D&C 20:65 and the Law of Common Consent PRIOR to anyone holding Priesthood Office

[Craig Speechly]

Quote

65 No person is to be ordained to any office in this church, where there is a regularly organized branch of the same, without the vote of that church;

I'm happy that Elder Kearon has been called into the Quorum of the Twelve.  However, can someone please explain to me why the church has disregarded direct instructions from Jesus Christ and failed to seek a vote by common consent prior to him taking office in accordance to D&C 20:65?

Note: An Apostle is a member of the Office of Apostle in the Melchizedek Priesthood.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-14-priesthood-organization?lang=eng

Edited December 12, 2023 by Craig Speechly

[Pyreaux]

Church officers are selected ("called") by those appointed to choose them, but before the officers may actually serve in their positions, they must receive a formal sustaining vote of the people over whom they are to preside. (D&C 20:60–67; 26:2; 28; 38:34–35; 41:9–11; 42:11; 102:9; 124:124–145), so perhaps he's not actually ordained or serving until after the vote. I'm sure they'd know the proper procedures better than you or I do.

Edited December 12, 2023 by Pyreaux

[webbles]

It happens a lot with elders.  If you listen in stake conference, they'll ask to sustain both men who will be ordained an elder as well as men who have been ordained since the last stake conference. I was ordained that way.  I was on my mission when stake conference was held to sustain my ordination.  In general conference, we'll get a chance to sustain him.

[rodheadlee]

He wants all the millions of members to vote like a democracy.

[webbles]

The last time an apostle was ordained outside of General Conference was President Holland back in 1994.  News of the Church had a little blurb about the ordination but nothing about church wide sustaining or ratifying - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1994/08/news-of-the-church/elder-jeffrey-r-holland-of-the-quorum-of-the-twelve?lang=eng.  The next general conference was October 1994 and there was a Solemn Assembly because the President Benson had died and President Hunter was now president.  I don't see anything in the Solemn Assembly that has the church ratifying Elder Holland's ordination.  He is just presented as a member of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1994/10/the-solemn-assembly-sustaining-of-church-officers?lang=eng

The Handbook does talk about the procedure ordaining Elders and High Priests outside of Stake Conference in section 18.10.3.

Quote

In some cases, a brother may need to be ordained an elder or high priest before he can be presented in stake conference. When this happens, he is presented in his ward sacrament meeting for sustaining. He is then presented in the next stake conference to ratify the ordination (adapting the process for sustaining, described above). This includes giving stake members an opportunity to sustain or oppose the action.

I found a policy announcement from 1993 about ordaining Aaronic priesthood holders in their quorum and then ratifying in the ward - https://www.thechurchnews.com/1993/1/30/23258740/official-policies-and-announcements-265

Quote

The ordaining of young men in priesthood meeting first and then ratifying the ordination in the sacrament meeting afterwards is not approved. Such action is contrary to the regular order established by revelation. (D&C 2:65.)

It appears to reference D&C 20:65 (I think the 2:65 is a typo).

So, there is somethings that must be sustained first and somethings that allow ratification after.  Not sure when ratifying became a thing for Elders, High Priests, and Apostles.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

I'm happy that Elder Kearon has been called into the Quorum of the Twelve.  However, can someone please explain to me why the church has disregarded direct instructions from Jesus Christ and failed to seek a vote by common consent prior to him taking office in accordance to D&C 20:65?

Note: An Apostle is a member of the Office of Apostle in the Melchizedek Priesthood.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-14-priesthood-organization?lang=eng

I think the following verse captures the spirit of expediency when it is too impractical to wait until the next Saturday morning session of a semiannual General Conference:

66 But the presiding elders, traveling bishops, high councilors, high priests, and elders, may have the privilege of ordaining, where there is no branch of the church that a vote may be called.

It is quite reasonable to expect that a small-scale sustaining and ordaining session by the First Presidency and Twelve takes place, similar to that described here: The Heart of a Prophet (churchofjesuschrist.org).

 

[Craig Speechly]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I think the following verse captures the spirit of expediency when it is too impractical to wait until the next Saturday morning session of a semiannual General Conference:

66 But the presiding elders, traveling bishops, high councilors, high priests, and elders, may have the privilege of ordaining, where there is no branch of the church that a vote may be called.

It is quite reasonable to expect that a small-scale sustaining and ordaining session by the First Presidency and Twelve takes place, similar to that described here: The Heart of a Prophet (churchofjesuschrist.org).

 

You could be correct. I was wondering why they decided not to follow Jesus’s instructions. 

[Craig Speechly]

2 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

He wants all the millions of members to vote like a democracy.

Actually it was Jesus that wanted a common consent vote prior to ordination. I was just quoting Him. 

Edited December 13, 2023 by Craig Speechly

[blackstrap]

4 hours ago, webbles said:

I think the 2:65 is a typo

A priest ,a minister and a rabbit go into a bar. The bartender asks the rabbit, " What are you doing here ? " The rabbit replies, " Obviously , I'm a typo !  " 

Sorry, I was triggered by the quote. Perhaps only Kenngo69  will understand. 

Edited December 13, 2023 by blackstrap

[Diamondhands69]

2 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

You could be correct. I was wondering why they decided not to follow Jesus’s instructions. 

The church is not interested in anyone’s vote or opinion. The sustaining vote is nothing but a formality. A lot like a dictatorship where the newly elected “president” gets 100% of the  vote. Any dissenters are carted off to a camp lol. 
 

Kinda true in a sense. A dissenting vote or protest does nothing except land the local stake president’s magnifying glass on the guy who won’t just fall in line. 
 

this doesn’t surprise me in the least. I think this has happened a few other times. 

[webbles]

Neal A. Maxwell was ordained in July 23, 1981 as an apostle.  He was later sustained in the next general conference.  The language used just says "sustain", not "ratify" - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1981/10/the-sustaining-of-church-officers?lang=eng

Quote

It is also proposed that we sustain Elder Neal A. Maxwell as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. All in favor please manifest it. Any opposed may so manifest it.

David B. Haight was ordained on January 8, 1976 as an apostle.  The next general conference just lists him with the rest of the apostles - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1976/04/the-sustaining-of-church-officers?lang=eng

Going even farther back, I see multiple apostles that are ordained outside of the normal general conference.  The earliest that I suspect is John E. Page and John Taylor.  I can't find evidence that they were sustained in a larger church gathering besides the Quorum of 12 Apostles before they were ordained.

[blackstrap]

11 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Any dissenters are carted off to a camp lol

Those who protest by opposing the sustaining always have the option of starting their own religion and many have done so ,  especially after a vote  to sustain a new President,. 

Those opposed should have PERSONAL knowledge of serious sinful behavior of the person being sustained. Differences on politics is not  enough. 

[blackstrap]

7 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

without the vote of that church;

Note that the word  'without '  does not specify order. Had the word ' before ' been used then your argument would carry more weight. 

[webbles]

I just noticed that D&C 20:65 is not in the original edition.  Verses 65-67 were added later, probably because in 1830, there wasn't multiple congregations and so it doesn't make much sense to have that rule.  You can see the 1833 edition at https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/book-of-commandments-1833/56.  In that edition, verse 44 is the modern verse 64 and verse 45 is the start of the modern verse 68.  The 1835 edition does include the verses.  See https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/doctrine-and-covenants-1835/88.  Verse 15 is the modern verse 64, verse 16 is the modern verse 65, etc.

[teddyaware]

3 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

You could be correct. I was wondering why they decided not to follow Jesus’s instructions. 

Could it be that the new apostle is urgently needed now, and waiting 4 months for the sustaining vote of the church membership amounts to an unnecessary delay in getting the Lord’s work properly done? It’s not as if the sustaining vote is going to be put off for 10 years.

I think differently than you because to me it would be ridiculous for the Lord set up a church organization that’s so cumbersome and inefficient that the Quorum of the Twelve would have to be kept from being fully functional for 16 weeks to satisfy Pharisaic “it’s unlawful to heal the sick on the Sabbath” type thinking.

Edited December 13, 2023 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, webbles said:

It happens a lot with elders.  If you listen in stake conference, they'll ask to sustain both men who will be ordained an elder as well as men who have been ordained since the last stake conference. I was ordained that way.  I was on my mission when stake conference was held to sustain my ordination.  In general conference, we'll get a chance to sustain him.

Sometimes they will "ratify" an ordination which happened previously IF you actually listen to what's happening.

Theoretically such a thing only happens when it's not possible for some reason, to sustain him before, as you point out.

No biggie.

Edited December 13, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Diamondhands69]

7 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Could it be that the new apostle is urgently needed now, and waiting 4 months for the sustaining vote of the church membership amounts to an unnecessary delay in getting the Lord’s work properly done? It’s not as if the sustaining vote is going to be put off for 10 years.

I think differently than you because to me it would be ridiculous for the Lord set up a church organization that’s so cumbersome and inefficient that the Quorum of the Twelve would have to be kept from being fully functional for 16 weeks to satisfy Pharisaic “it’s unlawful to heal the sick on the Sabbath” type thinking.

Agreed it’s not long to wait till April. Heck didn’t we recently have a prophet who was essentially a placeholder because of his health… benson maybe? They functioned just fine signing his signature for him. I’m sure being minus one apostle holds up nothing.

 

Edited December 13, 2023 by Diamondhands69

[CV75]

11 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

You could be correct. I was wondering why they decided not to follow Jesus’s instructions. 

They followed His additional instructions  

[teddyaware]

2 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Agreed it’s not long to wait till April. Heck didn’t we recently have a prophet who was essentially a placeholder because of his health… benson maybe? They functioned just fine signing his signature for him. I’m sure being minus one apostle holds up nothing.

 

It’s a quorum of 12 apostles — not eleven — for a very important, divinely ordained reason. It’s 15 apostles who are supposed to meet in the temple every Thursday to counsel together and make eternally important decisions as the leaders of the church, not 14 apostles. And wouldn’t it be most interesting to be able to closely review all the good that will have been accomplished by the newly ordained Elder Keaton by the time of next April’s conference, including the many lives he’s now currently touching for good that he wouldn’t be touching had he not been called and ordained 16 weeks prior to the next general conference?

Edited December 13, 2023 by teddyaware

[teddyaware]

7 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

It’s a quorum of 12 apostles — not eleven — for a very important, divinely ordained reason. It’s 15 apostles who are supposed to meet in the temple every Thursday to counsel together and make eternally important decisions as the leaders of the church, not 14 apostles. And wouldn’t it be most interesting to be able to closely review all the good that will have been accomplished by the newly ordained Elder Keaton by the time of next April’s conference, including the many lives he’s now currently touching for good that he wouldn’t be touching had he not been called and ordained 16 weeks prior to the next general conference? 

 

[Craig Speechly]

3 hours ago, teddyaware said:

It’s a quorum of 12 apostles — not eleven — for a very important, divinely ordained reason. It’s 15 apostles who are supposed to meet in the temple every Thursday to counsel together and make eternally important decisions as the leaders of the church, not 14 apostles. And wouldn’t it be most interesting to be able to closely review all the good that will have been accomplished by the newly ordained Elder Keaton by the time of next April’s conference, including the many lives he’s now currently touching for good that he wouldn’t be touching had he not been called and ordained 16 weeks prior to the next general conference?

The argument is not with me but with Jesus, He's the one who declared that there must be a vote by common consent BEFORE ordination, not me. But it's ok, Jesus perhaps changed His mind or perhaps there's been some scriptural change that I am unaware of that allows for members of the twelve to be exempted from Jesus's rules.

[webbles]

35 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

The argument is not with me but with Jesus, He's the one who declared that there must be a vote by common consent BEFORE ordination, not me. But it's ok, Jesus perhaps changed His mind or perhaps there's been some scriptural change that I am unaware of that allows for members of the twelve to be exempted from Jesus's rules.

Actually, we don't know who wrote verse 65.  It wasn't in the original.  So it was probably something like the Church Handbook.  Joseph Smith felt that it was a good change to ensure that there weren't stray priesthood holders and shortly after that, it was changed again (when John Taylor and John E. Page became apostles).  Joseph didn't update section 20 with the new process and we've been changing the process since then.

[Kenngo1969]

You could always write the First Presidency about this egregious error.  I'm sure its members are waiting, with 'bated breath, on the edge of their seats, all aquiver, to hear from you, Craig:

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 47 East South Temple St., Salt Lake City UT 84150. +01 (801) 240-1000.

Good luck!  i hope you'll consider posting scans of any communications you send, along with ones of any responses you receive.

Edited December 13, 2023 by Kenngo1969

[Stormin' Mormon]

1 hour ago, Craig Speechly said:

The argument is not with me but with Jesus, He's the one who declared that there must be a vote by common consent BEFORE ordination, not me. But it's ok, Jesus perhaps changed His mind or perhaps there's been some scriptural change that I am unaware of that allows for members of the twelve to be exempted from Jesus's rules.

First: You've been provided with a couple of examples in this thread about times when that exclusion is applied to stake- and ward-level ordinations.  To continue insinuating that this is an exception reserved solely for the Quorum of the Twelve is to argue in bad faith.

Second: The entire history of the Church is rife with examples of times when "Jesus changed his mind." Of course Jesus is authorized to change whatever organizational rules He set in place 200 years ago.  It's His church, after all, and that Church is hardly in the same social, cultural, political, economic, or legal position that it was back in the mid-19th century.  Changes will happen.  But caricaturizing those inevitable changes in this way ignores the myriad of valid reasons why change may be necessary.  You may not have meant it that way, but it comes across as dismissive of a belief in ongoing (but unwritten) revelation. 

Third:  Framing the question in the way that you did limits and constrains possible discussion.  By declaring at the outset that the mind and will of Jesus on this matter is known, any opposition to that position is axiomatically on the wrong side of the debate, even if there are good and valid reasons for adaptation of the practice.  There can be no discussion when the "right side" of the debate has been pre-determined in the framing of the question.  A more neutral framing of the question, one that leaves out any editorializing about Jesus' preferences, is more likely to yield productive, informative, and engaging discussion.

 

Edited December 13, 2023 by Stormin' Mormon

[randy]

On 12/12/2023 at 11:32 PM, Diamondhands69 said:

The church is not interested in anyone’s vote or opinion. The sustaining vote is nothing but a formality. A lot like a dictatorship where the newly elected “president” gets 100% of the  vote. Any dissenters are carted off to a camp lol. 
 

Kinda true in a sense. A dissenting vote or protest does nothing except land the local stake president’s magnifying glass on the guy who won’t just fall in line. 
 

this doesn’t surprise me in the least. I think this has happened a few other times. 

...such cynicism and angst you're carrying!  Just let that stuff go...so you can be at peace