The Limits Under Which Church Leadership Can Unilaterally Act.

[Meadowchik]

Obviously I don't think anything absolutely prevents church leaders from straying. I think it's possible they have strayed, like for instance Joseph Smith choosing polygamy is a straightforward example because in my opinion God would never tell his prophet to coerce women or men to enter into polygamy.

Furthermore unless I am mistaken, legally the church is a corporation sole so the standing prophet has ultimate power to make decisions for the church. I would welcome solid information to the contrary but I know of no legally enforceable institutional controls that prevent or restrict such unilateral decisions.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Furthermore unless I am mistaken, legally the church is a corporation sole so the standing prophet has ultimate power to make decisions for the church. I would welcome solid information to the contrary but I know of no legally enforceable institutional controls that prevent or restrict such unilateral decisions.

Yes and no.   There are internal policies and procedures that can restrict a prophet if needed.  Joseph Smith himself made himself subject to church courts.  He did not give himself, or any future president, ultimate and absolute control without any checks and balances.  He could have, if he wanted, but he chose not to.  That says something.

If a prophet went completely off the rails, they could be removed from office and even excommunicated if the church courts so ordered.  It obviously is not likely to happen, but it theoretically could - the policies and procedures are in place to do so.  

Edited December 2, 2022 by pogi

[teddyaware]

24 minutes ago, pogi said:

I gave one.  They let women pray and teach in church.   That is contrary to the teachings of the Bible.   You speak of the "written word of God" as some absolute and objective authority and guide, but it is rather malleable actually.   We can simply dismiss parts as uninspired if we wish (like Joseph did with Songs of Solomon, and like we do today with women praying in church), or we can simply interpret things in a new way, like we did with blacks and the priesthood.  We used the Bible to justify the ban, and later chose to interpret it differently to remove the ban.  You see, there is very little solid ground that can't be interpreted differently, dismissed as uninspired, or expounded upon to give further light and meaning. 

I believe Paul’s teaching on this point is misunderstood because he’s actually referring to Melchizedek Priesthood leadership roles and it’s positions of conferred and ordained authority, not to the teaching of the gospel in settings where priesthood authority is not required. For example, from the beginning of the restoration till now there has never been a woman who has held an ordained priesthood role in any of the priesthood quorums of the Church. Paul’s paucity of language in this verse is likely due to the fact that he had every reason to believe his listeners would know, without elaboration, that he was talking about teaching others in the role of priesthood leadership

[blackstrap]

When I use the phrase," I could care less, " I usually follow it with , " but not much less "

As far as the priesthood ban ,  it is quite possible that the majority of members were not ready to accept blacks in the congregation with full privileges . Mind you , there were multi-millions  of Asians who could not enjoy the priesthood simply because of being in the wrong place at that time. 

Perhaps it was an example of the philosophies of men mingled with scripture. Personally, when i heard of the change in 1978, I was happy but not surprised as we were told it would happen someday.  

[Meadowchik]

46 minutes ago, pogi said:

Yes and no.   There are internal policies and procedures that can restrict a prophet if needed.  Joseph Smith himself made himself subject to church courts.  He did not give himself, or any future president, ultimate and absolute control without any checks and balances.  He could have, if he wanted, but he chose not to.  That says something.

If a prophet went completely off the rails, they could be removed from office and even excommunicated if the church courts so ordered.  It obviously is not likely to happen, but it theoretically could - the policies and procedures are in place to do so.  

I know there are internal rules. My second paragraph referred to legally enforceable rules which is altogether different. 

[pogi]

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I know there are internal rules. My second paragraph referred to legally enforceable rules which is altogether different. 

I don’t know how law works here, but I am pretty sure that an excommunicated prophet could legally be barred from church property as needed.  They can’t legally run the church, as far as I am aware.  They could start a new one if they want.

[PacMan]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

And for the generation of black peopled denied priesthood, temple, and in many cases baptism...?

Easy.  Vicarious work.

[blackstrap]

22 minutes ago, PacMan said:

Vicarious work.

Just like for billions of others.

[HappyJackWagon]

22 minutes ago, PacMan said:

Easy.  Vicarious work.

It's like a get-out-of-jail-free card. It doesn't matter what is done. God will fix it. Vicarious work. Cool.

Doesn't change the fact that something has to be fixed because the church was led astray.

[Meadowchik]

37 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don’t know how law works here, but I am pretty sure that an excommunicated prophet could legally be barred from church property as needed.  They can’t legally run the church, as far as I am aware.  They could start a new one if they want.

Are you sure?

Does that not depend on the corporate structure? 

If the church is legally--for lack of a better word--owned by its president unconditionally without corporate bylaws to remove, then what is legally enforceable?

Again, I'm only going by my understanding that the church is a corporation sole and a simple understanding of what that means. I'm more than happy to hear a more substantial understanding of a corporation sole if it differs from mine or any other legal contingencies limiting the president's power.

 

[Meadowchik]

The church can of course invite and disinvite people on its property at it's discretion. But I would think that the president is the ultimate decider. 

The obvious question is, is the church president still legally it's president/owner if he is excommunicated?

[pogi]

19 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Are you sure?

Does that not depend on the corporate structure? 

If the church is legally--for lack of a better word--owned by its president unconditionally without corporate bylaws to remove, then what is legally enforceable?

Again, I'm only going by my understanding that the church is a corporation sole and a simple understanding of what that means. I'm more than happy to hear a more substantial understanding of a corporation sole if it differs from mine or any other legal contingencies limiting the president's power.

 

It is not a sole proprietorship owned by the President.   It is, as you say a corporation.  There are governing boards within corporations (quorum of the 12, in this case) that can legally remove the President from office, as far as I am aware.  But I am no legal expert.  Maybe @smac97 can shed some more legal light.

Edited December 2, 2022 by pogi

[Meadowchik]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

It is not a sole proprietorship owned by the President.   It is, as you say a corporation.  There are boards that can legally remove the President from office, as far as I am aware.  But I am no legal expert.  Maybe @smac97 can shed some more legal light.

Can you source the information about church boards with such power?

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

It is not a sole proprietorship owned by the President.   It is, as you say a corporation.  There are boards that can legally remove the President from office, as far as I am aware.  But I am no legal expert. 

kinda

Quote

A corporation sole is a legal entity in which one person and his or her subsequent successors are granted the lawful status of a corporation. The vast majority of corporation sole arrangements are related to churches and other religious institutions, allowing the easy transfer of church property between successive religious officials.

 

[pogi]

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

Can you source the information about church boards with such power?

Isn't every corporation required to have a governing board? I am assuming it is the quorum of the 12 that would form the church court.  I don't have time now, but I am guessing that is how it was done when Joseph Smith was presented before the church court with accusations against him.    

[rpn]

My take is that everything we talk about involves mortal words and mortal understanding (and the bible, lots of years of words  that survive til now not as pristinely as they were spoken once).   And lots of faithful members have had personal leadership experience seeking to know what They want, thinking they've discerned what They want, implementing it, only to some later time understand that they'd got it (or some part of it) completely wrong and said/did something that wasn't Their will at all ever.   That is the gift that church lay leadership gives us all.  The understanding that mortals are after all, only mortals, and without memory of eternal experience or view.

SO:  Yes, teaching needs to line up with scriptures that are translated correctly and we have been counseled to recognize when all the leaders are saying the same thing rather than that if one is saying something differently.   That is why when we write a talk and use a quote, we SHOULD first confirm that other leaders have also taught similar stuff.   No one but the prophet himself can announce doctrine change.

As for filling in your time, I think you'll get more value from the lots of videos on gospel media,  or lots of other places than Mormon Stories.

 

Edited December 2, 2022 by rpn

[HappyJackWagon]

3 hours ago, PacMan said:

And, that's my point.  The correct path is fulfilling the conditions to receive the full blessings of the Atonement of Jesus Christ.  I am not insensitive the realities of the so-called "priesthood ban" (which is not an accurate and and more complex).  The practice certainly had real implications for real people.  The question is, in the eternal scheme of themes, mistakes, warts, and all, what injustice will not be made right?  The "correct pay" never changed.  And all the obscure doctrines that (purportedly) were taught by Brigham Young didn't change the "correct path" either.

Be sure, the apostate exceptions do matter.  But their apostasy wasn't about an obscure doctrine (that in 99.999% of the time never affected them anyway).  It's removing themselves from the correct path.

I'm curious what you would call the "so-called priesthood ban". What isn't accurate about it? Can you please explain why it is complex. It seems simple to me.

[HappyJackWagon]

42 minutes ago, pogi said:

Isn't every corporation required to have a governing board? I am assuming it is the quorum of the 12 that would form the church court.  I don't have time now, but I am guessing that is how it was done when Joseph Smith was presented before the church court with accusations against him.    

You didn't ask me...but...no. A corporation sole does not have a board of directors.

With regards to a church court I believe you are correct that IF a prophet were to come under church disciplinary action, the Q12 & FP would be run that council. BUT I don't know if an excommunication of a prophet would remove him as the Sole owner of the corporation. I think we would have to see the corporate documents to know for sure. It is my understanding that not even the full Q12 has full access to all financial information. Most financial info and decisions go the First Presidency and Presiding Bishopric.

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, pondering said:

Sorry to hear you are in pain, why spend time listening to MoStor 's?

Why not?  Are you afraid of something?

[pondering]

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Evidence of such leading astray is found in the racial priesthood ban.

 

What is everyone's opinion on those who rebelled against the priesthood ban?  

• racial ban?
• gender priesthood ban?
• LGBTQ issues?
• church policies around children that led to child abuse?
• those who refused polygamy, who believe child brides were wrong?

Are there any scriptures of old prophets in the scriptures telling everyone they should be followed 100%?

 

[Steve-o]

10 minutes ago, pondering said:

 

What is everyone's opinion on those who rebelled against the priesthood ban?  

• racial ban?
• gender priesthood ban?
• LGBTQ issues?
• church policies around children that led to child abuse?
• those who refused polygamy, who believe child brides were wrong?

Are there any scriptures of old prophets in the scriptures telling everyone they should be followed 100%?

 

Could you clarify your question. I don't understand.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

What is the crossroads you are standing at?

The crossroad of showing or ignoring, more serious and similar-unrighteous behavior, condemned by Scripture. Another, is pet-projects, that Apostles have long advocated for, where past Presidents, have not only overridden by policies, of outright campaigned and  rejected their wishes and policies that they spoke of as a result. Prophets certainly have the right to eject, or speak out, but cannot condone, which Scripture speak out about. Polices yes, about non scriptural. Nor I will enumerate out of respect for the Prophets, nor will seem a bit apostate. Not sure if this help, but I do wish too. But thanks for your reply. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

It is not a sole proprietorship owned by the President.   It is, as you say a corporation.  There are governing boards within corporations (quorum of the 12, in this case) that can legally remove the President from office, as far as I am aware.  But I am no legal expert.  Maybe @smac97 can shed some more legal light.

I looked into this a bit last year.  See here, here.

It looks like the Church incorporated in Utah in 2019.

Thanks,

-Smac

[pondering]

5 minutes ago, Steve-o said:

Could you clarify your question. I don't understand.

Who here would support the decision of a past church member to reject the priesthood ban?  If someone was brave enough to speak up against racism, 

say for example:

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=http://findarticles.com/find?noadc=1&q=Adr+in+youth&httpsredir=1&article=2771&context=lawreview

Who here would have supported students protesting against racism within their colleges?

[pondering]

Brooks, Joanna (May 2020). Mormonism and White Supremacy: American Religion and The Problem of Racial Innocence. New York City: Oxford University Press. pp. 121–123. ISBN 9780190081751. Furthermore, your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and the White races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient patriarchs till now. ... We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency ... toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine.

Let's say, before 1978, you had two friends who loved one another dearly from different racial backgrounds - who here would support them getting married to one another? or who here would have shunned them, and follow the prophet?