NOM

So, Brigham Young presided as president of the twelve apostles until he was Sustained by the Members as president of the church. Right?

But hasn't it been this way for billions of year, ever since God uttered his famous phrase, "Let there be Mormons"?

I think they can and will do whatever they want. Scripture beyond what supports their current mode of operation is generally ignored. Besides it’s not like they are corrupting some kind of heavenly concept or something. Some guy said do it this way then latter some guy says do it this way. Neither has any standing other than it is their current thinking of how things should be done.

If the church were true then deviation would matter. Since it is not so what.

2bizE wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2018 10:36 am
So, when pres. Nelson was made president, what office was he ordained to? Is President an office in the priesthood? I thought apostle was the highest. Notice, they won't call a new apostle until conference when he can be sustained as an apostle. The guys in the FP are already ordained apostles. IIRC, only the pres. has to be an apostle. The counselors can be HP. In fact, the FP officiate as HP not as apostles.
Thoughts?

I definitely learned at church that apostle was the highest priesthood office that exists in the LDS Church.

If memory serves, in the Aaronic priesthood, there is deacon, teacher, priest, deacon.

In the Melchizedek Priesthood, there is elder, high priest, seventy, patriarch and apostle.

That is the way it has come to be established.

But one can also see the idea that apostle is the highest priesthood office in the church as a direct result of the apostles taking over control of the LDS Church, as delineated in parts 1 and 2 of the Apostolic Coup d'état podcast.

It sort of goes along with the anomaly of having a Quorum of Twelve Apostles, but really we have 15 apostles, because three more are in the First Presidency.

And we understand that, at least in Joseph Smith's time (and according to section 124 and other statements by Joseph Smith), the highest priesthood office in the church was actually patriarch and not apostle.

Making this subject more problematic is the fact that the original 12 LDS apostles were not chosen and ordained by Joseph Smith, but by the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon.

So if we go by the idea that a person (or group) can have no more authority than the person (or people) who ordain them, how do the 12 apostles have any more authority than that of the Three Witnesses?

Whatever power and authority the Three Witnesses may have had, it would not seem to be as much as the president, or the first presidency.

If that is so, the twelve apostles would not have had as much power and authority as the president and/or first presidency.

And yet we have Brigham Young elevating himself in 1847 to church president and reconstituting the First Presidency out of apostles.

Which is probably why he faced substantial push-back from within other apostles over this move.

Great discussion everybody!

you forgot the office of Bishop in the aaronic priesthood. Yes, i agree the structure of the priesthood today is not what JS established.
Does anyone have an org chart of how the priesthood hierarchy should be?

2bizE wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2018 9:43 pm you forgot the office of Bishop in the aaronic priesthood. Yes, i agree the structure of the priesthood today is not what JS established.
Does anyone have an org chart of how the priesthood hierarchy should be?

Priesthood hierarchy is mildly hinted at in Ephesians 4:11:

The Apostle Paul wrote:And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

The rules about priesthood and hierarchy are largely made up by Joseph Smith. The hierarchy in the early centuries in Christianity was Episkopos (Greek for Bishops) being "overseers" over Presbyters (Greek for Elders). Elders would lead congregations although so would Bishops. Bishops would supervise Elders. It was not a hierarchy that was formalized in scripture. It simply evolved to have the western Bishop of Rome turn into the Pope while in the east the bishops became a council of Patriarchs that we have today. The Patriarchs of the various Eastern Orthodox Churches consider themselves the ecclesiastic peers of the Roman Catholic Pope.

LDS hierarchy barely resembles any of this. Justin Martyr does talk about a President who "Presides" over a meeting, but counselors don't really show up at all. Article of Faith 6 states:

We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.

These "positions" did largely exist, but there was no comprehensive hierarchy. No apostles were really designated after Paul. Peter lived his ecclesiastic career as the Bishop of Rome simply because the imperial capital needed a Christian congregation. New Testament books were accepted based on their connection to the apostles. While Paul claimed that his visitation by Jesus designated Paul as an apostle, no additional apostles showed up after Paul.

Some prophets were designated such as Saint Silas and Judas Barsabas (Acts 15:22), and Agabus (Acts 11:27-28). but they were largely just missionaries.

2bizE wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2018 9:43 pm you forgot the office of Bishop in the aaronic priesthood.

Good catch.

I accidentally wrote "deacon" twice. The second time I wrote "deacon," I meant "bishop."

Ruh-roh.

The whole concept of the priesthood is almost meaningless to me. There is nothing special about it--ALL MALE MEMBERS in the church older than 12 (mostly--except those who are honest and get busted for masterbation) hold the priesthood. So, if you are a guy of age in the church, you hold the priesthood. What makes that any different than just being a guy of age in the church? WHEN EVERYONE HAS IT, IT DOESNT MAKE YOU SPECIAL IMHO IN ANY WAY!

Its the "keys" that make it all fancy--its the people who get to tell other people what to do. But, there is a lot of confusion because you have the D&C that teaches one set of rules, and then you have the policies (whatever those are at the moment) that are enforced.

I've written this before, and it still applies. You have three sets of rules in the church:
1. Those that are written
2. Those that are obeyed
3. Those that are enforced.

An example of #2 would be folks down at BYU who won't drink caffeinated drinks because that is just wrong (right?). That is a rule they "obey" (true or false if its even a rule doesn't matter). For a while, the school "enforced" it by blocking it from vending machines. But lets get real here...its NOT a hot drink. Or is it?

I was in a Stake Priesthood meeting decades ago when someone raised their hand to a Priesthood advancement when they asked if anyone opposed. Later the individual who was being sustained was dis-fellowshipped. This was in the days when being dis-fellowshipped or excommunicated was announced over the pulpit.

My understanding from that time was that when we sustain someone it is because we don't have any first hand knowledge of worthiness issues. If we do then we are obligated to object. That is the criterion I use when I sustain someone.

Coop wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2018 3:39 pm I was in a Stake Priesthood meeting decades ago when someone raised their hand to a Priesthood advancement when they asked if anyone opposed. Later the individual who was being sustained was dis-fellowshipped. This was in the days when being dis-fellowshipped or excommunicated was announced over the pulpit.

My understanding from that time was that when we sustain someone it is because we don't have any first hand knowledge of worthiness issues. If we do then we are obligated to object. That is the criterion I use when I sustain someone.

This makes sense. It is also something that is NOT taught. I've never heard any teachings about when to raise your hand in opposition. I have never seen someone raise their hand in opposition, but I have asked others who are older if they have, and the response is usually: "I've never seen it happen, thank GOODNESS!" And the "thank GOODNESS" on the end actually communicates, hypothetically, the discomfort of such a thing happening. It surprised me. There is this cultural unwritten/undiscussed rule of deferral to authority--the autocratic "correlated" approach that dominates LDS culture now to the extreme.

To me its a sign of internal decadence and decay.

I've worked in jobs where autocratic authority has micro-managed people to the brink. It's interesting because, during those times, those on the bottom have similar responses. They all say something like: "Just tell me what you want me to do." That response basically means: I'm done thinking for myself because I get in trouble for it; I'm done being emotionally involved--I choose to be a robot because I'm trapped and anything else gets me in trouble; etc". When someone says that, it also means, to a large degree, they are looking for work someplace else. Its almost ALWAYS an "unwritten" way to say: "I'm done. I'm gunna find another job and I'm leaving."

People in the church, in a strange way, almost parrot that as well. But the church double-binds them with: "Where will you go [if you leave]?" This is analogous, in my opinion, to an abusive spouse. Many abusive spouses say things like: "You can't leave. You will starve. You can't live without me, and you know it!" Or,..."There is nowhere for you to go. You will end up on the street without me!"

My GAWD. The correlated church has got most people in a place of: "Just tell me what you want me to do." But has closed to door on escape--because there is nowhere else to go. As Joseph Smith said in so many words (thanks to Truman Madsen I remember this), leaving the church can ONLY be at the instigation of the Evil One, and "you will come to hate me and the church, and even thirst for my blood."

Yep, lets increase control over people trying to leave by telling them they ONLY leave because of Satan. Talk about GASLIGHTING!

I'm out. And guess what, my life didn't fall apart. In fact, I can BREATH now! And I can even make decisions for myself now! WOW....LDS church, how come I'm not dead? How come I don't thirst for JS blood? I think he is a big stupid dick!...and I think Brigham Young is a double big stupid a$$hole and creep....but I'm not interested in killing Russell Nelson. I just think he is a liar. And my life hasn't fallen apart. WOW...go figure...

Rob4Hope.....don't hold back....tell us what you really think.

I know...it's frustrating.

Rob4Hope wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2018 11:56 pm I listened. And, I always wondered about it as well. Common consent is a farce. The Bish, the SP, and everyone higher is called without any vote.
Anyone ever been in a ward counsel or stake meeting and had someone vote in opposition?

I was in the church for 45 years. I never saw it once at that level. Anyone ever see it?

Yep. But it was ignored.