A question for the last Mormon...well Ex-Mormon

[Bill the Cat]

John,

As you seem to represent the last Mormon view on TWeb, Can I ask you a question?


LDS have 12 Apostles, correct?

They link this back to the fact that Jesus had 12 Apostles, correct?

If The 12 Apostles were in Palestine, and Jesus appointed 12 more in Central America at the same time, wouldn't that make 24? Why not have 24 Apostles?

[bar Jonah]

Today @ 12:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=206023#post206023)
Bill the Cat:

John,

As you seem to represent the last Mormon view on TWeb, Can I ask you a question?


LDS have 12 Apostles, correct?

They link this back to the fact that Jesus had 12 Apostles, correct?

If The 12 Apostles were in Palestine, and Jesus appointed 12 more in Central America at the same time, wouldn't that make 24? Why not have 24 Apostles?
12? What do you mean 12? What is Paul... chopped liver? :hrm:

But of course, it would make sense for Mormons to ignore Paul, since it was he who wrote the passage that stated no new gospels could ever be introduced, ever again.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Good question, Bill, but ineffective against Mormons for the most part.

Mormons believe that the 12 disciples of Jesus in the Americas were subservient in an eternal way to the 12 Apostles in Palestine. If requested I will find the reference for that.

"Apostle" to Mormons means "special witness of Jesus" so the 12 American disciples might be considered Apostles in that way, but they aren't called Apostles in the Book of Mormon.

We were taught in church that each Apostle gets a personal visit by Jesus or something like that, and many of their testimonies in General Conference leads one to think they are claiming a special appearance by Jesus (they hint at it, but don't outright claim it), but I have evidence by one of the former Apostles / Counselors to the President that suggests otherwise in at least his own case. There are, in fact, more than 12 people currently living who have been ordained as a Mormon Apostle: the quorum of the 12 and the 3 members of the presidency.

RIGHTIDEA:
12? What do you mean 12? What is Paul... chopped liver?


POWELL:
Mormons believe Paul replaced one of the other Apostles due to death. Which one is unknown. When Peter became the president and James and John became his counselors, they may have no longer been members of the 12.

John Powell

[Bill the Cat]

wow, thanks for the info,

I think they are quite wrong, and they are called apostles elsewhere, I'll have to find the references.

And those in America being subservant, I would love that reference. Thank you again for answering...

Have some pearls

[Bill the Cat]

Found the ref to the 12 ministers being subservant to the 12 disciples:

1 Nephi 12:9 And he said unto me: Thou rememberest the 1twelve apostles of the Lamb? Behold they are they who shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel; wherefore, the twelve ministers of thy seed shall be judged of them; for ye are of the house of Israel.

12:10 And these twelve ministers whom thou beholdest shall judge thy seed.

[bar Jonah]

Acts 1:21-26
21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew which of these two thou hast chosen,
25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

So to sum up:
of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. 'Thou, Lord, shew which of these two thou hast chosen, that he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. The lot fell upon Matthias.
Matthias must be the 12th apostle now. At this time, there is no Paul; he is Saul, an unbelieving pharisee who is about to start persecuting Christians even unto their deaths... that is, if he hasn't started already. Scripture here clearly shows the Lord was involved in choosing this 12th apostle, and Paul is nowhere to be seen. Days after this, the Holy Spirit descends on them at Pentacost. Would this happen if the Twelve were acting outside of God's will? Of course not. This seals the Twelve's apostleship and their Great Commission, and that same day, the fruit of that is very clear as 3,000 believers are added to the church.

None of this has anything whatsoever to do with Paul, who had an entirely different mission at a later time, seperate from the Twelve.
Galatians 2
1 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. 2And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain.
He's a member of the Twelve, but they have no idea what gospel he is even preaching?

6 But from those who seemed to be something--whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man--for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. 7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do.
They, and we. Them and us. Two groups, two missions, separate. Not the same. There is absolutely no way that Paul can be considered a member of the Twelve. Nor should he have been.

And Paul doesn't become a member of the Twelve at this time, either, by the way. His ministry continues to be seperate from that of the Twelve, as they have entirely seperate bodies of people to minister to. One to the Jews, the other to the Gentiles (us). Paul is the apostle to us. The only apostle to us.
Galatians 1
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
It's so important, he says it twice. And he even includes himself and angels... even if Paul, himself, were to come later with a different gospel, he should be anathema. Cast out. There can be no new gospels after Paul's.

[John Powell]

RIGHTIDEA:
Scripture Verse: Acts 1:21-26
21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew which of these two thou hast chosen,
25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.


POWELL:
I'll let my former believing self discuss things here.

JOHN MORMON:
Notice a number of things here.
1. Clearly, it was intended that losses to the 12 should be filled. If someone transgressed or died then someone should replace them to maintain the quorum.
2. The Apostles were to be witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus.
3. They were all men.

Mormons seem to follow the pattern.

At the time that Matthias was called to replace Judas, the church leaders had the luxury of finding someone who had seen the living and resurrected Jesus. The important thing to being an Apostle, however, is to be a witness of the resurrected Jesus. In that way Paul and modern Apostles could serve as special witnesses of the resurrected Lord.

RIGHTIDEA:

So to sum up:
. . .

Matthias must be the 12th apostle now. At this time, there is no Paul; he is Saul, an unbelieving pharisee who is about to start persecuting Christians even unto their deaths... that is, if he hasn't started already. Scripture here clearly shows the Lord was involved in choosing this 12th apostle, and Paul is nowhere to be seen. Days after this, the Holy Spirit descends on them at Pentacost. Would this happen if the Twelve were acting outside of God's will? Of course not. This seals the Twelve's apostleship and their Great Commission, and that same day, the fruit of that is very clear as 3,000 believers are added to the church.

None of this has anything whatsoever to do with Paul, who had an entirely different mission at a later time, seperate from the Twelve.


JOHN MORMON:
Do you deny that Paul was a witness to the resurrected Lord and that the Lord had a hand in his calling and that Paul's success supports his Apostolic authority? You were aware, were you not, that some of the twelve may have died after Matthias was called, right? Who replaced them? Couldn't Paul have been one such replacement? Unfortunately, replacements weren't filled fast enough and apostacy began to overrun the church until the most powerful local Bishops ended up taking over the whole church.

RIGHTIDEA:
Scripture Verse: Galatians 2
1 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. 2And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain.

RIGHTIDEA:
He's a member of the Twelve, but they have no idea what gospel he is even preaching?


JOHN MORMON:
There may have been religious teachings that were successful with the Gentiles that Paul shared with reputable Jerusalem saints who were more familiar with teaching Jews. That doesn't mean Paul's Gospel was so different that it should be considered a different Gospel from, say that of Peter or James, right?

It would be like a modern Mormon Apostle teaching the Chinese people for a number of years and then sharing with other Apostles, those less familiar with Asians, what seemed to work in building the church among that people.

RIGHTIDEA:
Scripture Verse: 6 But from those who seemed to be something--whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man--for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. 7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do.

RIGHTIDEA:
They, and we. Them and us. Two groups, two missions, separate. Not the same. There is absolutely no way that Paul can be considered a member of the Twelve. Nor should he have been.


JOHN MORMON:
"No way" or "very unlikely" or merely "unlikely" or what?

Oversight was more difficult in those days than it is today. Once Peter, James and John were convinced that Paul's work was approved of God they blessed it themselves. If they felt otherwise they would have rejected Paul and either Paul would have become an apostate or Peter, James, and John would have become apostates. Jesus would have to judge that one.

RIGHTIDEA:
And Paul doesn't become a member of the Twelve at this time, either, by the way. His ministry continues to be seperate from that of the Twelve, as they have entirely seperate bodies of people to minister to. One to the Jews, the other to the Gentiles (us).


JOHN MORMON:
If they were as separate as you claim, why did Paul even need the approval of Peter, James, and John? Didn't Paul get His authority, according to you, directly from Jesus Himself? Perhaps Peter, James, and John were in charge of the entire church everywhere and Paul was one of the Apostles who needed to answer to them.

RIGHTIDEA:
Paul is the apostle to us. The only apostle to us.


JOHN MORMON:
Are you serious?

Does your church rely on the Apostolic messages of Peter, James, John, Matthew, and Luke or just those of Paul?

RIGHTIDEA:
Scripture Verse: Galatians 1
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.


JOHN MORMON:
What if Paul had said, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, or God Himself, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." Would that have significantly changed the meaning of Paul's words?

We Mormons don't think we are preaching a different Gospel than the one that Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, or Paul taught. You seem to think otherwise.

What is significantly different between the Gospel that Paul taught to the Galatians and the one that Mormons teach today? Please try to stick with Galatians as much as possible.

RIGHTIDEA:
It's so important, he says it twice. And he even includes himself and angels... even if Paul, himself, were to come later with a different gospel, he should be anathema. Cast out. There can be no new gospels after Paul's.


JOHN MORMON:
Whoa. No Gospels besides Paul's, not no new teachings after Paul. New revelation does not mean it's a completely new Gospel, or do you disagree?

Just for fun, however, what if JESUS HIMSELF were to come to Earth with Paul by His side and announce that Paul didn't quite get that revelation right and that Jesus was going to present a new Gospel. Would you reject the new Gospel because of what Paul had written?

John Powell
Formerly a believer in Mormonism.
Now an athe-ist or strong atheist.

[John Powell]

BILL THE CAT:
A question for the last Mormon...well Ex-Mormon


POWELL:
I'm disappointed the real Mormon apologists have left.

BILL THE CAT:
John,

As you seem to represent the last Mormon view on TWeb, Can I ask you a question?


POWELL:
Of course, Bill. This reply will be more directly in response to your questions than the one I rushed off.

BILL THE CAT:
LDS have 12 Apostles, correct?


POWELL:
Sort of. They have a quorum of 12 Apostles, but the three members of the current First Presidency are also Apostles. When the current prophet dies then his two counselors will take their places in the quorum of the 12, bumping out the two most junior members.

BILL THE CAT:
They link this back to the fact that Jesus had 12 Apostles, correct?


POWELL:
Yes.

BILL THE CAT:
If The 12 Apostles were in Palestine, and Jesus appointed 12 more in Central America at the same time, wouldn't that make 24?


POWELL:
Sort of. Mormons believe that when Peter, James, and John were the First Presidency that there could have been 12 others in the quorum of 12 Apostles for a total of 15 (although not necessarily).

More importantly for your efforts, according to the Book of Mormon, the 12 called in the Americas weren't official Apostles like those in Palestine.

BILL THE CAT:
Why not have 24 Apostles?


POWELL:
I suppose they could have a 2nd quorum of 12 Apostles like they have a second quorum of Seventy. They probably won't do this, however.

John Powell

[greyphilosophy]

Arn't there 19 total, 3 nephite apostles and John the beloved, who supposeively will never die, and continue to live on the earth, added to the 12 and the first presidency?

[John Powell]

JOHN MORMON:
Good point, GP. I think the 3 Nephites aren't technically Apostles, although they are special witnesses of Jesus, but John would be, but in a class by himself.

If an authenticated John were to show up claiming a position in the quorum or the rights to the presidency, I can't see how he could be refused. Apparently however, that's not his mission.

That would be like the prophet refusing to let Jesus run the church at His Second Coming. Foolish.

John Powell

[Alma]

Yesterday @ 05:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=207129#post207129)
John Powell:

JOHN MORMON:
Good point, GP. I think the 3 Nephites aren't technically Apostles, although they are special witnesses of Jesus, but John would be, but in a class by himself.

If an authenticated John were to show up claiming a position in the quorum or the rights to the presidency, I can't see how he could be refused. Apparently however, that's not his mission.

That would be like the prophet refusing to let Jesus run the church at His Second Coming. Foolish.

John Powell

I'm not sure that it is a good point, John. There are three qualifications necessary for someone to run the Church in Christ's stead: 1) they have to be called, 2) properly ordained, and 3) sustained by those who they preside over. Even Joseph Smith wasn't allowed to be ordained an elder until the Church voted on it. While the 3 Nephites and the apostle John have been translated, they no longer have any control over the church by virtue of the fact that they haven't been sustained by the membership.

Alma

[Bill the Cat]

So who voted on the Original 12?

[Alma]

Today @ 09:40 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=207715#post207715)
Bill the Cat:

So who voted on the Original 12?

Christ.

[Bill the Cat]

Do you see the inconsistency of your responses?


Even Joseph Smith wasn't allowed to be ordained an elder until the Church voted on it.

Bill the Cat:

So who voted on the Original 12?
Alma
Christ.

There was no vote on Christ, nor was there a vote on the 12, so why was there a vote on Joseph?

[Alma]

Today @ 10:03 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=207751#post207751)
Bill the Cat:

Do you see the inconsistency of your responses?

They weren't inconsistent, just too brief and perhaps flippant. I said they were requirements "for someone to run the Church in Christ's stead." As I understand it, the apostles were selected by Christ personally before he established his church, so those particular circumstances wouldn't be applicable.


There was no vote on Christ, nor was there a vote on the 12, so why was there a vote on Joseph?

There was probably no vote on the initial 12 apostles for the reasons stated above; but it's only legitimate to say that there's no record of a vote on their replacements (Jude, Paul, James, Barnabas). Since there were votes for other church officials, (Acts 14:23) it's not unreasonable to postulate that there were also votes for replacement apostles.

Alma

[Bill the Cat]

Today @ 03:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=208031#post208031)
Alma:



They weren't inconsistent, just too brief and perhaps flippant. I said they were requirements "for someone to run the Church in Christ's stead." As I understand it, the apostles were selected by Christ personally before he established his church, so those particular circumstances wouldn't be applicable.

But they were not put in charge until after the church was founded at Christ's resurrection. No election by committee




here was probably no vote on the initial 12 apostles for the reasons stated above; but it's only legitimate to say that there's no record of a vote on their replacements (Jude, Paul, James, Barnabas).

Paul received no vote. He was directly called of Christ to be an apostle. See the intro to all of his epistles. Matthias received no vote from anyone xcept the lot being cast.

There is no precedent for Joseph Smith receiving a vote on being in charge of the Church and no precedent for the 12 apostles to be elected in the LDS church.

Since there were votes for other church officials, (Acts 14:23) it's not unreasonable to postulate that there were also votes for replacement apostles.

Alma

There is no record of any election of apostles by the congregation as a whole. The "they" in Acts 14:23 were Paul and Barnabas, not a congregation. there is no precedence of the congregation voting on the leader of the Church.

[John Powell]

ALMA:
I'm not sure that it is a good point, John. There are three qualifications necessary for someone to run the Church in Christ's stead: 1) they have to be called, 2) properly ordained, and 3) sustained by those who they preside over. Even Joseph Smith wasn't allowed to be ordained an elder until the Church voted on it. While the 3 Nephites and the apostle John have been translated, they no longer have any control over the church by virtue of the fact that they haven't been sustained by the membership.

Alma


JOHN MORMON (my former believing self):
That could be easily remedied.

Joseph did not need the sustaining vote from the members before God was authorized to send His angels to give the priesthood to Joseph. God is in charge, not the members. Besides, the time frame seems wrong. Didn't Joseph get the priesthood before the church was even organized?

Although it's true that people have free will so they could reject John, even Jesus, I think you're overestimating the importance of the sustaining of leaders. This is more an encouragement to people to submit to authority than a requirement for the person to have authority. For example, if I were to refuse to sustain the Stake President that would not mean that the Stake President no longer had authority over me, but it would mean that I should speak to my Bishop to voice my concerns and allow him to help me get my life back in line with the will of the Lord.

A religious split would occur if John or Jesus tried to take over direct control of the church, but a large segment of the church would not sustain them. However, I find it highly unlikely that either a visibly active translated John or resurrected Jesus would have difficulty keeping the church together.

BILL THE CAT (to Alma):
There is no record of any election of apostles by the congregation as a whole.


JOHN MORMON:
Replacement apostles in the Mormon church are chosen by the prophet as inspired by God, probably with some assistance from his counselors and the quorum of the 12.

The members are given an opportunity to show their support, but they really don't have power to prevent things. It's highly unlikely that the leaders would choose someone who would be unacceptable to the membership. If they did, however, they would probably reconsider.

John Powell

[Alma]

Today @ 01:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=208043#post208043)
Bill the Cat:

But they were not put in charge until after the church was founded at Christ's resurrection. No election by committee

You’re assuming entirely too much – from the Bible and my argument. You’re assuming (with nothing more than tradition) that Jesus hadn’t established his Church before his death and resurrection. You’re also assuming that when I refer to a “vote” that I’m claiming election by a committee. Neither case is valid.

Paul received no vote. He was directly called of Christ to be an apostle. See the intro to all of his epistles. Matthias received no vote from anyone xcept the lot being cast.

I claimed that three factors needed to be met and I believe you’re confounding the first two - - being called and ordained. I don’t believe there’s any indication of the actual ordination of either Paul or Barnabas; yet it stands to reason that they were ordained just as the original apostles were ordained after Jesus had called them. The book of Acts isn’t a policy and procedure manual, nor is it a detailed history. It’s primarily a story of missionary work with many elements glossed over. Paul and Barnabas were sent forth by the elders from Antioch after they laid their hands on them. Paul reminded Timothy that his (Timothy’s) gift came by the laying on of hands of the elders. (1 Tim. 4:14) It isn’t reasonable to conclude that Paul and Barnabas were ordained in a similar manner as when they were sent from Antioch in the 13th chapter of Acts.

There is no precedent for Joseph Smith receiving a vote on being in charge of the Church and no precedent for the 12 apostles to be elected in the LDS church.

Oh but there is. On the day the Church was organized Joseph Smith presented himself and Oliver Cowdery to the assembled disciples for them to decide by vote whether they were willing to accept them as their spiritual authorities. That vote takes place every six months and has done since that time. We call it “sustaining” but it is a vote.

There is no record of any election of apostles by the congregation as a whole. The "they" in Acts 14:23 were Paul and Barnabas, not a congregation. there is no precedence of the congregation voting on the leader of the Church.

The verse reads: “And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.” The word there translated “ordained” comes from the Greek “chierotoneo” meaning “to be a hand reacher or to vote by raising the hand.” It really refers to being appointed by the vote of the people. Paul and Barnabas supervised the “voting” in of elders in every church. As I stated earlier, since every church’s elders were voted upon, it isn’t unreasonable to believe that this was unique to “elders.”

Alma

[Alma]

Today @ 03:59 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=208160#post208160)
John Powell:



JOHN MORMON (my former believing self):
That could be easily remedied.

Joseph did not need the sustaining vote from the members before God was authorized to send His angels to give the priesthood to Joseph. God is in charge, not the members. Besides, the time frame seems wrong. Didn't Joseph get the priesthood before the church was even organized?

Yes, but it didn’t do him much good because God forbad him from ordaining others until they voted on his position:

…the word of the Lord came unto us in the chamber, commanding us that I should ordain Oliver Cowdery to be an Elder in the Church of Jesus Christ; and that he also should ordain me to the same office; and then to ordain others, as it should be made known unto us from time to time. We were, however, commanded to defer this our ordination until such times as it should be practicable to have our brethren, who had been and who should be baptized, assembled together, when we must have their sanction to our thus proceeding to ordain each other, and have them decide by vote whether they were willing to accept us as spiritual teachers or not,.. .(HC, Vol. 1, pp. 60-61)

Although it's true that people have free will so they could reject John, even Jesus, I think you're overestimating the importance of the sustaining of leaders. This is more an encouragement to people to submit to authority than a requirement for the person to have authority. For example, if I were to refuse to sustain the Stake President that would not mean that the Stake President no longer had authority over me, but it would mean that I should speak to my Bishop to voice my concerns and allow him to help me get my life back in line with the will of the Lord.

That would simply be an indication that you were out of harmony with the church leaders. However, if 800 or 1000 people voted no, he wouldn’t be sustained. Surely you know of the instance where Joseph Smith wanted to release Sidney Rigdon from the First Presidency and couldn’t because the church voted against him?

A religious split would occur if John or Jesus tried to take over direct control of the church, but a large segment of the church would not sustain them. However, I find it highly unlikely that either a visibly active translated John or resurrected Jesus would have difficulty keeping the church together.

No doubt, but that simply isn’t the way the Church works.


Replacement apostles in the Mormon church are chosen by the prophet as inspired by God, probably with some assistance from his counselors and the quorum of the 12.

The members are given an opportunity to show their support, but they really don't have power to prevent things. It's highly unlikely that the leaders would choose someone who would be unacceptable to the membership. If they did, however, they would probably reconsider.

As they have in the past. The vote is just as important as the calling or ordination. William Smith lost his position as an apostle at the October 1845 conference due to the vote of the church against him. Following the conference, he was excommunicated.

Alma

[John Powell]

JOHN MORMON (my former believing self):
That could be easily remedied.

Joseph did not need the sustaining vote from the members before God was authorized to send His angels to give the priesthood to Joseph. God is in charge, not the members. Besides, the time frame seems wrong. Didn't Joseph get the priesthood before the church was even organized?

ALMA:
Yes, but it didn’t do him much good because God forbad him from ordaining others until they voted on his position:

…the word of the Lord came unto us in the chamber, commanding us that I should ordain Oliver Cowdery to be an Elder in the Church of Jesus Christ; and that he also should ordain me to the same office; and then to ordain others, as it should be made known unto us from time to time. We were, however, commanded to defer this our ordination until such times as it should be practicable to have our brethren, who had been and who should be baptized, assembled together, when we must have their sanction to our thus proceeding to ordain each other, and have them decide by vote whether they were willing to accept us as spiritual teachers or not,.. .(HC, Vol. 1, pp. 60-61)


JOHN MORMON:
Ok.

Do you think God also requires a periodic sustaining by the hosts of heaven to remain in power?

JOHN MORMON:
Although it's true that people have free will so they could reject John, even Jesus, I think you're overestimating the importance of the sustaining of leaders. This is more an encouragement to people to submit to authority than a requirement for the person to have authority. For example, if I were to refuse to sustain the Stake President that would not mean that the Stake President no longer had authority over me, but it would mean that I should speak to my Bishop to voice my concerns and allow him to help me get my life back in line with the will of the Lord. ”

ALMA:
That would simply be an indication that you were out of harmony with the church leaders. However, if 800 or 1000 people voted no, he wouldn’t be sustained.


JOHN MORMON:
Perhaps. Surely the Handbook of Instructions describes what should be done, right?

What percentage is the approximate threshhold between being sustained and not? It's higher than 50% but less than 100%, yes?

ALMA:
Surely you know of the instance where Joseph Smith wanted to release Sidney Rigdon from the First Presidency and couldn’t because the church voted against him?


JOHN MORMON:
No.

POWELL (atheist):
This is the first time I ever heard that. It's interesting, but not so surprising now that I think about it. I wonder why I never heard that. Could it be because it makes Joseph appear to be too fallible?

JOHN MORMON:
A religious split would occur if John or Jesus tried to take over direct control of the church, but a large segment of the church would not sustain them. However, I find it highly unlikely that either a visibly active translated John or resurrected Jesus would have difficulty keeping the church together.

ALMA:
No doubt, but that simply isn’t the way the Church works.


JOHN MORMON:
Perhaps.

JOHN MORMON:
Replacement apostles in the Mormon church are chosen by the prophet as inspired by God, probably with some assistance from his counselors and the quorum of the 12.

The members are given an opportunity to show their support, but they really don't have power to prevent things. It's highly unlikely that the leaders would choose someone who would be unacceptable to the membership. If they did, however, they would probably reconsider.

ALMA:
As they have in the past. The vote is just as important as the calling or ordination. William Smith lost his position as an apostle at the October 1845 conference due to the vote of the church against him. Following the conference, he was excommunicated.

Alma


JOHN MORMON:
I knew some Apostles lost their positions, but I thought it was because God rejected them and inspired the leadership to excommunicate them, not so much that the members merely rejected them.

If, at the next opportunity, the vast majority of the members did not sustain the First Presidency or the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, what would happen? Would the Church Patriarch become the prophet and excommunicate the previous leaders?

John Powell

[Alma]

Yesterday @ 11:45 PM John Powell:
Do you think God also requires a periodic sustaining by the hosts of heaven to remain in power?

I wouldn’t have the slightest idea.



Perhaps. Surely the Handbook of Instructions describes what should be done, right?

Right.

What percentage is the approximate threshhold between being sustained and not? It's higher than 50% but less than 100%, yes?

One negative vote could torpedo the nomination depending on the reason for the negative vote. It seems to me that it would depend entirely upon the circumstances.


This is the first time I ever heard that. It's interesting, but not so surprising now that I think about it. I wonder why I never heard that. Could it be because it makes Joseph appear to be too fallible?

That’s a great non-sequitur. The reason for your ignorance is someone else’s fault? A quick search on an LDS infobase brought up over twenty references to this event from Times and Seasons, Essentials in Church History, Comprehensive History of the Church, Church History and Modern Revelation, DHC, and several others.

I knew some Apostles lost their positions, but I thought it was because God rejected them and inspired the leadership to excommunicate them, not so much that the members merely rejected them.

Perhaps the two circumstances are interrelated?

If, at the next opportunity, the vast majority of the members did not sustain the First Presidency or the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, what would happen? Would the Church Patriarch become the prophet and excommunicate the previous leaders?

Unlikely for several reasons. The Church Patriarch has no presiding authority; and excommunication of the president of the Church is under the presiding Bishop’s jurisdiction. Additionall, revelations indicate that the Lord directs the Church and the members will always follow that direction. (“My sheep hear my voice.”) While it is possible that one or two of the G.A’s might fall away, it isn’t reasonable to propose that everyone in the top two quorums would.

Alma

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Do you think God also requires a periodic sustaining by the hosts of heaven to remain in power?

ALMA:
I wouldn’t have the slightest idea.


POWELL:
What do you think?

POWELL:
Perhaps. Surely the Handbook of Instructions describes what should be done, right?

ALMA:
Right.

POWELL:
What percentage is the approximate threshhold between being sustained and not? It's higher than 50% but less than 100%, yes?

ALMA:
One negative vote could torpedo the nomination depending on the reason for the negative vote. It seems to me that it would depend entirely upon the circumstances.


POWELL:
Well sure, if that one member knew something incriminating that the leaders didn't know.

Are you saying that if one member raises their hand in opposition then the potential leader is considered unsustained until the issue is resolved?

POWELL:
This is the first time I ever heard that. It's interesting, but not so surprising now that I think about it. I wonder why I never heard that. Could it be because it makes Joseph appear to be too fallible?

ALMA:
That’s a great non-sequitur.


POWELL:
Do you think it's likely that I would be taught in Sunday School, Priesthood meeting and Sacrament Meeting that "when the brethren speak the thinking is done" and that "the prophet will never lead the church astray" and, at the same time, that Joseph Smith tried to remove one of his counselors, but could not because the members wouldn't sustain his decision? What do you think is the likely reason I never heard that in my church instruction? Isn't it because it does not tend to promote faith and obedience?

ALMA:
The reason for your ignorance is someone else’s fault?


POWELL:
Partly. Do you deny this?

ALMA:
A quick search on an LDS infobase brought up over twenty references to this event from Times and Seasons, Essentials in Church History, Comprehensive History of the Church, Church History and Modern Revelation, DHC, and several others.


POWELL:
If I had been looking for that information then I could have found it.

POWELL:
I knew some Apostles lost their positions, but I thought it was because God rejected them and inspired the leadership to excommunicate them, not so much that the members merely rejected them.

ALMA:
Perhaps the two circumstances are interrelated?


POWELL:
Everything is related, Alma. If you disagree, please provide a good counter-example. The relevant question is how closely.

POWELL:
If, at the next opportunity, the vast majority of the members did not sustain the First Presidency or the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, what would happen? Would the Church Patriarch become the prophet and excommunicate the previous leaders?

ALMA:
Unlikely for several reasons. The Church Patriarch has no presiding authority; and excommunication of the president of the Church is under the presiding Bishop’s jurisdiction. Additionall, revelations indicate that the Lord directs the Church and the members will always follow that direction. (“My sheep hear my voice.”) While it is possible that one or two of the G.A’s might fall away, it isn’t reasonable to propose that everyone in the top two quorums would.


POWELL:
The issue isn't whether the faithful members would follow God's direction, since that may be true by definition, but whether the actual membership (faithful or otherwise) will always follow the direction of the alleged representatives of God.

I recognize that it's an unlikely hypothetical, Alma, having the members not sustain any of the top leadership. Nevertheless, what do you think would happen? Would the presiding bishopric excommunicate the presidency and the apostles and then wait for Jesus to call someone else or what?

I thought in the past the church patriarch was also sustained as a "prophet, seer, and revelator." Is my memory mistaken?

John Powell

[greyphilosophy]

I think we're forgetting that the 3 nephites and John (well, for this discussion let's just say John) had the keys of the kingdom bestowed upon them. If the LDS church today would not be compelled to accept someone who holds the keys of the kindom, then I would wonder if the LDS church truly is God's church.

If the keys are bestowed or removed by the vote of humans, then could godhood also be bestowed or removed in the same way?

I think what matters is if the person is called by God to do His work. Even if there is no recognition by men, it cannot undo the power that has been granted.

~Greyphilosophy

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Perhaps Alma will answer that, GP.

John Powell

[Alma]

Yesterday @ 09:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=209759#post209759)
greyphilosophy:

I think we're forgetting that the 3 nephites and John (well, for this discussion let's just say John) had the keys of the kingdom bestowed upon them.

The 3 Nephites didn’t get the keys of the kingdom bestowed upon them, but John did. So, for this discussion we probably shouldn’t forget that John in turn conferred them on Joseph Smith. The idea that John might still have some claim to direct the Church is like a former ambassador returning to the embassy and expecting to hold the position now in the hands of others.

If the LDS church today would not be compelled to accept someone who holds the keys of the kindom, then I would wonder if the LDS church truly is God's church.

I’d say that is one of the primary distinctions made by Mormonism against much of Protestantism. God doesn’t compel. According to LDS theology, compulsion is the program promoted by Satan.

If the keys are bestowed or removed by the vote of humans, then could godhood also be bestowed or removed in the same way?

Your premise is mistaken. The people don’t have the ability to remove the keys from those who have them, but they are expected to decide by vote whether or not to be subject to their spiritual leaders. The benefit from such a system is that there is no question in the church as to who has authority and who doesn’t. It’s a public acknowledgment that guards against pretenders.

I think what matters is if the person is called by God to do His work. Even if there is no recognition by men, it cannot undo the power that has been granted. Greyphilosophy

And that’s how you know who has really been called. Anyone can step forward and claim authority, but the church only recognizes those who do have authority.

Alma

[Alma]

Yesterday @ 08:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=209723#post209723)
John Powell:

POWELL:
What do you think?

I think it’s doubtful. God is never “proposed” for a sustaining vote in LDS assemblies, and there doesn’t seem to be a reason to begin to do so. Additionally, LDS scripture says that “all things are subject unto him, both in heaven and on the earth.” That means that He isn’t subject to anything or anyone.

Are you saying that if one member raises their hand in opposition then the potential leader is considered unsustained until the issue is resolved?

No, but there have been instances when the nomination was withdrawn based upon a sufficient number of opposing votes. (A stake presidency in Cedar City, for example.)

Do you think it's likely that I would be taught in Sunday School, Priesthood meeting and Sacrament Meeting that "when the brethren speak the thinking is done" and that "the prophet will never lead the church astray" and, at the same time, that Joseph Smith tried to remove one of his counselors, but could not because the members wouldn't sustain his decision? What do you think is the likely reason I never heard that in my church instruction? Isn't it because it does not tend to promote faith and obedience?

It looks to me like you’ve now changed the subject. You noted that you had never heard that Joseph Smith had been overruled by a conference vote and you proposed that the reason for your ignorance was because it might make Joseph Smith appear fallible. Now, you throw in a chestnut like the “thinking has been done” (something never taught in church) and add that to a concept regularly taught in Sunday School and priesthood meeting and ask me why you never heard something in church. That is a classsic example of illogic. The fact that you never learned something is the result of you not having applied yourself, not because it was suppressed.

Rather than get drawn into irrelevant rabbit trails like discussing Lee Palmer’s famous 1957 quote from a home teacher’s message (I’m sure you remember the stature of Lee Palmer as an authoritative expositor of LDS doctrine), I’ll point out that the fact that the conference vote overruled Joseph Smith often appears alongside a discussion on the biblical account of the Israelites who overruled Samuel when he told them not to ask for a king. If you had attended an institute of religion course on church history you would have undoubtedly been taught about this event. Ignorance among Mormons isn’t the fault of Mormonism; it’s the fault of ignorant Mormons. The church can compile and publish the histories but it’s the responsibility of individuals to find out what’s in them. So, I’d say the likely reason for you not having encountered this, was because you either didn’t pay attention when it was taught or you never took the initiative to learn what is readily available and appears prominently in church publications. I do find it interesting that you’re so acquainted with the Palmer quote from 1957 but not this.

Partly. Do you deny this? (Alma: that ignorance is someone else’s fault -)

Absolutely. While it is fashionable to be a victim, it’s utterly irresponsible when ignorance is merely an elective.

The issue isn't whether the faithful members would follow God's direction, since that may be true by definition, but whether the actual membership (faithful or otherwise) will always follow the direction of the alleged representatives of God.

How can that be the issue when it is a matter of history that unfaithful members regularly don’t follow the direction of Church leaders?

I recognize that it's an unlikely hypothetical, Alma, having the members not sustain any of the top leadership. Nevertheless, what do you think would happen? Would the presiding bishopric excommunicate the presidency and the apostles and then wait for Jesus to call someone else or what?

Theoretically, if those two quorums were rejected by the conference, the presiding bishopric would probably excommunicate the first presidency and the apostles would then be excommunicated by their individual stake councils. At that point, the first quorum of seventy would be the first presidency. Now, that presupposes that the vote against them is due to unrighteous conduct by church leaders. Brigham Young pointed out in Nauvoo that he and the apostles held the keys and if the people didn’t sustain them, they would go elsewhere and build up the kingdom. There is a revelation I don’t expect you to be familiar with, received by Orson Hyde. After the saints left Nauvoo for the west, Hyde was left in Nauvoo to preside over the church, dedicate the temple and dispose of church property. He was troubled by several pretenders including William Smith, John C. Bennett and James J. Strang. He asked God for instruction on the matter and received a revelation that he printed in his Iowa newspaper, The Frontier Guardian and was later published in the Millennial Star. In it, God assured him that the saints would be an indicator of God’s will: “My people know my voice and also the voice of my spirit, and a stranger they will not follow; …by this you may know the unworthy among my people: for whomsoever they reject, the same are rejected of me.”

I thought in the past the church patriarch was also sustained as a "prophet, seer, and revelator." Is my memory mistaken?

No, your memory isn’t mistaken. He was so sustained. But consider Brigham Young’s comment: “Does a man's being a Prophet in this Church prove that he shall be the President of it? I answer, No! A man may be a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and it may have nothing to do with his being the President of the Church.” The patriarch necessarily needed revelation to function in his duties, but it doesn’t mean that he presides anywhere. Since 1979, the church hasn’t sustained a Church Patriarch.

Alma

[John Powell]

POWELL:
What do you think?

ALMA:
I think it’s doubtful. God is never "proposed" for a sustaining vote in LDS assemblies, and there doesn’t seem to be a reason to begin to do so. Additionally, LDS scripture says that "all things are subject unto him, both in heaven and on the earth." That means that He isn’t subject to anything or anyone.


POWELL:
Thanks for the thoughtful response.

I don't think the fact that God is not proposed for sustaining vote by those on Earth is proof that He is not proposed for sustaining vote by those in the spirit world. The scripture is surely exaggerating unless you're suggesting "heaven" only refers to the near Earth environment and a restricted part of heaven or, if it means all planes of existence both in our universe and outside of it, that Elohim's father is subject to Elohim and any sibling Gods are subject unto their brother.

It's questionable whether God is sovereign over the entire universe. He may only rule over our Galaxy or our part of the Galaxy.

POWELL:
Are you saying that if one member raises their hand in opposition then the potential leader is considered unsustained until the issue is resolved?

ALMA:
No, but there have been instances when the nomination was withdrawn based upon a sufficient number of opposing votes. (A stake presidency in Cedar City, for example.)


POWELL:
Perhaps that's practical.

POWELL:
Do you think it's likely that I would be taught in Sunday School, Priesthood meeting and Sacrament Meeting that "when the brethren speak the thinking is done" and that "the prophet will never lead the church astray" and, at the same time, that Joseph Smith tried to remove one of his counselors, but could not because the members wouldn't sustain his decision? What do you think is the likely reason I never heard that in my church instruction? Isn't it because it does not tend to promote faith and obedience?

ALMA:
It looks to me like you’ve now changed the subject. You noted that you had never heard that Joseph Smith had been overruled by a conference vote and you proposed that the reason for your ignorance was because it might make Joseph Smith appear fallible. Now, you throw in a chestnut like the "thinking has been done" (something never taught in church) and add that to a concept regularly taught in Sunday School and priesthood meeting and ask me why you never heard something in church. That is a classsic example of illogic. The fact that you never learned something is the result of you not having applied yourself, not because it was suppressed.


POWELL:
I never heard about the Smith / Rigdon non-support event in SS, P, or Sac.

The "thinking has been done" idea is something taught in the wards that I've attended. Perhaps it wasn't taught in the wards you've attended. Do you strongly disagree with it? When the prophet speaks do you think the debate is over?

ALMA:
Rather than get drawn into irrelevant rabbit trails like discussing Lee Palmer’s famous 1957 quote from a home teacher’s message (I’m sure you remember the stature of Lee Palmer as an authoritative expositor of LDS doctrine), I’ll point out that the fact that the conference vote overruled Joseph Smith often appears alongside a discussion on the biblical account of the Israelites who overruled Samuel when he told them not to ask for a king. If you had attended an institute of religion course on church history you would have undoubtedly been taught about this event.


POWELL:
Perhaps I would have been taught that in a Church History class. The Samuel example would provide relevance for the Smith / Rigdon event.

I did not attend institute. I attended BYU. I took BOM because that's what was required. I didn't take Church History. Maybe I should have. I was more interested in undestanding the doctrine (especially the mysteries) than knowing the history.

ALMA:
Ignorance among Mormons isn’t the fault of Mormonism; it’s the fault of ignorant Mormons.


POWELL:
Is ignorance among Mormons partly the fault of Mormon teachers?

ALMA:
The church can compile and publish the histories but it’s the responsibility of individuals to find out what’s in them.


POWELL:
Is it partly the responsibility of the teachers to teach them what's there?

ALMA:
So, I’d say the likely reason for you not having encountered this, was because you either didn’t pay attention when it was taught or you never took the initiative to learn what is readily available and appears prominently in church publications.


POWELL:
Are you suggesting that this sort of thing is taught in Sunday School, Priesthood Meetings, and Sacrament Meetings?

ALMA:
I do find it interesting that you’re so acquainted with the Palmer quote from 1957 but not this.


POWELL:
It doesn't seem so strange to me.

POWELL:
Partly. Do you deny this? (Alma: that ignorance is someone else’s fault -)

ALMA:
Absolutely. While it is fashionable to be a victim, it’s utterly irresponsible when ignorance is merely an elective.


POWELL:
If a Mormon child is ignorant of the fourth article of faith by the age of 8 is it the fault of the child or the parents? At what approximate point of maturity is a person's ignorance completely 100% their own fault and not even the tiniest bit the fault of anyone else?

POWELL:
The issue isn't whether the faithful members would follow God's direction, since that may be true by definition, but whether the actual membership (faithful or otherwise) will always follow the direction of the alleged representatives of God.

ALMA:
How can that be the issue when it is a matter of history that unfaithful members regularly don’t follow the direction of Church leaders?


POWELL:
Do you equate "faithful" with "those who always follow the direction of the church leaders"? If so, then it doesn't say much to say that the faithful follow the direction of the church leaders. By referring to actual members, I try to avoid that.

Do you agree that it cannot be justifiably asserted that the actual active members of the church (i.e., those on the membership roles who attend regularly) WILL ALWAYS follow the direction of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve of the church.

POWELL:
I recognize that it's an unlikely hypothetical, Alma, having the members not sustain any of the top leadership. Nevertheless, what do you think would happen? Would the presiding bishopric excommunicate the presidency and the apostles and then wait for Jesus to call someone else or what?

ALMA:
Theoretically, if those two quorums were rejected by the conference, the presiding bishopric would probably excommunicate the first presidency and the apostles would then be excommunicated by their individual stake councils.


POWELL:
Again, I thank you for this thoughtful reply to an unlikely hypothetical.

So the Presiding Bishopric can excommunicate the First Presidency, but not the Apostles, is that right? Who signs the temple recommends for the First Presidency?

POWELL:
At that point, the first quorum of seventy would be the first presidency.


POWELL:
Do they have the requisite keys as a quorum?

ALMA:
Now, that presupposes that the vote against them is due to unrighteous conduct by church leaders.


POWELL:
Of course. The unsupportive members would claim the leadership were doing something wrong.

ALMA:
Brigham Young pointed out in Nauvoo that he and the apostles held the keys and if the people didn’t sustain them, they would go elsewhere and build up the kingdom.


POWELL:
Does this mean that the modern leaders could do the same? If they weren't supported and were excommunicated then they would have God's authority to set up the church elsewhere, say with the members who supported them?

ALMA:
There is a revelation I don’t expect you to be familiar with, received by Orson Hyde. After the saints left Nauvoo for the west, Hyde was left in Nauvoo to preside over the church, dedicate the temple and dispose of church property. He was troubled by several pretenders including William Smith, John C. Bennett and James J. Strang. He asked God for instruction on the matter and received a revelation that he printed in his Iowa newspaper, The Frontier Guardian and was later published in the Millennial Star. In it, God assured him that the saints would be an indicator of God’s will: "My people know my voice and also the voice of my spirit, and a stranger they will not follow; . . . by this you may know the unworthy among my people: for whomsoever they reject, the same are rejected of me."


POWELL:
I think I've heard that before, but I didn't know who said it.

So, if God's people in Nauvoo rejected Brigham Young and the Apostles then Brigham and the Apostles would be rejected of God, right?

POWELL:
I thought in the past the church patriarch was also sustained as a "prophet, seer, and revelator." Is my memory mistaken?

ALMA:
No, your memory isn’t mistaken. He was so sustained. But consider Brigham Young’s comment: "Does a man's being a Prophet in this Church prove that he shall be the President of it? I answer, No! A man may be a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and it may have nothing to do with his being the President of the Church." The patriarch necessarily needed revelation to function in his duties, but it doesn’t mean that he presides anywhere. Since 1979, the church hasn’t sustained a Church Patriarch.

Alma


POWELL:
I suspect that if the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve were not sustained shortly prior to that change then the members would expect the Church Patriarch to be the replacement. Would you agree?

John Powell

[Bill the Cat]

:popcorn:

[Alma]

09-12-2003 @ 07:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=210782#post210782)
John Powell:

I don't think the fact that God is not proposed for sustaining vote by those on Earth is proof that He is not proposed for sustaining vote by those in the spirit world.

I didn’t know I was supposed to offer proof for what “I think.” You asked for my opinion after all.

The scripture is surely exaggerating unless you're suggesting "heaven" only refers to the near Earth environment and a restricted part of heaven or, if it means all planes of existence both in our universe and outside of it, that Elohim's father is subject to Elohim and any sibling Gods are subject unto their brother.

I don’t know - - I believe that “heaven and earth” apply to everything we can perceive. Astronomers theorize that the universe is expanding from a single, central location. Brigham Young said that God resides in the precise center of all his creations. If that were the case, then everything in the universe that we can perceive is expanding from God. Any other ancestor or decendant Gods would have to operate from some place imperceptible to us. (Out of sight, out of mind?)

It's questionable whether God is sovereign over the entire universe. He may only rule over our Galaxy or our part of the Galaxy.

From the perspective of the book of Moses, God has already created an infinite number of worlds. I think that when we think of an “infinite” God who has all power, it’s parochial to presume boundaries.

I never heard about the Smith / Rigdon non-support event in SS, P, or Sac.

I don’t think it’s something you would likely hear in Sacrament meeting but one of the citations I gave you was from a priesthood lesson manual “Church History and Modern Revelation.” I don’t have SS manuals at hand but I wouldn’t be surprised to find it treated in the same lesson as the Samuel account.

The "thinking has been done" idea is something taught in the wards that I've attended. Perhaps it wasn't taught in the wards you've attended. Do you strongly disagree with it?

George Albert Smith disagreed with it withing two months of its publication. The idea that someone else does my thinking is very disagreeable.

When the prophet speaks do you think the debate is over?

Ah, that’s a different circumstance. I wonder how any of the prophets might have reacted to the idea of “let’s debate that subject?”

“Moses, are you finished with those commandments written by God? Now that they’ve been presented, mind if we debate their validity?”

“Paul, I know you don’t like the Judaizers very much, but they have some good points that I think you need to incorporate in your next epistle...., oh, and why don’t we debate about whether it’s wrong for a man to have his father’s wife.”

“James, I know you gave your decision about not requiring circumcision of gentile converts, can we re-address that before it’s made completely official?”

I did not attend institute. I attended BYU. I took BOM because that's what was required. I didn't take Church History. Maybe I should have. I was more interested in undestanding the doctrine (especially the mysteries) than knowing the history.

Nobody told you that’s where the really good mysteries were. Too bad.

Is ignorance among Mormons partly the fault of Mormon teachers?

I don’t think so.

Is it partly the responsibility of the teachers to teach them what's there?

I wonder what the response would be in a college math class if a student complained that he would have known a particular concept if he’d only had better teachers?


Are you suggesting that this sort of thing is taught in Sunday School, Priesthood Meetings, and Sacrament Meetings?

I’m not sure “taught” is the correct verb. I know it’s been discussed in classes I’ve attended (and taught) but there are lots of historical facts that simply don’t fit in the 50 minute time frame.

If a Mormon child is ignorant of the fourth article of faith by the age of 8 is it the fault of the child or the parents?

Why stop there? If the child is ignorant of the Nicene Creed, Calvinism, transubstantiation, the Adam-god theory, astral projection, or calculus, whose fault is it? I don’t think it’s an issue until the individual complains about not every having heard it and offers nefarious reasons for its suppression.

At what approximate point of maturity is a person's ignorance completely 100% their own fault and not even the tiniest bit the fault of anyone else?

I think that depends entirely upon the subject matter, the ability of the student and his opportunities to obtain the information. I might complain that I don’t know Sanscrit and blame my 8th grade Spanish teacher, but that’s hardly a reasonable complaint. On the other hand, a fellow might complain that he’s 40 years old and just found out he’s required to file his taxes every year on April 15th. Who is responsible for his ignorance of tax laws or my ignorance of Sanscrit?

Do you agree that it cannot be justifiably asserted that the actual active members of the church (i.e., those on the membership roles who attend regularly) WILL ALWAYS follow the direction of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve of the church.

Certainly. But when I said they would follow the “direction” it was in the context of sustaining by vote. Those who regularly attend will always sustain the leaders God wants to direct the Church.


So the Presiding Bishopric can excommunicate the First Presidency, but not the Apostles, is that right? Who signs the temple recommends for the First Presidency?

There’s no provision for the latter but there is for the former. The FP sign their own recommends.

POWELL: Do they have the requisite keys as a quorum?

D&C 107 stipulates that the FP, 12 and 70 all form a quorum of equal authority. It’s been historically interpreted to mean that in the event of the loss of the “first” presidency, the 12 become the “first” presidency and they are followed by the 70. So, they do have the requisite keys.

Does this mean that the modern leaders could do the same? If they weren't supported and were excommunicated then they would have God's authority to set up the church elsewhere, say with the members who supported them?

No, I think that in this hypothetical, if they weren’t supported, it would be due to God removing His support from them. BY’s comments preceded Orson Hyde’s revelation, so maybe BY didn’t understand the concept fully.

So, if God's people in Nauvoo rejected Brigham Young and the Apostles then Brigham and the Apostles would be rejected of God, right?

Right.

POWELL:
I suspect that if the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve were not sustained shortly prior to that change then the members would expect the Church Patriarch to be the replacement. Would you agree?

John Powell

Not at all. The 12 appealed to the revelation placing them as equal with the FP. The revelation was well known and it specifies three quorums with equal authority. There’s no indication in any of the revelations that the Patriarch held anything more than authority to give blessings.

Alma

[John Powell]

POWELL:
I don't think the fact that God is not proposed for sustaining vote by those on Earth is proof that He is not proposed for sustaining vote by those in the spirit world.

ALMA:
I didn’t know I was supposed to offer proof for what "I think." You asked for my opinion after all.


POWELL:
You weren't. I was clarifying what I believe (or what I would believe if I still believed in God).

POWELL:
The scripture is surely exaggerating unless you're suggesting "heaven" only refers to the near Earth environment and a restricted part of heaven or, if it means all planes of existence both in our universe and outside of it, that Elohim's father is subject to Elohim and any sibling Gods are subject unto their brother.

ALMA:
I don’t know - -


POWELL:
Neither do I.

ALMA:
- - I believe that "heaven and earth" apply to everything we can perceive.


POWELL:
Could be. Maybe they should be thought of as what people like Moses could perceive, in other words essentially just this small part of the galaxy and an unspecified part of the spirit world.

ALMA:
Astronomers theorize that the universe is expanding from a single, central location. Brigham Young said that God resides in the precise center of all his creations. If that were the case, then everything in the universe that we can perceive is expanding from God.


POWELL:
I believe you are mistaken. In which direction do astronomers suggest this "center" is located? The "center" of the 3-D spacial universe may be analogous to the "center" of the 2-D spacial surface of a sphere and the "center" of the curved line forming a 1-D spacial circle.

If Elohim is only sovereign over a small part of our galaxy then He could be exactly at the center, but only for a moment due to the motion of things like stars within the galaxy.

ALMA:
Any other ancestor or decendant Gods would have to operate from some place imperceptible to us. (Out of sight, out of mind?)


POWELL:
Given your earlier assumption, perhaps yes.

POWELL:
It's questionable whether God is sovereign over the entire universe. He may only rule over our Galaxy or our part of the Galaxy.

ALMA:
From the perspective of the book of Moses, God has already created an infinite number of worlds. I think that when we think of an "infinite" God who has all power, it’s parochial to presume boundaries.


POWELL:
Surely "worlds without number" is an exaggeration. Are you suggesting that God could not write down the number on a piece of paper? Perhaps it meant man didn't know the number and the number was like the "innumerable" stars visible in the nighttime sky. In other words, a few thousand.

POWELL:
I never heard about the Smith / Rigdon non-support event in SS, P, or Sac.

ALMA:
I don’t think it’s something you would likely hear in Sacrament meeting but one of the citations I gave you was from a priesthood lesson manual "Church History and Modern Revelation." I don’t have SS manuals at hand but I wouldn’t be surprised to find it treated in the same lesson as the Samuel account.

POWELL:
The "thinking has been done" idea is something taught in the wards that I've attended. Perhaps it wasn't taught in the wards you've attended. Do you strongly disagree with it?

ALMA:
George Albert Smith disagreed with it withing two months of its publication. The idea that someone else does my thinking is very disagreeable.


POWELL:
Are you suggesting that the meaning of the maxim is that after the Brethren supply their decision on a matter that no one should think about that matter anymore or that they should not seriously debate the matter or what?

POWELL:
When the prophet speaks do you think the debate is over?

ALMA:
Ah, that’s a different circumstance.


POWELL:
Maybe not as much as you suggest. Perhaps the "not thinking" was an exaggeration of "not debating."

ALMA:
I wonder how any of the prophets might have reacted to the idea of "let’s debate that subject?"

"Moses, are you finished with those commandments written by God? Now that they’ve been presented, mind if we debate their validity?"

"Paul, I know you don’t like the Judaizers very much, but they have some good points that I think you need to incorporate in your next epistle...., oh, and why don’t we debate about whether it’s wrong for a man to have his father’s wife."

"James, I know you gave your decision about not requiring circumcision of gentile converts, can we re-address that before it’s made completely official?"


POWELL:
Well, aren't there cases in which God made His will known, yet His prophets continued "debating" the issue with Him?

POWELL:
I did not attend institute. I attended BYU. I took BOM because that's what was required. I didn't take Church History. Maybe I should have. I was more interested in undestanding the doctrine (especially the mysteries) than knowing the history.

ALMA:
Nobody told you that’s where the really good mysteries were. Too bad.

POWELL:
Is ignorance among Mormons partly the fault of Mormon teachers?

ALMA:
I don’t think so.


POWELL:
This might contradict what you say below in the paragraph about Sanskrit and taxes.

POWELL:
Is it partly the responsibility of the teachers to teach them what's there?

ALMA:
I wonder what the response would be in a college math class if a student complained that he would have known a particular concept if he’d only had better teachers?


POWELL:
The wise ones would note that the student had A LOT of responsibility to learn it despite the quality of his teachers (assuming the teachers weren't incompetent), but it's true that he might have learned it if he had had better teachers, such as God.

POWELL:
Are you suggesting that this sort of thing is taught in Sunday School, Priesthood Meetings, and Sacrament Meetings?

ALMA:
I’m not sure "taught" is the correct verb. I know it’s been discussed in classes I’ve attended (and taught) but there are lots of historical facts that simply don’t fit in the 50 minute time frame.


POWELL:
Ok.

POWELL:
If a Mormon child is ignorant of the fourth article of faith by the age of 8 is it the fault of the child or the parents?

ALMA:
Why stop there? If the child is ignorant of the Nicene Creed, Calvinism, transubstantiation, the Adam-god theory, astral projection, or calculus, whose fault is it? I don’t think it’s an issue until the individual complains about not every having heard it and offers nefarious reasons for its suppression.


POWELL:
Rather than "and" above (emphasis mine), I think you mean "especially if he/she." Is that correct?

POWELL:
At what approximate point of maturity is a person's ignorance completely 100% their own fault and not even the tiniest bit the fault of anyone else?

ALMA:
I think that depends entirely upon the subject matter, the ability of the student and his opportunities to obtain the information. I might complain that I don’t know Sanscrit and blame my 8th grade Spanish teacher, but that’s hardly a reasonable complaint. On the other hand, a fellow might complain that he’s 40 years old and just found out he’s required to file his taxes every year on April 15th.


POWELL:
So, do you concede that the responsibility is not entirely 100% upon the individual, but how much responsibility depends on the subject matter?

ALMA:
Whose responsible for his ignorance of tax laws or my ignorance of Sanscrit?


POWELL:
Mostly his (few 40 year-olds don't know this), partly society (for not making the knowledge even more widespread).

Mostly society (they don't think learning Sanskrit is nearly as important for an 8th grader as learning Spanish and other things), but partly your own (you could decide to learn it on your own.)

Do you agree?

POWELL:
Do you agree that it cannot be justifiably asserted that the actual active members of the church (i.e., those on the membership roles who attend regularly) WILL ALWAYS follow the direction of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve of the church.

ALMA:
Certainly. But when I said they would follow the "direction" it was in the context of sustaining by vote. Those who regularly attend will always sustain the leaders God wants to direct the Church.


POWELL:
I was asking if you agree that it CANNOT be justifiably asserted. You seem to be contradicting that.

Will the active members ALWAYS follow the direction of the FP and Q12? Will they ALWAYS sustain the leaders God wants to direct the Church? To justifiably say "always" implies they have to do it. They don't have a choice.

POWELL:
So the Presiding Bishopric can excommunicate the First Presidency, but not the Apostles, is that right? Who signs the temple recommends for the First Presidency?

ALMA:
There’s no provision for the latter but there is for the former. The FP sign their own recommends.


POWELL:
Ok.

POWELL:
Do they have the requisite keys as a quorum?

ALMA:
D&C 107 stipulates that the FP, 12 and 70 all form a quorum of equal authority. It’s been historically interpreted to mean that in the event of the loss of the "first" presidency, the 12 become the "first" presidency and they are followed by the 70. So, they do have the requisite keys.


POWELL:
Sounds right.

POWELL:
Does this mean that the modern leaders could do the same? If they weren't supported and were excommunicated then they would have God's authority to set up the church elsewhere, say with the members who supported them?

ALMA:
No, I think that in this hypothetical, if they weren’t supported, it would be due to God removing His support from them. BY’s comments preceded Orson Hyde’s revelation, so maybe BY didn’t understand the concept fully.


POWELL:
I wondered which way you would go with this problem, Alma. I would have gone the other way siding with BY and assuming JS decided to go along with the members on the Rigdon issue, but that JS didn't have to.

When you submitted the quote by BY, Alma, did you realize that it might be mistaken since maybe BY didn't understand the concept fully, or did you think it was true?

Now the problem is how to resolve the apparent discrepancies between Joseph making executive decisions contrary to the wishes of God and the wishes of the membership and Brigham promising to do so constrasted with other claims that the prophet will never lead the church astray. How do you resolve these apparently contradictory things, Alma?

POWELL:
So, if God's people in Nauvoo rejected Brigham Young and the Apostles then Brigham and the Apostles would be rejected of God, right?

ALMA:
Right.


POWELL:
You now appear to be consistent on that issue.

POWELL:
I suspect that if the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve were not sustained shortly prior to that change then the members would expect the Church Patriarch to be the replacement. Would you agree?

ALMA:
Not at all. The 12 appealed to the revelation placing them as equal with the FP. The revelation was well known and it specifies three quorums with equal authority. There’s no indication in any of the revelations that the Patriarch held anything more than authority to give blessings.


POWELL:
Perhaps the Patriarch-supporters would be in the minority.

John Powell