Succession of power

[Michelle]

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.

Well, I hope you're wrong! I'd be ok with a President Oaks as well, but of course it's not my church, it's His.

I'm really excited for Prophet Nelson and President Oaks! Two very experienced and intelligent men, not to mention spiritual giants.

[inho]

The Prophet Joseph had no authority to appoint anyone as the next prophet let alone his son.

Funny that you say that. During his lifetime Joseph made several conflicting remarks about succession. But one of them has some scriptural support:

D&C 43
3 And this ye shall know assuredly—that there is none other appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations until he be taken, if he abide in me.

4 But verily, verily, I say unto you, that none else shall be appointed unto this gift except it be through him; for if it be taken from him he shall not have power except to appoint another in his stead.

Some interpreted that as a permission for Joseph to appoint his successor.

In retrospective, it is easy to say that the Twelve had the right to lead the church after the martyrdom. But it was nothing but clear for those who lived then. Joseph had not explained the method of succession in public. The meeting were Joseph gave his last charge to the Twelve, saying "I roll the burthen and responsibility of leading this church off from my shoulders on to yours", was a meeting of the Council of Fifty. It was not a public meeting. Instead, Joseph had made publicly some remarks about his successor that was not in harmony with the last charge to the Twelve. Those remarks included the idea that his son Joseph III would be the rightful heir. Brigham Young seemed to believe that for some time. Brigham said once in a sermon:

What of Joseph Smith's family? What of his boys? I have prayed from the beginning for sister Emma and for the whole family. There is not a man in this Church that has entertained better feelings towards them. Joseph said to me, “God will take care of my children when I am taken.” They are in the hands of God, and when they make their appearance before this people, full of his power, there are none but what will say—“Amen! We are ready to receive you.”
The brethren testify that brother Brigham is brother Joseph's legal successor. You never heard me say so. I say that I am a good hand to keep the dogs and wolves out of the flock. I do not care a groat who rises up. I do not think anything about being Joseph's successor.

BY June 3 1860, JoD 8:69

Here are some articles about the succession crisis of 1844:
The Mormon Succession Crisis of 1844 by D. Michael Quinn
Joseph, Brigham and the Twelve: A Succession of Continuity by Ronald K. Esplin
I Roll the Burthen and Responsibility of Leading This Church Off from My Shoulders on to Yours:The 1844/1845 Declaration of the Quorum of the Twelve Regarding Apostolic Succession by Alexander L. Baugh

[Robin Hood]

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.

The Prophet Joseph had no authority to appoint anyone as the next prophet let alone his son. And Joseph knew that better than anyone on earth.

I'm afraid you are mistaken on this issue.
D&C 43 clearly states that Joseph has the right to designate his successor. It even says that even if he sins sufficient to lose his prophetic power, he will retain enough to be able to appoint his successor.
Not only that, but Brigham Young even admitted that Joseph appointed a successor! (Hyrum)

The idea of succession through the Twelve never entered anyone's head while Joseph was alive.

[Stourme]

I'm afraid you are mistaken on this issue.
D&C 43 clearly states that Joseph has the right to designate his successor. It even says that even if he sins sufficient to lose his prophetic power, he will retain enough to be able to appoint his successor.
Not only that, but Brigham Young even admitted that Joseph appointed a successor! (Hyrum)

The idea of succession through the Twelve never entered anyone's head while Joseph was alive.

No it does NOT clearly state. I'm not going to criticize you for your post, but at least with this subject there is something missing in the basic understanding
of how the gospel was restored and how it operates.

No one is designated or appointed in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Every single position is called first by the Spirit of the Lord, then set apart by laying on of hands by someone in authority by the priesthood.

The Prophet Joseph Smith did NOT live by a different set of rules. The same God that visited Joseph in the sacred grove planned and presided over the whole thing and has since the Church was founded.

Section 43:
2 For behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, that ye have received a commandment for a law unto my church, through him whom I have appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations from my hand.

3 And this ye shall know assuredly—that there is none other appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations until he be taken, if he abide in me.

This scripture applies to every President of the Church, not just Joseph. There's only one that can speak for the Church.

4 But verily, verily, I say unto you, that none else shall be appointed unto this gift except it be through him; for if it be taken from him he shall not have power except to appoint another in his stead.

5 And this shall be a law unto you, that ye receive not the teachings of any that shall come before you as revelations or commandments;

The Lord is clarifying the line of authority for receiving revelation for the Church as a whole. The "another" that the Lord is speaking of are those that have already been called through revelation and given the keys through the laying on of hands. The Apostles are called and set apart as prophets, seers, and revelators. And then it still has has to be approved by the Lord and sustained by the Quorum of the Twelve.

There were apostates in the Church during that time and some tried to reject Joseph as the Prophet. So again, the Lord is laying down the rules. All revelation for the Church has to come through the Prophet. Even if the Lord were to remove his prophetic gift, Joseph would still have to be the one that called someone to act in his place. Because, it's revelation for the Church and revelation for the Church has to come through the Prophet.

It has NOTHING to do with Joseph choosing who is the prophet after he dies. That's false doctrine.

What you're suggesting is that Joseph was a fallen prophet that made an assignment that some how didn't come to pass. And that some how the Lord didn't bother revealing to His Apostles who and how the next prophet should be chosen.

[djinwa]

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.

Actually, I agree with Thinker. Hope they don't get to the stage of drooling and needing to be propped up in conference.

[Michelle]

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.

Actually, I agree with Thinker. Hope they don't get to the stage of drooling and needing to be propped up in conference.

We've already had multiple prophets and apostles incapacitated with old age. The remaining members of the 1st presidency and quorum pick up the slack.

Why would that change?

[iWriteStuff]

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.

Actually, I agree with Thinker. Hope they don't get to the stage of drooling and needing to be propped up in conference.

We've already had multiple prophets and apostles incapacitated with old age. The remaining members of the 1st presidency and quorum pick up the slack.

Why would that change?

Moses was 120 when he was finally released from his calling. Not to mention there were portions of his ministry where his counselors literally had to hold up his hands.

If it was good enough for the Israelites, it's good enough for me.

[Robin Hood]

I'm afraid you are mistaken on this issue.
D&C 43 clearly states that Joseph has the right to designate his successor. It even says that even if he sins sufficient to lose his prophetic power, he will retain enough to be able to appoint his successor.
Not only that, but Brigham Young even admitted that Joseph appointed a successor! (Hyrum)

The idea of succession through the Twelve never entered anyone's head while Joseph was alive.

No it does NOT clearly state. I'm not going to criticize you for your post, but at least with this subject there is something missing in the basic understanding
of how the gospel was restored and how it operates.

No one is designated or appointed in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Every single position is called first by the Spirit of the Lord, then set apart by laying on of hands by someone in authority by the priesthood.

The Prophet Joseph Smith did NOT live by a different set of rules. The same God that visited Joseph in the sacred grove planned and presided over the whole thing and has since the Church was founded.

Section 43:
2 For behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, that ye have received a commandment for a law unto my church, through him whom I have appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations from my hand.

3 And this ye shall know assuredly—that there is none other appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations until he be taken, if he abide in me.

This scripture applies to every President of the Church, not just Joseph. There's only one that can speak for the Church.

4 But verily, verily, I say unto you, that none else shall be appointed unto this gift except it be through him; for if it be taken from him he shall not have power except to appoint another in his stead.

5 And this shall be a law unto you, that ye receive not the teachings of any that shall come before you as revelations or commandments;

The Lord is clarifying the line of authority for receiving revelation for the Church as a whole. The "another" that the Lord is speaking of are those that have already been called through revelation and given the keys through the laying on of hands. The Apostles are called and set apart as prophets, seers, and revelators. And then it still has has to be approved by the Lord and sustained by the Quorum of the Twelve.

There were apostates in the Church during that time and some tried to reject Joseph as the Prophet. So again, the Lord is laying down the rules. All revelation for the Church has to come through the Prophet. Even if the Lord were to remove his prophetic gift, Joseph would still have to be the one that called someone to act in his place. Because, it's revelation for the Church and revelation for the Church has to come through the Prophet.

It has NOTHING to do with Joseph choosing who is the prophet after he dies. That's false doctrine.

What you're suggesting is that Joseph was a fallen prophet that made an assignment that some how didn't come to pass. And that some how the Lord didn't bother revealing to His Apostles who and how the next prophet should be chosen.

I refer you once again to D&C 43.
I am not suggesting Joseph was a fallen prophet... not at all. I have no idea where you got that from.
The fact is that Joseph did indeed designate a successor. It is a matter or record that he designated Hyrum, and even announced that all future revelations for the church will come through his brother.
I'm not saying the present system is wrong, I'm just saying that it was not considered as an option.... by anyone.... including Brigham.
I believe it is pretty clear that had Emma and the children gone west with the Saints, JSIII would have been set apart as president of the church when he came of age. Once it became obvious that wasn't going to happen Brigham acknowledged the fact, but even then held out hope that Joseph's youngest son, David, would come forward. He didn't.

What we have at the present time is an apostolic administration. Nothing wrong with that, but as is clear from scripture, it isn't the only way things can be done.

[RAB]

Having read all of the volumes of Church History, it is true that Joseph did appoint Hyrum as his successor. He was pretty fed up when the bretheren would not support a release of Sydney Rigdon, and he wanted to turn it all over to Hyrum. But that was not the Lord’s plan. Is it any wonder the only two people killed at Carthage were Joseph and the person he had appointed as his successor, Hyrum? That is because once the apostles had been restored, which was the organization of Christ’s first Christian Church, the Church would again be led by apostles. Only apostles hold all of the keys of the kingdom that Joseph held, and therefore, only they can set one apart as the president of the Church. The Lord influences when apostles are called and can take them at anytime. It makes sense that the apostle with the most experience serving should preside over the Church. Had Joseph’s sons come to Utah, it is very likely they would have been called as apostles, just as Hyrum’s son and grand son were, and both served as prophets. Unfortunately, that did not happen.

[Joel]

[Mindfields]

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.

I can. He would be called by God directly like every true Prophet before Brigham Young was.

The idea that the senior Apostle would always be the next Prophet when the sitting Prophet dies is a construct of man not of God. If of God there would be a revelation stating as much.

[gardener4life]

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.

I can. He would be called by God directly like every true Prophet before Brigham Young was.

The idea that the senior Apostle would always be the next Prophet when the sitting Prophet dies is a construct of man not of God. If of God there would be a revelation stating as much.

Yeah but EVERYONE is going to say I'm called by God! I'm the prophet! (Even though I'm not even a member, or of another faith.) Nothing has really changed since Joseph Smith's day. He recounts how everyone claimed to have the truth and that would be the same as succession claims.

SO you can see why God will slowly move around his people by seniority and enduring to the end.

Also I would point out some differences. People of the world will say or think in terms of 'power' 'ruling over others' 'king', but people of God will think more like authority/representative of God/ and 'teacher'.

[shadow]

How did Joseph Smith call Prophets, Seers and Revelators?

I'm sure most of you are aware that all the Apostles are Prophets. They are called the same way Joseph called Apostles. Joseph gave the Apostles all the keys he had. This has been God's pattern since the restoration. It's in the Doctrine and Covenants. It's not man's way, it's God's way in the latter days.

[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.

Yes; it’s just you.

Actually, I agree with Thinker. Hope they don't get to the stage of drooling and needing to be propped up in conference.

We've already had multiple prophets and apostles incapacitated with old age. The remaining members of the 1st presidency and quorum pick up the slack.

Why would that change?

Because the church is in fatal need of leadership now more than ever before???
And because so many are leaving the church partly because they're looking for better spiritual guidance in such a troubled world.

[Thinker]

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.

I can. He would be called by God directly like every true Prophet before Brigham Young was.

The idea that the senior Apostle would always be the next Prophet when the sitting Prophet dies is a construct of man not of God. If of God there would be a revelation stating as much.

I agree, and I'd say the more correct term is simply, "President of the Church."
Still, maybe this is the best the church can come up with. Ideally, yes, each prophet would actually act as a prophet (prophecy, see a better future and actively lead people to it) and ideally, God would clearly make it known who that was to be. But as we know, in and out of the church, egos rule.

IMO, Prophets specific to our church, did kind of stop about Joseph Smith. Maybe prophets are kind of a one-time thing and no succession dynasty or whatever. Yesterday, I thought of how Martin Luther King Jr. was a true prophet - in word and deed. He was called of God, not by a group of people in a religious ceremony but by God. He saw a dream of a better future and actively led people to it - and as Joseph Smith, he was killed in the process.

[Michelle]

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.

I can. He would be called by God directly like every true Prophet before Brigham Young was.

The idea that the senior Apostle would always be the next Prophet when the sitting Prophet dies is a construct of man not of God. If of God there would be a revelation stating as much.

I agree, and I'd say the more correct term is simply, "President of the Church."
Still, maybe this is the best the church can come up with. Ideally, yes, each prophet would actually act as a prophet (prophecy, see a better future and actively lead people to it) and ideally, God would clearly make it known who that was to be. But as we know, in and out of the church, egos rule.

IMO, Prophets specific to our church, did kind of stop about Joseph Smith. Maybe prophets are kind of a one-time thing and no succession dynasty or whatever. Yesterday, I thought of how Martin Luther King Jr. was a true prophet - in word and deed. He was called of God, not by a group of people in a religious ceremony but by God. He saw a dream of a better future and actively led people to it - and as Joseph Smith, he was killed in the process.

There have been ages in history when succession as the prophet did involve father to son like Adam to Seth or Lehi to Nephi.

I must say your calling Martin Luther King Jr. a "true prophet" is going too far. I do not wish to speak ill of the dead and he was a man who is recognized for attempting to assist his people in gaining greater freedom in their lives, but he made grievous mistakes that would disqualify him quickly from the title of true prophet: including his infidelity and associations with communism.

[gradles21]

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.

I can. He would be called by God directly like every true Prophet before Brigham Young was.

The idea that the senior Apostle would always be the next Prophet when the sitting Prophet dies is a construct of man not of God. If of God there would be a revelation stating as much.

Yesterday, I thought of how Martin Luther King Jr. was a true prophet - in word and deed.

A true prophet? He was a sexual deviant and a disgrace to the title "Reverend" because of this. That being said he obviously did accomplish a great and important work, even though leftists are now abandoning everything he taught.

[David13]

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.

I can. He would be called by God directly like every true Prophet before Brigham Young was.

The idea that the senior Apostle would always be the next Prophet when the sitting Prophet dies is a construct of man not of God. If of God there would be a revelation stating as much.

I agree, and I'd say the more correct term is simply, "President of the Church."
Still, maybe this is the best the church can come up with. Ideally, yes, each prophet would actually act as a prophet (prophecy, see a better future and actively lead people to it) and ideally, God would clearly make it known who that was to be. But as we know, in and out of the church, egos rule.

IMO, Prophets specific to our church, did kind of stop about Joseph Smith. Maybe prophets are kind of a one-time thing and no succession dynasty or whatever. Yesterday, I thought of how Martin Luther King Jr. was a true prophet - in word and deed. He was called of God, not by a group of people in a religious ceremony but by God. He saw a dream of a better future and actively led people to it - and as Joseph Smith, he was killed in the process.

I have to say I think you are quite far off with your cynical attitude toward the leadership of the church.

But MLK? As others have posted he was called by opportunity, not God the Father. And he took full personal advantage of that opportunity.
dc

[Thinker]

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.

I can. He would be called by God directly like every true Prophet before Brigham Young was.

The idea that the senior Apostle would always be the next Prophet when the sitting Prophet dies is a construct of man not of God. If of God there would be a revelation stating as much.

I agree, and I'd say the more correct term is simply, "President of the Church."
Still, maybe this is the best the church can come up with. Ideally, yes, each prophet would actually act as a prophet (prophecy, see a better future and actively lead people to it) and ideally, God would clearly make it known who that was to be. But as we know, in and out of the church, egos rule.

IMO, Prophets specific to our church, did kind of stop about Joseph Smith. Maybe prophets are kind of a one-time thing and no succession dynasty or whatever. Yesterday, I thought of how Martin Luther King Jr. was a true prophet - in word and deed. He was called of God, not by a group of people in a religious ceremony but by God. He saw a dream of a better future and actively led people to it - and as Joseph Smith, he was killed in the process.

There have been ages in history when succession as the prophet did involve father to son like Adam to Seth or Lehi to Nephi.

I must say your calling Martin Luther King Jr. a "true prophet" is going too far. I do not wish to speak ill of the dead and he was a man who is recognized for attempting to assist his people in gaining greater freedom in their lives, but he made grievous mistakes that would disqualify him quickly from the title of true prophet: including his infidelity and associations with communism.

You could say similar about Joseph Smith, who married other women who were already married and borrowed money he didn't repay. MLK may have done similarly - but based on the GOoD they accomplished, I see them both as prophets in that they saw a better future and actively led people to it, despite their fumbles and mistakes.

I'm reminded of the truth that Joseph Smith received when asking which church he should join: "I was answered that I must join NONE of them, 'for they were all wrong...they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.'"

When it comes to prophets, I don't care what someone says - or what ceremony is "church approved." Action speaks loudest. Do they or do they not prophecy by seeing a better future and actively leading people to it?

BTW Thank you, Gradles and David for your comments.

[Crackers]

Yes; it’s just you.

Actually, I agree with Thinker. Hope they don't get to the stage of drooling and needing to be propped up in conference.

We've already had multiple prophets and apostles incapacitated with old age. The remaining members of the 1st presidency and quorum pick up the slack.

Why would that change?

Because the church is in fatal need of leadership now more than ever before???
And because so many are leaving the church partly because they're looking for better spiritual guidance in such a troubled world.

The church isn't in fatal need of anything. Some of its members might be. There is a sifting going on. I wouldn't blame that on leadership. Blame it on Satan and agency. The needed spiritual guidance is there for the taking.

[Mark]

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.

I can. He would be called by God directly like every true Prophet before Brigham Young was.

The idea that the senior Apostle would always be the next Prophet when the sitting Prophet dies is a construct of man not of God. If of God there would be a revelation stating as much.

I agree, and I'd say the more correct term is simply, "President of the Church."
Still, maybe this is the best the church can come up with. Ideally, yes, each prophet would actually act as a prophet (prophecy, see a better future and actively lead people to it) and ideally, God would clearly make it known who that was to be. But as we know, in and out of the church, egos rule.

IMO, Prophets specific to our church, did kind of stop about Joseph Smith. Maybe prophets are kind of a one-time thing and no succession dynasty or whatever. Yesterday, I thought of how Martin Luther King Jr. was a true prophet - in word and deed. He was called of God, not by a group of people in a religious ceremony but by God. He saw a dream of a better future and actively led people to it - and as Joseph Smith, he was killed in the process.

Another casualty of the indoctrination received from the public education system. Martin Luther King was a plagerizing philanderer with VERY suspicious sympathies and affiliations to communist run organizations. True Prophet? Not a chance. No wonder you struggle so much with the church..

[Finrock]

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.

I can. He would be called by God directly like every true Prophet before Brigham Young was.

The idea that the senior Apostle would always be the next Prophet when the sitting Prophet dies is a construct of man not of God. If of God there would be a revelation stating as much.

I agree, and I'd say the more correct term is simply, "President of the Church."
Still, maybe this is the best the church can come up with. Ideally, yes, each prophet would actually act as a prophet (prophecy, see a better future and actively lead people to it) and ideally, God would clearly make it known who that was to be. But as we know, in and out of the church, egos rule.

IMO, Prophets specific to our church, did kind of stop about Joseph Smith. Maybe prophets are kind of a one-time thing and no succession dynasty or whatever. Yesterday, I thought of how Martin Luther King Jr. was a true prophet - in word and deed. He was called of God, not by a group of people in a religious ceremony but by God. He saw a dream of a better future and actively led people to it - and as Joseph Smith, he was killed in the process.

Another casualty of the indoctrination received from the public education system. Martin Luther King was a plagerizing philanderer with VERY suspicious sympathies and affiliations to communist run organizations. True Prophet? Not a chance. No wonder you struggle so much with the church..

A person is not a prophet just because they've been given authority. Priesthood power comes from God and God only. You can be the president of the Church and not be a prophet. You don't have to be the president of the LDS Church to be a prophet.

The testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy. Being filled with the Holy Ghost makes one a prophet. One gets filled by the Holy Ghost by having a broken heart and a contrite spirit. Unfortunately, but a reality nonetheless, LDS members on a massive scale conflate and confuse the difference between a "president" and a prophet, a seer, or a revelator.

The LDS Church today is closer to Catholicism than when it was originally organized in the latter-days. Sociocentric tendencies, group think, and frankly spiritual/religious insecurity becomes an impediment to seeing things as they truly are and many begin going down the path of mastering sophistry, double-speak, or in short living in a state of cognitive dissonance where reality doesn't match up with the ideal, forcing many to twist, rationalize, explain away, and often to just turn a blind eye to what is in fact the truth. One's paradigm must be maintained at all costs, even if it means being dishonest with others and one's self.

-Finrock