Succession of power

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
User avatar
gradles21
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1328
Location: Weimar

Succession of power

Post by gradles21 »

First of all, in no way, shape, or form does my faith and testimony hinge on this subject, but it is something that has always bothered me a bit, and that is the set pattern of how our new prophets are called. Does anyone have any insight on this other than the standard "it's the lords pattern" answer that everyone gives? To me it's just for the brethren to avoid a big conflict within the quorum, but I could be way off.

gardener4life
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1690

Re: Succession of power

Post by gardener4life »

The Lord's pattern doesn't start when they die. It starts with how they interact with each other. They pray mightily for the spirit and for the spirit to guide them in unity and to work together. Then they do everything united. If its not united then they don't do it or they talk about their inspirations and feel the Spirit together until they do. So they use the spirit of the Lord, the scriptures, love, humility, diligence, unity, and courage to work together with no contention, no anger, no disrespect, no inequality...I could go on.

Everything comes down to the Spirit guiding and directing the work. And as you prayerfully meditate and consider this it will all start to become clear to you that it really is inspired and the best way to do it. When the Spirit directs them then they follow it even when it takes courage.

Then when one of them is replaced its very natural that they still use that same process they were using all along. The meaning of this becomes clear. It's just like they are acting as if Christ was in the room leading them all along, and no different than if he were in the room.

gardener4life
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1690

Re: Succession of power

Post by gardener4life »

CelestialAngel wrote: January 3rd, 2018, 2:10 pm I think it goes back to how there were multiple claims to being the successor to Joseph Smith. Sidney Rigdon thought he was the rightful successor because he was the first counselor in the First Presidency, while Brigham Young believed as President of the Q12 he had the keys still and then there was Joseph Smith's son thinking it was a dynasty.
I'm sure you know this already but for those that don't I'm restating it.

Sidney Rigdon had also fallen away. He had fallen so hard that he was actually working against the church and the apostles. And they knew it. When the Kirtland persecutions were happening more than half of the stalwarts around Joseph Smith fell away. Only Brigham Young, Heber C Kimball, and a few others like Wilford Woodruff were truly with them all the way without falling away or becoming paralyzed with fear even if they didn't fall away.

So Sidney Rigdon never was able to be a worthy successor for more reasons than just his place in the order of organization. People also knew that he'd fallen away.

There is a wonderful example too of Oliver Cowdery. As some of you know, Oliver Cowdery fell away for a time. But he came back! That's the important thing! And when he came back he didn't demand to be the leader! He begged to be accepted as the least among among them. And that's so beautiful that he could have that loyalty that he wouldn't demand a place in pride even though he must have been full of fear and self conscious that everyone knew he'd fallen away while he was praying to be accepted as just a normal member. How courageous it must have been to ask to be let beg in without letting his fear get to him! What a hero!

e-eye2.0
captain of 100
Posts: 454

Re: Succession of power

Post by e-eye2.0 »

The prophet calls the next prophet if you really think about it. President Nelson was called when he was set apart before Elder Oaks even though both were called the same day. Now the Lord gives the inspiration and he takes who he takes to the other side but Elder Nelson was called long ago. I think 20 years ago I would have been a little surprised to see Elder Nelson ever get called due to him being 3 years older than Elder Monson but it looks like he will be the next prophet. I noticed a change in President Nelson when Elder Packer passed away - his stature and mantle seemed to increase and you could hear it in his voice and by the words he shared in conference.

User avatar
gradles21
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1328
Location: Weimar

Re: Succession of power

Post by gradles21 »

e-eye2.0 wrote: January 3rd, 2018, 2:32 pm I noticed a change in President Nelson when Elder Packer passed away - his stature and mantle seemed to increase and you could hear it in his voice and by the words he shared in conference.
I agree, I actually remember having distinct feeling that he would be our prophet at the next general conference. And I'm not saying that I think the way it's done is wrong, I've just never heard an answer to this question that satisfies my curiosity, especially since none of the other callings in our church are given this way, with the exception being president of the Quorum of the twelve.

User avatar
ParticleMan
captain of 100
Posts: 723

Re: Succession of power

Post by ParticleMan »

gradles21 wrote: January 3rd, 2018, 1:14 pm First of all, in no way, shape, or form does my faith and testimony hinge on this subject, but it is something that has always bothered me a bit, and that is the set pattern of how our new prophets are called. Does anyone have any insight on this other than the standard "it's the lords pattern" answer that everyone gives? To me it's just for the brethren to avoid a big conflict within the quorum, but I could be way off.
Assuming or assigning a motive is usually a bad idea.

But the model for succession of the president, through apostleship seniority, can be seen in Peter:
* "Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter..." (Matt. 10:2-4).
* The ostensible First Presidency is always listed in this order: Peter, James, and John.
* John lets Peter enter the sepulcher first (John 20:3-8).
Last edited by ParticleMan on January 3rd, 2018, 3:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Robin Hood
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13112
Location: England

Re: Succession of power

Post by Robin Hood »

Given President Nelson's advanced age, I suspect we may be talking about this issue again quite soon.

User avatar
iWriteStuff
blithering blabbermouth
Posts: 5523
Location: Sinope
Contact:

Re: Succession of power

Post by iWriteStuff »

Robin Hood wrote: January 3rd, 2018, 3:47 pm Given President Nelson's advanced age, I suspect we may be talking about this issue again quite soon.
93 is the new 63, especially for heart surgeons who know how to take care of themselves ;) I bet he's around for at least a decade.

Stourme
captain of 100
Posts: 324

Re: Succession of power

Post by Stourme »

gradles21 wrote: January 3rd, 2018, 1:14 pm First of all, in no way, shape, or form does my faith and testimony hinge on this subject, but it is something that has always bothered me a bit, and that is the set pattern of how our new prophets are called. Does anyone have any insight on this other than the standard "it's the lords pattern" answer that everyone gives? To me it's just for the brethren to avoid a big conflict within the quorum, but I could be way off.
Dan 2:
44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

Daniel prophesied about the restored Church. The key here is "shall not be left to other people". The Lord has direct control of who is running the restored Church. This is also is shown in Rev 11.

4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.

Two prophets that will be killed in the streets of Jerusalem, God knew who they were before the foundation of the earth was even laid. God has placed all the spirits that will be called to lead His kingdom in their places. Apostles aren't "picked". They are raised up and called by God Himself.

eddie
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2405

Re: Succession of power

Post by eddie »

Russell M. Nelson is an amazing man!

He was an M.D. at age 22, graduating with highest honors. He made medical history working with a team to develop
a machine that took over the heart and lung functions during open heart surgery. He did open heart surgery on Elder Spencer W. Kimball and received witness he would one day be President of the church.
He served 2 years in the US Army during the Korean War doing medical service.
He has given years of church service, when he was called to the quorum of 12 in 1974 he said,
" I have a deep and abiding faith in God and His Son Jesus Christ, the work I'm now engaged in is the most important cause in the world and I must do my best."

Michelle
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1795

Re: Succession of power

Post by Michelle »

iWriteStuff wrote: January 3rd, 2018, 3:51 pm
Robin Hood wrote: January 3rd, 2018, 3:47 pm Given President Nelson's advanced age, I suspect we may be talking about this issue again quite soon.
93 is the new 63, especially for heart surgeons who know how to take care of themselves ;) I bet he's around for at least a decade.
That's how I feel about his as well. His last few devotionals on being "millennials" have been amazing and powerful.

Plus he speaks Chinese right? And he is respected in that country. Great time to have China open up. ;)

DesertWonderer2
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1164

Re: Succession of power

Post by DesertWonderer2 »

Can you think of a better way to consistently have the best leader for the church than to choose the most senior / the one w the most experience of the apostles? I can’t.

As a side note, I have a friend that is a Equption Coptic Christian. Their hierarchy is quite similar to ours: 12 apostles and one leader over all of them. When the leader dies, they draw straws to decide who the next prophetis. The straws are hel or carried by a child to ensure no guile in the process. They belive that the lot will fall on whoever it is God’swill for it to be.

Likewise whoever of our apostles out lives the reat, I’m confident that it is God’s will.

User avatar
cyclOps
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1354

Re: Succession of power

Post by cyclOps »

gradles21 wrote: January 3rd, 2018, 2:42 pm
e-eye2.0 wrote: January 3rd, 2018, 2:32 pm I noticed a change in President Nelson when Elder Packer passed away - his stature and mantle seemed to increase and you could hear it in his voice and by the words he shared in conference.
I agree, I actually remember having distinct feeling that he would be our prophet at the next general conference. And I'm not saying that I think the way it's done is wrong, I've just never heard an answer to this question that satisfies my curiosity, especially since none of the other callings in our church are given this way, with the exception being president of the Quorum of the twelve.
Well there is no first presidency right now. President Nelson is the president of the quorum of the twelve (which is now 13 with the addition of Elders Eyring and Uchtdorf and the loss of Elder Hales). He is the president of the highest quorum in the church. He is already the president of the church right now.

User avatar
kittycat51
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1794
Location: Looking for Zion

Re: Succession of power

Post by kittycat51 »

eddie wrote: January 3rd, 2018, 4:11 pm Russell M. Nelson is an amazing man!

He was an M.D. at age 22, graduating with highest honors. He made medical history working with a team to develop
a machine that took over the heart and lung functions during open heart surgery. He did open heart surgery on Elder Spencer W. Kimball and received witness he would one day be President of the church.
He served 2 years in the US Army during the Korean War doing medical service.
He has given years of church service, when he was called to the quorum of 12 in 1974 he said,
" I have a deep and abiding faith in God and His Son Jesus Christ, the work I'm now engaged in is the most important cause in the world and I must do my best."
President Nelson was ordained to the 12 in 1984, not 1974. I remember well because I was in High School and I remember the "new Apostles" (Nelson and Oaks) being added to the walls in my Seminary classroom. ;)

User avatar
kittycat51
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1794
Location: Looking for Zion

Re: Succession of power

Post by kittycat51 »

Robin Hood wrote: January 3rd, 2018, 3:47 pm Given President Nelson's advanced age, I suspect we may be talking about this issue again quite soon.
President Hinckley lived to be 97½. President Nelson is just as spry. :)

User avatar
Thinker
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12975
Location: The Universe - wherever that is.

Re: Succession of power

Post by Thinker »

Maybe it's just me, but it seems that once a person in such capacity gets mentally impaired due to old-age related issues, it might be a godly thing to allow them to retire - for their and others' benefit.

I suppose that the egos/pride of people require that succession of power be dictated by death, rather than any person or group. But it's too bad - for all - that a better alternative can't be achieved.

DesertWonderer2
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1164

Re: Succession of power

Post by DesertWonderer2 »

Thinker wrote: January 3rd, 2018, 7:16 pm Maybe it's just me, but it seems that once a person in such capacity gets mentally impaired due to old-age related issues, it might be a godly thing to allow them to retire - for their and others' benefit.

I suppose that the egos/pride of people require that succession of power be dictated by death, rather than any person or group. But it's too bad - for all - that a better alternative can't be achieved.
Yes; it’s just you.

eddie
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2405

Re: Succession of power

Post by eddie »

kittycat51 wrote: January 3rd, 2018, 7:00 pm
eddie wrote: January 3rd, 2018, 4:11 pm Russell M. Nelson is an amazing man!

He was an M.D. at age 22, graduating with highest honors. He made medical history working with a team to develop
a machine that took over the heart and lung functions during open heart surgery. He did open heart surgery on Elder Spencer W. Kimball and received witness he would one day be President of the church.
He served 2 years in the US Army during the Korean War doing medical service.
He has given years of church service, when he was called to the quorum of 12 in 1974 he said,
" I have a deep and abiding faith in God and His Son Jesus Christ, the work I'm now engaged in is the most important cause in the world and I must do my best."
President Nelson was ordained to the 12 in 1984, not 1974. I remember well because I was in High School and I remember the "new Apostles" (Nelson and Oaks) being added to the walls in my Seminary classroom. ;)
Thanks for the correction, I read 1974.

brianj
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4066
Location: Vineyard, Utah

Re: Succession of power

Post by brianj »

CelestialAngel wrote: January 3rd, 2018, 2:10 pm I think it goes back to how there were multiple claims to being the successor to Joseph Smith. Sidney Rigdon thought he was the rightful successor because he was the first counselor in the First Presidency, while Brigham Young believed as President of the Q12 he had the keys still and then there was Joseph Smith's son thinking it was a dynasty.
Point of contention: Joseph Smith III was born in November 1832 so he was only 11 when his father died. He didn't claim to be a church leader until 1860, at which time (I understand) he took over what was left of James Strang's followers.

User avatar
Robin Hood
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13112
Location: England

Re: Succession of power

Post by Robin Hood »

iWriteStuff wrote: January 3rd, 2018, 3:51 pm
Robin Hood wrote: January 3rd, 2018, 3:47 pm Given President Nelson's advanced age, I suspect we may be talking about this issue again quite soon.
93 is the new 63, especially for heart surgeons who know how to take care of themselves ;) I bet he's around for at least a decade.
I met him a little over a year ago.
Sad to say but believe me, he will not be president for long.

brianj
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4066
Location: Vineyard, Utah

Re: Succession of power

Post by brianj »

e-eye2.0 wrote: January 3rd, 2018, 2:32 pm The prophet calls the next prophet if you really think about it. President Nelson was called when he was set apart before Elder Oaks even though both were called the same day. Now the Lord gives the inspiration and he takes who he takes to the other side but Elder Nelson was called long ago. I think 20 years ago I would have been a little surprised to see Elder Nelson ever get called due to him being 3 years older than Elder Monson but it looks like he will be the next prophet. I noticed a change in President Nelson when Elder Packer passed away - his stature and mantle seemed to increase and you could hear it in his voice and by the words he shared in conference.
I don't think the general church membership has ever received full details of when these men were called as Apostles. They were sustained in the April 1984 conference, and Elder Nelson was ordained five days later. Elder Oaks could not be ordained until he finished his session on the Utah Supreme Court, so he was ordained nearly a month after he was sustained.

User avatar
Robin Hood
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13112
Location: England

Re: Succession of power

Post by Robin Hood »

brianj wrote: January 3rd, 2018, 11:16 pm
CelestialAngel wrote: January 3rd, 2018, 2:10 pm I think it goes back to how there were multiple claims to being the successor to Joseph Smith. Sidney Rigdon thought he was the rightful successor because he was the first counselor in the First Presidency, while Brigham Young believed as President of the Q12 he had the keys still and then there was Joseph Smith's son thinking it was a dynasty.
Point of contention: Joseph Smith III was born in November 1832 so he was only 11 when his father died. He didn't claim to be a church leader until 1860, at which time (I understand) he took over what was left of James Strang's followers.
That is not quite how it played out.
At the time of the martyrdom it was generally understood that JSIII was destined to succeed his father. In fact, when Rigdon arrived in Nauvoo claiming he should be guardian of the church for Joseph, he was referring to the 11 year old, not the dead prophet.
Later, even Brigham acknowledged that should JSIII come to Utah he would be accorded his rightful place.
It does appear that the Prophet publicly and privately designated his son as his successor.

Those who consisted of the early RLDS were a collection of saints who had either become disillusioned with various factional leaders, including James Strang, Brigham Young, Sidney Rigdon, William Smith et al, or had kept themselves aloof from the various claims, or who were members of branches far away from Nauvoo who were left behind following the migration west and, though initially loyal to the Twelve, lost contact with the church in the west.

Some of the original movers within the Reorganisation were new to the restoration movement altogether, as the initial gathering around the cause began in 1852 and enjoyed significant early missionary success.JSIII didn't agree to lead the RLDS until 1860.

drtanner
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1850

Re: Succession of power

Post by drtanner »

Robin Hood wrote: January 3rd, 2018, 11:38 pm
brianj wrote: January 3rd, 2018, 11:16 pm
CelestialAngel wrote: January 3rd, 2018, 2:10 pm I think it goes back to how there were multiple claims to being the successor to Joseph Smith. Sidney Rigdon thought he was the rightful successor because he was the first counselor in the First Presidency, while Brigham Young believed as President of the Q12 he had the keys still and then there was Joseph Smith's son thinking it was a dynasty.
Point of contention: Joseph Smith III was born in November 1832 so he was only 11 when his father died. He didn't claim to be a church leader until 1860, at which time (I understand) he took over what was left of James Strang's followers.
That is not quite how it played out.
At the time of the martyrdom it was generally understood that JSIII was destined to succeed his father. In fact, when Rigdon arrived in Nauvoo claiming he should be guardian of the church for Joseph, he was referring to the 11 year old, not the dead prophet.
Later, even Brigham acknowledged that should JSIII come to Utah he would be accorded his rightful place.
It does appear that the Prophet publicly and privately designated his son as his successor.

Where does it appear that Joseph designated his son?

User avatar
Robin Hood
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13112
Location: England

Re: Succession of power

Post by Robin Hood »

drtanner wrote: January 4th, 2018, 12:11 am
Robin Hood wrote: January 3rd, 2018, 11:38 pm
brianj wrote: January 3rd, 2018, 11:16 pm
CelestialAngel wrote: January 3rd, 2018, 2:10 pm I think it goes back to how there were multiple claims to being the successor to Joseph Smith. Sidney Rigdon thought he was the rightful successor because he was the first counselor in the First Presidency, while Brigham Young believed as President of the Q12 he had the keys still and then there was Joseph Smith's son thinking it was a dynasty.
Point of contention: Joseph Smith III was born in November 1832 so he was only 11 when his father died. He didn't claim to be a church leader until 1860, at which time (I understand) he took over what was left of James Strang's followers.
That is not quite how it played out.
At the time of the martyrdom it was generally understood that JSIII was destined to succeed his father. In fact, when Rigdon arrived in Nauvoo claiming he should be guardian of the church for Joseph, he was referring to the 11 year old, not the dead prophet.
Later, even Brigham acknowledged that should JSIII come to Utah he would be accorded his rightful place.
It does appear that the Prophet publicly and privately designated his son as his successor.

Where does it appear that Joseph designated his son?
There are a number of accounts.
At least one was in public at a church conference.
I'll dig out some references when I have some time.

Vision
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2324
Location: Behind the Zion Curtain

Re: Succession of power

Post by Vision »

Michelle wrote: January 3rd, 2018, 4:36 pmChina open up. ;)
Missionaries have been to China twice already, in the late 1800's and again in the 1920's.

Post Reply