The Limits Under Which Church Leadership Can Unilaterally Act.

[PacMan]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

You keep saying the word "astray," but fail to give any meaning to it.  If the net result is nothing....then there is no "astray."

[PacMan]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

Really?  You already acknowledged that Elijah Able and others received the priesthood.  Elijah Able was a 70.  And there were others.  Their priesthood was never rescinded from them.  Its probably more correct to call it a temple ban, if anything.

Edited December 2, 2022 by PacMan

[pondering]

4 minutes ago, Ambrosia said:

Do you have some special need to identify other people by name for their beliefs?  Let's just suppose there are some men with white skin who would marry some woman with black skin, and some other men who would prefer to marry a woman with the same color of skin, also white.  And let's also suppose there are some men who would marry a woman with red, curly hair, cut short, and some other men who would prefer to marry a woman with long brown hair.  The world has all kinds of people with all kinds of preferences.  What does any of this have to do with who you would choose to follow as a leader?

LDS prophets have long held opinions on who should marry who.  Some follow prophets definitions of marriage while others do not.  Just one example of where some believe prophets have been mistaken.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

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. 

I can see how reporting a leader’s sin to their presiding officer, or registering a non-sustaining vote, can be a difficult decision to make. I trust that the Lord will help you with specifics, but not with generalities since governing and receiving revelation for the Church is not within your scope. But He can help you understand and apply general principles.

I can see how pet projects might constitute mistakes, and if you decide they run afoul of scripture you need to be sure you’re correct in your understanding of both the scripture and the project, and that the spirit of contention is not involved.

I find that people get bungled up when they see the Church as an organization, or her leaders as the primary drivers of faith, that require justification for belonging and sustaining (respectively), whether that be logic, family loyalties, claims, fruits, and so forth -- much like belonging to a political party -- and not an extension of the love of the Father in giving His Son to the world, and what we gain spiritually from participating in what the Son has to offer through the Church, including those who hold and exercsie the keys I believe this relationship with Christ helps us at a lot of crossroads.

[CV75]

32 minutes ago, pondering said:

LDS prophets have long held opinions on who should marry who.  Some follow prophets definitions of marriage while others do not.  Just one example of where some believe prophets have been mistaken.

I don't understand why being mistaken is such a big, irredeemable deal to the point of acting contentious or leaving the Church.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

7 hours ago, CV75 said:

What is the crossroads you are standing at?

My attempt at humor, “the crossroads, of the roads leading of Cleveland, and Atlanta”” 😄 On the other hand, the  past and present. Of what was good and not, and the “the command from the heavens, inscribed on the “Stone of Tablets”, written by the very hand of God. Also  the disregard of doctrines (not policies) set the concrete, given to the Saints, certain to the Faithful given by the Holy Goast. 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Why not?  Are you afraid of something?

The post your comment about chronic pain, was directed to me. What most fear, is wasting to much time for those, who hate everything that seeks, concerning the Church. 

[pogi]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

I don't know either, but it seems as if a corporation sole is set up to keep ownership within the active presiding officer and his/her successorship.  That is how I interpret this:

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.

It doesn't seem that ownership can stay with a president who has been given the boot.  That doesn't make sense in churches who have that type of organization.  I feel confident that ownership stays within the successorship and one person cannot unilaterally do whatever the heck they want and retain ownership if they have been removed from that office or position.  I don't think the church would legally put themselves in that position. 

[CV75]

20 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

My attempt at humor, “the crossroads, of the roads leading of Cleveland, and Atlanta”” 😄 On the other hand, the  past and present. Of what was good and not, and the “the command from the heavens, inscribed on the “Stone of Tablets”, written by the very hand of God. Also  the disregard of doctrines (not policies) set the concrete, given to the Saints, certain to the Faithful given by the Holy Goast. 

Ha-ha for the humor!

I find comfort in what the Lord is making of me in my own lifetime, despite changes in policies before, after and during my lifetime. My lifetime is all I have to work with, really, including my understanding of life in the past and future. I find comfort in how He has always extended Himself to me in all situations and circumstances and never gave up on me. Past, present and future, the keys have been exercised for baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost, the endowment of priesthood power, etc. -- these are the most important things that prevail no matter what we think of others or what they did, or understood, or were required to do in their lifetimes.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

1 hour ago, pondering said:

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?

No need for this, as Prophet Spencer W Kimball, was the the one to oversee the ending of the policy that did not allow the proses to continue, Most here, or hear the words of the Prophet, wherein are part of LDS Scripture” Also, we did not shun, a powerful word, any person who were members, in good standing or otherwise, nor were we commanded to do so.  

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

2 hours 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%?

 

Gender Priest Ban, by the way you use the word “Women, or Female), many scriptures do not allow this topic. 
 

LBGTO issues, also prohibit ordinations, and yes such relationships are part of the OT, or NT, speak out on this issue, also you list a new comment, that is both addressed about such doctrines. Unlike young men must be morally clean, gay men cannot “wait until marriage”. My daughter who is gay, I once questioned her about this topic. Her reply, no gay man will wait until marriage to not have a sexual relationship with anyone. Nor do I know any women who would do so. The only possibly would be if they waiting to marry a women, while seeking to overcome their feeling.

 

The Church, has never condoned child pornography, and it use, not and behavior of adults (members) to abuse children. I mean, really? 

[pondering]

6 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

Gender Priest Ban, by the way you use the word “Women, or Female), many scriptures do not allow this topic. 
 

LBGTO issues, also prohibit ordinations, and yes such relationships are part of the OT, or NT, speak out on this issue, also you list a new comment, that is both addressed about such doctrines. Unlike young men must be morally clean, gay men cannot “wait until marriage”. My daughter who is gay, I once questioned her about this topic. Her reply, no gay man will wait until marriage to not have a sexual relationship with anyone. Nor do I know any women who would do so. The only possibly would be if they waiting to marry a women, while seeking to overcome their feeling.

 

The Church, has never condoned child pornography, and it use, not and behavior of adults (members) to abuse children. I mean, really? 

Previous policies around adult leadership, not ensuring at least 2 adults be present with children, not running background checks, policies which allow and call troubled individuals to work with children has led to chikd abuse.  It's not just one bad apple, it's everyone who sustains and supports leaders, goes along with leaders, abides with polices.  I have personal experience with this one, so yes, really.  

 

Many see interracial marriage as being similar to same sex marriage when it comes to social acceptance.

[pondering]

1 hour ago, Ambrosia said:

Mistaken?  Who are you to say when a prophet of God, speaking as God, is mistaken?  It could be only that some prophets have preferences that some other prophets don't have.  Some prophets of God with white skin may favor women with white skin, rather than considering black skin to be equal or preferable to white skin, for their wives.  And in such cases if you were to ask them how they felt or what they thought, they would tell you.  Preferences are not usually due to mistakes.  I like what I like and I don't like what I don't like, and I suspect most people are pretty much the same way in that regard. 

I think you might misunderstand - here are a few more teachings if prophets:

 

Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr. (1805-1844):

“Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species...”

- Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., January 2, 1845, History of the Church, v. 5, pp. 21-218

Prophet Brigham Young (1801 -1877):

“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. The nations of the earth have transgressed every law that God has given, they have changed the ordinances and broken every covenant made with the fathers, and they are like a hungry man that dreameth that he eateth, and he awaketh and behold he is empty.”

- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 10, p. 110

[pondering]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I don't understand why being mistaken is such a big, irredeemable deal to the point of acting contentious or leaving the Church.

If you were told your marriage wasn't real, if you were told you could not be sealed in the temple, if you were told your family was a sin... for most, it doesn't really sink in until you experience it yourself.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

12 minutes ago, pondering said:

Previous policies around adult leadership, not ensuring at least 2 adults be present with children, not running background checks, policies which allow and call troubled individuals to work with children has led to chikd abuse.  It's not just one bad apple, it's everyone who sustains and supports leaders, goes along with leaders, abides with polices.  I have personal experience with this one, so yes, really.  

 

Many see interracial marriage as being similar to same sex marriage when it comes to social acceptance.

The reason for two or Elders to be present for children, is for the protection of children, which means the forward thinking, to protect all children. Sorry for your experiences, but unsure how this relates to the original thread. Secondly, The Church cannot, nor will never abolish those who are prejudiced attitude of others.    

[JustAnAustralian]

2 hours ago, pondering said:

Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr. (1805-1844):

“Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species...”

- Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., January 2, 1845, History of the Church, v. 5, pp. 21-218

Full quote:

Quote

The Prophet’s View of the Negro Race.

At five went to Mr. Sollars’ with Elders Hyde and Richards. Elder Hyde inquired the situation of the negro. I replied, they came into the world slaves mentally and physically. Change their situation with the whites, and they would be like them. They have souls, and are subjects of salvation. Go into Cincinnati or any city, and find an educated negro, who rides in his carriage, and you will see a man who has risen by the powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability. The slaves in Washington are more refined than many in high places, and the black boys will take the shine of many of those they brush and wait on.

Elder Hyde remarked, “Put them on the level, and they will rise above me.” I replied, if I raised you to be my equal, and then attempted to oppress you, would you not be indignant and try to rise above me, as did Oliver Cowdery, Peter Whitmer, and many others, who said I was a fallen Prophet, and they were capable of leading the people, although I never attempted to oppress them, but had always been lifting them up? Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/online-chapters/volume-5-chapter-12/

So pretty much the opposite intent of your out of context quote.

[Tacenda]

36 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Full quote:

So pretty much the opposite intent of your out of context quote.

Wow, that is significant, I will be more wary about statements when not put into context like what's been shown. I like what Joseph said, very cool. 

[Meadowchik]

13 hours ago, pogi said:

I don't know either, but it seems as if a corporation sole is set up to keep ownership within the active presiding officer and his/her successorship.  That is how I interpret this:

It doesn't seem that ownership can stay with a president who has been given the boot.  That doesn't make sense in churches who have that type of organization.  I feel confident that ownership stays within the successorship and one person cannot unilaterally do whatever the heck they want and retain ownership if they have been removed from that office or position.  I don't think the church would legally put themselves in that position. 

Weird things have been done, so without knowing more about the legal structure it is speculation. Corporation sole would mean that the president has unilateral power. Relying on excommunication would only be preventative or as a last resort and not something for day to day disagreements, nor for big decisions which are not necessarily excommunication-level but could still be leading the church astray. There's alot of ways to mess up and the majority of them are more banal and subtly insidious rather than worthy of disqualification.

And this is when the church is not just supposed to be good enough or but is instead supposed to be capital T The Guiding Light of the world. To me I think that such expectations and confidence over time can lead to less democratic internal institutional structures where there is a heavier reliance on belief/faith in the leader. 

I wonder if ultimately the exact nature of the legally enforceable institutional structure is even clear to the top leaders.

Edited December 3, 2022 by Meadowchik

[Tacenda]

18 hours ago, Ambrosia said:

Mistaken?  Who are you to say when a prophet of God, speaking as God, is mistaken?  It could be only that some prophets have preferences that some other prophets don't have.  Some prophets of God with white skin may favor women with white skin, rather than considering black skin to be equal or preferable to white skin, for their wives.  And in such cases if you were to ask them how they felt or what they thought, they would tell you.  Preferences are not usually due to mistakes.  I like what I like and I don't like what I don't like, and I suspect most people are pretty much the same way in that regard. 

Ahab?

[Peacefully]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

Ahab?

I thought the same. 

[The Nehor]

18 hours ago, pondering said:

Many see interracial marriage as being similar to same sex marriage when it comes to social acceptance.

Interracial marriages were actually judicially ‘forced’ to be legal way before public approval caught up to it.

Someone on this board suggested there were less than a dozen people in the US that wanted interracial marriage made illegal. Only 30 years ago people who approved of interracial marriage were a minority.

[CV75]

18 hours ago, pondering said:

If you were told your marriage wasn't real, if you were told you could not be sealed in the temple, if you were told your family was a sin... for most, it doesn't really sink in until you experience it yourself.

What member was married and told that in this way, and by whom, and so became contentious and left the Church? I think there is quite a bit of context and order of events missing here.

And still, a mistake is just a mistake, one's negative reaction to it regardless.

[provoman]

On 12/1/2022 at 7:39 PM, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

I am reluctant to post short or long posts, if at all, due to recent health difficulties. However, other than my brother’s funeral, and fulfilling the my family’s request that I both speak and conduct the entire program, I have been bedridden for over two weeks now. In my boredom, and chronic pan, I have spent a lot of time reading news articles, and watching many podcasts of “Mormon Stories”, where most believe that General Authorities can do as they please. 
 

Of course, most are no longer members, or those who have never believed. As such, they seem to believe that Church Leadership, can ignore Scripture, and make any change, despite countless warnings given in the Word of God. Only one question, and comment, also will will only ask for anyone who can, or will contribute to discussion on this topic. Not the many topics that many groups may wish were listed, but only the question of total freedom to violate the written Word of God. 
 

My position is clear, if the leaders of “The Church”, can make any change they like, irregardless of the commandments of God, then we can be led astray by the Prophets.
 

Thanks for any who will respond. God bless you all.  

I would stop listening to mormonstories. The is a "cunning craftiness" in such things. Sometimes I wonder if some people fall into the category of "priestcraft".

History is just that, it is history. Who today can authoritatively explain why something happened decades or a century ago? In my opinion, no one.

In reference to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints, in my opinion, the cunning craftiness from some that attack the Church, is the lack of sincerity in their criticism. In my opinion the lack of sincerity is passed on by way of leaving the hearer with wrong question to ask.

For me, the primary questions,  regardless of fact/history couched in criticism, is whether or not Jesus Christ is the Son of God  and whether or not the Prophets are of God.

 

As for your question: Can the First Presidency and the Qurom of the 12, meet to discuss an issue/proposal, collectively pray for Heavenly Father guidance about that specific thing; the agree on what to do?

I say yes, Priesthood available to all worthy males, is such a situation.

Does the above described process equate to "change whatever they want when they want to"? No, it does not; but I would not put it passed people who profit from criticizing to claim it does mean "what they want, when they want".

[provoman]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Interracial marriages were actually judicially ‘forced’ to be legal way before public approval caught up to it.

Someone on this board suggested there were less than a dozen people in the US that wanted interracial marriage made illegal. Only 30 years ago people who approved of interracial marriage were a minority.

tongue in cheek for this

 

Do you really expect anyone to trust a graph in comic-sans font?

[Derl Sanderson]

On 12/1/2022 at 11:03 PM, The Nehor said:

Thanks for the bout of uncontrollable facial twitching.

Your reaction to the misuse of "irregardless" makes me wonder what neurosis you may have developed given the ubiquitous misuse of fewer/less in virtually every freaking element of society! 😉