all the drama of that angle?   

If someone says "the most common reason people leave is..." and you disagree then maybe outline why they are wrong (because they very well could be wrong).  That could do some good and accomplish something useful.

But taking a statement that was meant generally and interpreting it as being about you specifically, and then accuse them of gaslighting in the same sentence, doesn't accomplish anything useful.  

And all of this applies just as much to the ones who have chosen to stay too.  We can be as thin skinned and self-focused as any who have left.

Sometimes general statements are designed to dismiss people specifically. If I say, “In my experience, there are only 3 reasons people leave the church,” the implication is that one of those reasons applies to the specific person who left. 

Again, listen to people. I know people who have pretty much the same beliefs I do about the specific truth claims of the LDS church but who remain faithful believers. I respect their reasons for believing them and would not dream of assigning motivations to them. 

[MrShorty]

@Stormin' Mormon I find those "principles" of revelation that you outline very interesting, but not entirely free from problems. What I see you describing in points 1, 2, 3 are barriers to revelation. These barriers certainly seem reasonable in many ways. The problem that I see is that these barriers also seem well suited to perpetuating false traditions. Considering the priesthood and temple ban, the racist attitudes of 19th century America gets imported into the Church as various false traditions. Decades later, as broader American society begins to reject these false traditions, the Church happily holds on to them for several more years (decades??) before enough of those barriers to revelation come down and allow God to change the false traditions.

I find this makes a lot of sense in a lot of ways, but it also raises questions for me. Were the top Church leaders aware of their personal barriers to receive revelation? Many seemed unwilling or unable to see their barriers. How do I feel about an allegedly omnipotent God who cannot or will not proactively break down those barriers? Perhaps of most consequence, what are the implications for current issues? What revelations might God have in store for us, if only we could break down the kinds of barriers you describe?

More and more, I find the OP title about expectations to be significant. What expectations should we have? Should our expectations include expectations around prophets being unable/unwilling to receive new truth over old traditions and/or God being unable/unwilling to break down a prophet's barriers to receiving new revelation? It might be a reasonable expectation, but I find myself still rather uncomfortable with it.

Edit to add: I sometimes feel like a goal of a solid talk or discussion on prophetic fallibility would be to figure out how to be comfortable with the idea that there are or might be barriers between prophets/apostles and revelation.

Edited February 8, 2022 by MrShorty

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It goes without saying that no one should ascribe motivations to other people’s personal beliefs and choices. People leave the church (or stay) for all kinds of reasons. My point was that it’s important to listen. 

Listening is important. 

But when people don't listen, or don't listen well, that's when we have to decide how charitable we want to be in our response.  Usually (not always), people leave room for charitable interpretations of their words and we get to choose whether or not to use that room or pretend like it doesn't exist. 

I'm advocating for using the room.  

 

 

[bluebell]

26 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Sometimes general statements are designed to dismiss people specifically. If I say, “In my experience, there are only 3 reasons people leave the church,” the implication is that one of those reasons applies to the specific person who left. 

Again, listen to people. I know people who have pretty much the same beliefs I do about the specific truth claims of the LDS church but who remain faithful believers. I respect their reasons for believing them and would not dream of assigning motivations to them. 

I agree. I wouldn't consider that type of statement to be a general statement because it is meant to cover everyone.   It's the statements that aren't meant to cover everyone (statements that use the words "some" or "most" or "many", for example, which specifically leave room for people that they don't apply to) that I'm talking about.

 

[bluebell]

36 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I disagree that it's "thin skinned" to react to and disabuse the reader of a bad stereotype and a harmful generalization.

Sorry that I was confusing.  When I say "general" I mean that they aren't being applied to everyone so there is no reason to automatically assume the person is applying it to you, unless they state they are.

When 1) there is space for a statement not to apply to you, and 2) you don't believe it applies to you, but 3) you respond as if they were specifically applying it to you--that's what I mean about being thin-skinned.

You can (and maybe should) still address that statement and explain why you don't agree with it, but you don't have to do it from a "how dare you say this about me" angle.  

[jkwilliams]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Listening is important. 

But when people don't listen, or don't listen well, that's when we have to decide how charitable we want to be in our response.  Usually (not always), people leave room for charitable interpretations of their words and we get to choose whether or not to use that room or pretend like it doesn't exist. 

I'm advocating for using the room.  

 

 

Well said. We could all stand to be more charitable. 

[CV75]

18 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Yes, these are examples of relatively mundane mistakes by early Church leaders. Zeroing in on Elder McConkie's famous "forget everything..." comment, the kinds of mistakes that I think we need to work harder to understand are those related to how prophets/apostles receive revelation on behalf of the Church and transmit those truths to the Church. The big question that I get from Elder McConkie's statement isn't just that prophets/apostles make mistakes, but that they make mistakes discerning revelation from God for the Church. It's not difficult to go back through the history of the Priesthood and Temple Ban and see many prophets and apostles -- speaking with limited light and knowledge if Elder McConkie is to be believed -- declaring with absolute certainty that the ban was justified for several reasons (all of which have officially been disavowed, whatever that means). The problem I see is that prophets and apostles seemed unaware of their own blindness while telling the Church what God wanted the Church to believe and do. IMO, this is the part of the whole "prophets have made mistakes" that we are failing to wrestle with -- that prophets can call something Revelation or Truth (big R big T intentional) that is neither truth nor revelation.

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.

[MiserereNobis]

7 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

1.  It's not a question of one person receiving revelation and the other 14 believing the first.  They are all entitled to the same revelation.  All 15 of them had to receive the same revelation before the policy could be removed.

2.  A fundamental principle of revelation is "Ask and ye shall receive." It is very rare for revelation to come to a person, any person, unbidden without them asking for it or doing the necessary preparatory work (such as study, prayer, fasting, etc.) If one or more of the fifteen hadn't received a revelation on priesthood prior to 1978, we don't need to immediately jump to the conclusion that they were charlatans and the revelatory process was a sham.  It could simply have been that one or more of them hadn't thought to ask or hadn't done the necessary preparatory work to receive that revelation. 

3. People are wonderfully varied creatures filled with unique experiences and perspectives.  A person who can easily receive revelation on topic A doesn't necessarily receive revelation on topic B just as easily. We can believe our prophetic leaders are inspired and receive revelation on a daily basis without believing that all the revelation they receive is equally easy for all of them at all times on all topics.   

4.  My original point though, was to push back on the insinuation that all 15 of the prophetic leaders of the Church harbored racist sentiments well into 1978.  The fact that the policy hadn't changed yet only indicated that one person among them harbored hesitation about removal of the ban, not all 15 of them.  Maybe there were more; we don't know.  But knowing there was at least one person uncomfortable with removing the ban tells us absolutely nothing about the racial attitudes of the group as a whole. 

 

This is intriguing.

Does the president/prophet not have full jurisdiction? Couldn't he say that God gave him a revelation on X? You make it sound like apostles can veto the president. Is that correct?

Could the apostles remove the president?

I'm just wondering on the extent of the president's power and authority.

The pope has supreme and universal power over the Church. He cannot be vetoed. (there is of course footnotes and hypotheticals and such to this statement, but on its face it stands)

Edited February 8, 2022 by MiserereNobis

[CV75]

9 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

This is intriguing.

Does the president/prophet not have full jurisdiction? Couldn't he say that God gave him a revelation on X? You make it sound like apostles can veto the president. Is that correct?

Could the apostles remove the president?

I'm just wondering on the extent of the president's power and authority.

The pope has supreme and universal power of the Church. He cannot be vetoed. (there is of course footnotes and hypotheticals and such to this statement, but on its face it stands)

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."

[James 1 5]

27 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

This is intriguing.

Does the president/prophet not have full jurisdiction? Couldn't he say that God gave him a revelation on X? You make it sound like apostles can veto the president. Is that correct?

Could the apostles remove the president?

I'm just wondering on the extent of the president's power and authority.

The pope has supreme and universal power over the Church. He cannot be vetoed. (there is of course footnotes and hypotheticals and such to this statement, but on its face it stands)

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.

[MiserereNobis]

6 minutes 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).

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.

11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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

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.