Authority In The Church

[Snow]

In the days of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, the Church functioned as the prophet said it should. He/they said it and that's the way it was. Basically is was a charismatic dictatorship. They ruled by the force of their personal power and appeal. Once they spoke on a topic and proclaimed their position, the matter was decided.

All new movements generally start that way.

How is the Church run now. Can a prophet/president simply declare, and make it so? Is their a vote taken and majority rules?

[Snow]

Geeze,

Am I going to have to tell you or are ya'll going to participate?

[Guest Starsky]

Okay, I'll bite....it is being run by 'special brotherhood' rules.

It is being run by 'traditional policy'.

It is being run like a business which religious power and authority.

The physical church is supposed to be made in such a way as to endure the rough social and financial orders of our day.

It is supposed to have 'educated and top business men and lawyers running it so that whatever the corrupt world throws at it, it can withstand and come out on top without any help from God.

They are also sometimes inspired.

[Traveler]

My friend Snow: You should understand this better. The Chruch is run according to covenant. The covenant of the church is much like the marriage covenant. That is there is a line of authority as established by the organization specified in the D&C starting with the First Presidency which is presided over by the President.

The line of authority is under covenant to obey the Lord through the priesthood line of authority. This line of authority is to obey and pass on revelation. If a link in the chain is not being obedient then there are options for those under that link of the line of authority.

For example Eve was under covenant to "obey" Adam as Adam "obeyed" the L-rd.

According to the covenant one must answer for their obedience to revelation and the line of authority. If however, one feel that there is a unrightious dominion they have a choice.

1. Be obediant anyway and according to the covenant they are not responsible but all responsibility lies in the line of authority.

2. Act according to their conscience or desire they take full responsibility for their actions and release all responsibilitiy from the line of authority.

Some examples: Lets say that the line of authority suggest that the membership not get tatoos. Then a bishop tells home teachers to inform the familes. The home teacher brings a message and tells a yourg man or women that they have been advised to inform members not to get tatoos. But some young man decides on his onw to get a tatoo anyway. That man is responsible to the L-rd for that tatoo. If however the young man decides not to get a tatoo even though he would really like one and there is noting wrong with having a tatoo then whoever decided to make this an issue must answer to the L-rd.

Hope this help you understand the structure of the covenant and oath of the Priesthood.

The Traveler

[Guest Starsky]

I have a problem with the 'accountability line of reasoning'. It seems to illiminate individual accountability.

We each should be responsible enough to ask the Lord for guidance on any issue which comes down from the authority in charge.

In this way...no one can be lead astray.

[Snow]

Well, first, I disagree and second, you missed the point.

If the Church, meaning the Brethren, decide that the saint should do this thing, or stop doing that thing, they may or may not be communicating the will of the Lord. We all know numerous examples. If a saint, on the other hand, understands the will of the Lord by virtue of the Holy Ghost and it is different than the counsel of the Brethren, then personally, I'll take my chances following the dictates of my own conscious rather than the dictates of someone else's. I am just as, or more, entittled to recieve revelation for my own benefit as is someone else.

Next, I am asking about how control and power are wielded inside the corridors of power. Does the prophet dictate and the brethren follow or do they vote or what?

[Guest Starsky]

Next, I am asking about how control and power are wielded inside the corridors of power. Does the prophet dictate and the brethren follow or do they vote or what?

From talks in conference, you should know this one. They don't vote, but they must all be united upon whatever is put forth.

It isn't a dictatorship from the Prophet, though he gets all the credit or blame for whatever is put forth.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by Snow@Jan 12 2004, 05:29 PM

Well, first, I disagree and second, you missed the point.

If the Church, meaning the Brethren, decide that the saint should do this thing, or stop doing that thing, they may or may not be communicating the will of the Lord. We all know numerous examples. If a saint, on the other hand, understands the will of the Lord by virtue of the Holy Ghost and it is different than the counsel of the Brethren, then personally, I'll take my chances following the dictates of my own conscious rather than the dictates of someone else's. I am just as, or more, entittled to recieve revelation for my own benefit as is someone else.

Next, I am asking about how control and power are wielded inside the corridors of power. Does the prophet dictate and the brethren follow or do they vote or what?

Perhaps I did miss the point - do you understand the oath and covenant of the priesthood explained in D&C 84 see verses 33-38.

Have you considered the meaning of agency and what it means to become an "agent unto yourself"?

Now let me ask you - what is more important than obedience? Remember we are not talking about any opinion but those who have been called by G-d to preside. What happens to those who preside with unrightious dominion? See D&C 121:36-46

One last thought or question - are you speaking more like Nephi or Laman and Limuel?

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Originally posted by Peace@Jan 12 2004, 05:24 PM

I have a problem with the 'accountability line of reasoning'. It seems to illiminate individual accountability.

We each should be responsible enough to ask the Lord for guidance on any issue which comes down from the authority in charge.

In this way...no one can be lead astray.

I do not disagree with your thinking. But let me ask a question - Do you support your Bishop if you know he is wrong? I asked this question of Hugh B Brown (an Apostle and councler to president David O. McKay) when I was a teenager - what do you think was his reply to me?

The Traveler

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Traveler+Jan 13 2004, 05:17 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Traveler @ Jan 13 2004, 05:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Peace@Jan 12 2004, 05:24 PM

I have a problem with the 'accountability line of reasoning'. It seems to illiminate individual accountability.

We each should be responsible enough to ask the Lord for guidance on any issue which comes down from the authority in charge.

In this way...no one can be lead astray.

I do not disagree with your thinking. But let me ask a question - Do you support your Bishop if you know he is wrong? I asked this question of Hugh B Brown (an Apostle and councler to president David O. McKay) when I was a teenager - what do you think was his reply to me?

The Traveler

First, we should probably define what we mean by "support." If to support the bishop means to acquiesce in his putatively wrong decision and keep silent about one's belief he is wrong, that's one thing. I think it might be fair to say that even if a person is trying, in the proper spirit and in good faith, to correct what he believes to be error in a bishop, he could still be seen as supporting him. What would obviously not be "support," on the other hand, would be to treat the erroneous bishop (kind of like a felonious monk?) as some kind of enemy, or competitor, or to try to maintain one's own belief or position at his expense.

I would say it depends on how wrong I thought the bishop was, and on what kind of question. If it were trivial, of course I'd support him -- if it turns out he was wrong, it may well have been a necessary part of a learning curve that I shouldn't interfere in if it does no real harm. But if I truly believe real harm may result -- major apostasy in a ward (i.e., if our hypothetical bishop suddenly started counseling polygamy), or bodily injury, then I think I'd have the duty to do something. I think it would be consistent with the duty to support the bishop in his calling to take the matter up with him personally, and then, if that failed, to take the matter to higher channels -- while disclosing to the bishop that you intend to do so. I think that's consistent with the Book of Mormon's discussion of higher judges judging lower judges (reference in Mosiah, I think).

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Traveler+Jan 13 2004, 05:17 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Traveler @ Jan 13 2004, 05:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Peace@Jan 12 2004, 05:24 PM

I have a problem with the 'accountability line of reasoning'. It seems to illiminate individual accountability.

We each should be responsible enough to ask the Lord for guidance on any issue which comes down from the authority in charge.

In this way...no one can be lead astray.

I do not disagree with your thinking. But let me ask a question - Do you support your Bishop if you know he is wrong? I asked this question of Hugh B Brown (an Apostle and councler to president David O. McKay) when I was a teenager - what do you think was his reply to me?

The Traveler

If the Spirit tells me my leader is wrong....I will not deny the Holy Ghost in order to support the arm of flesh.

Back when Elder Brown was alive the saying was going about that you should follow your leaders even if they were wrong...and all the accountability would be upon the leader's shoulders if they were wrong.

But the principle of 'asking the Lord for guidance' and then ignoring the promptings of the Spirit in favor of men....doesn't coinside with this philosophy of men.

There were many and still are many philosophies of men...going about....which we must be careful not to buy into...

What you should have asked Elder Brown, at that time, was ...if he were told one thing by the prophet, and another by the Holy Ghost, or Christ....which should he follow?

[Guest Starsky]

2 Nephi 32:

9 But behold, I say unto you that ye must pray always, and not faint; that ye must not perform any thing unto the Lord save in the first place ye shall pray unto the Father in the name of Christ, that he will consecrate thy performance unto thee, that thy performance may be for the welfare of thy soul.

[Traveler]

As I understand this thread we are discussing the matter of authority within the structure of the Church or the kingdom of G-d. Mr. Duck is correct, there are means and protocol for dissent and/or giving opinions. In fact the term “councilor” implies that council is to be given within protocols. However, we are addressing authority and how it operates within the kingdom, which is defined by the priesthood. I have made efforts to bring to light covenant and the responsibility of that covenant of authority as it relates to the priesthood.

I believe it is important to understand what your covenants are. There are a number of ideas that have been missed in a rush to make certain points. For example I have learned something about the exercising authority as a parent within the family structure. There are two parents in a covenant family – a father and a mother. It is impossible for parents to completely agree on every matter – there is bound to be disagreement. How is this to be resolved? By each telling the other that they have prayed and will stand their ground at all costs?

I have found that it is better that parents are “one” than it is that one of the parents to be right. Let me clarify this by saying that it is better that my wife and I act as one in exercising authority as parents than it is that I be allowed to be right even when I am right but we are divided. Being right but acting alone is still unrighteous dominion.

I would also point out that there several examples of the course of things being altered because of this principal. For example a lessor law was given to Moses, the Book of Mormon manuscripts were given to Martin Harris. Under the covenant of the authority of the priesthood there are only two options. Either those under the covenant act as one or the covenant is broken and not completed.

When I address Elder Brown about supporting your bishop when you “know” he is wrong he answered me directly. He said “You support your bishop – especially when you know he is wrong for he will need your support more then than at any other time.”

How do we define support? There may be many way, but one thing for sure, when your support your bishop or your spouse you do NOT usurp their authority.

The Traveler

[Guest estump]

They will usually stick to a subject until they are all united.

I learned this from an SP's 1 counselor's experience regarding an excommunication. He did not at all feel like a person they were exing should be. He said everyone else was in agreement but him. Basically he said he had to pray to understand and agree w/ the will of the group as a whole because that is how it functions. Out of the mouths of two or three witnesses...this provides a united front. He never indicated though, whether or not he ever personally agreed w/ the exing after that point...just that he prayed to find unity in the presidency. When he recieved that, he understood he must be unified w/ the majority wishes.

I don't know if this happens like this all the time, but I have a strong suspicion it does.

Here's what I found for the answer of prophet sucessor:

Jesus Christ has called prophets to lead His Church in our day, just as He did while on Earth. The first prophet called to restore Christ's Church in these Latter-days was Joseph Smith. To learn more read this article about the restoration of the LDS Church. When Joseph Smith was martyred Brigham Young became the next Prophet and President of the LDS Church. He led the saints to the Salt Lake Valley, which later became known as Salt Lake City, Utah.

When Brigham Young died, the senior Apostle (the apostle who had been in the Quorum of Twelve Apostles for the longest), John Taylor, became the third President of the LDS Church. When the LDS Church's President dies, the senior Apostle becomes the next President. Each new President selects two worthy men to be his counselors, together they form the First Presidency.

This would be why, I too, agree w/ personal revelation. If a person decides it's cool to just accept it, I am fine with that. I would never try to tell anyone to behave differently. That would be hypocritical. I just get annoyed when people who are that way get in a tizzy when I want to pray and search it out for myself. The Lord has said ask and ye shall recieve. So I do... I have yet to find a prophet that wasn't meant to be there during his calling.

[Guest Starsky]

When I address Elder Brown about supporting your bishop when you “know” he is wrong he answered me directly. He said “You support your bishop – especially when you know he is wrong for he will need your support more then than at any other time.”

How do we define support? There may be many way, but one thing for sure, when your support your bishop or your spouse you do NOT usurp their authority.

The Traveler

I consider praying and fasting for the man if he is wrong, but not following him with full knowledge that what I am doing is wrong.

Consider these quotes from a prophet:

Brigham Young said:

"What a pity it would be, if we were led by one man to utter destruction!

Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much

confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God

whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind

self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders

with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in

their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did

they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the

right way. Let every man and woman know, themselves, whether their leaders are

walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation

continually." (JD 9:150)

"How easy it would be for your leaders to lead you to destruction, unless

you actually know the mind and will of the spirit yourselves." (JD 4:368)

"I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be

satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the

spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied...Suppose that the people were

heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the

kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people,

saying, 'If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are,'

this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord." (JD 3:45)

"...Now those men, or those women, who know no more about the power of God,

and the influences of the Holy Spirit, than to be led entirely by another

person, suspending their own understanding, and pinning their faith upon

another's sleeve, will never be capable of entering into the celestial glory,

to be crowned as they anticipate; they will never be capable of becoming Gods.

They cannot rule themselves, to say nothing of ruling others, but they must be

dictated to in every trifle, like a child. They cannot control themselves in

the least, but James, Peter, or somebody else must control them. They never can

become Gods, nor be crowned as rulers with glory, immortality, and eternal

lives. They never can hold sceptres of glory, majesty, and power in the

celestial kingdom. Who will? Those who are valiant and inspired with the true

independence of heaven, who will go forth boldly in the service of their God,

leaving others to do as they please, determined to do right, though all mankind

besides should take the opposite course. Will this apply to any of you? Your

own hearts can answer." (JD 1:312)

"President Joseph Smith read the 14th chapter of Ezekiel [see, for example,

verses 9-10: 'If the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing...the

punishment of the prophet shall be even as the punishment of him that seeketh

unto him.']...said the Lord had declared by the Prophet [Ezekiel], that the

people should each one stand for himself, and depend on no man or men in that

state of corruption of the Jewish church -- that righteous persons could only

deliver their own souls -- applied it to the present state [1842] of the Church

of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- said if the people departed from the

Lord, they must fall -- that they were depending on the Prophet, hence were

darkened in their minds, in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving upon

themselves..." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith pp. 237-38)

George Q. Cannon, Counselor to three Church Presidents, expressed it thus:

"Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a bishop, an

apostle, or a president. If you do, they will fail you at some time or place;

they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone;" (Millennial Star

53:658-59, quoted in Gospel Truth, 1:319)

Also...I would like to add to this that during my young adult life we were given the 'resitation' for Mutual from David O McKay...which state: Be true to yourself. I think that speaks volumes about following something that is wrong just because of the position of the man who told you to do it.

[Guest Starsky]

I still don't know how to delete the whole things here...like when my posts duplicate themselves.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Peace@Jan 14 2004, 09:48 PM

I still don't know how to delete the whole things here...like when my posts duplicate themselves.

Hey Peace - I don't think we have the power to delete, only the mods can do that. Send them a request through the "Report this post" link.

M.

[Spencer]

Im not sure that is working correctly right now, may be best to PM one of us and let us know what you need.

Spencer

[Ray]

An interesting thread.

I’m wondering what Traveler meant when he said that we should not “usurp” authority over our priesthood leaders? I’m guessing that he meant we should not take the position that we are better suited to be a leader than our leaders are themselves. I’m guessing that he meant we should try to gently persuade our leaders and help them see the things that we see when we believe they are in error, instead of adopting the attitude that our leaders should do or say what we tell them because we know we are more right than they are. I’m guessing that he sees it more as a difference in attitude than in behavior, or a contrast between humility and arrogance. I can pretty much agree with that line of reasoning, but I can also see some value in what Starsky said too.

I think any authority that we might have in the Church comes to an end when we seek to do something in any degree of unrighteousness. That’s how I see authority at work in the Church, and I think each one of us should prepare ourselves to become a leader if any of us are so called by our leaders into leadership positions of our Lord’s church.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Ray@Oct 15 2004, 11:35 AM

I think any authority that we might have in the Church comes to an end when we seek to do something in any degree of unrighteousness.

Not really,

The authority ends when you get caught. Need any examples?

[Ray]

Originally posted by Snow+Oct 15 2004, 08:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Oct 15 2004, 08:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Oct 15 2004, 11:35 AM

I think any authority that we might have in the Church comes to an end when we seek to do something in any degree of unrighteousness.

Not really,

The authority ends when you get caught. Need any examples?

Heh, I guess I didn’t make my thoughts very clear in my last post, because I used the word “authority” to refer to the authority Man has to act as God, and I think you’re using that word to refer to the authority Man has to act within his calling in the Church.

In other words, what I meant was that whenever a Man holding the priesthood acts in any degree of unrighteousness, his power to act as God is nullified to the point that that Man is only acting as Man. So, while that Man may still maintain his office and calling in the Church, God will not honor his actions as His actions and that Man will then have to account for those actions himself. In contrast, whenever a Man acts in righteousness, and that Man has been given the authority to act as God, God will uphold his actions as His actions and judge that Man as someone who was acting as Him.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Ray@Oct 19 2004, 09:08 AM

In other words, what I meant was that whenever a Man holding the priesthood acts in any degree of unrighteousness, his power to act as God is nullified to the point that that Man is only acting as Man. So, while that Man may still maintain his office and calling in the Church, God will not honor his actions as His actions and that Man will then have to account for those actions himself.

No,

If an unrighteous man, who hasn't been caught yet, baptisms someone, the person is still baptized.

[Ray]

Yes, because that unrightous man performed a righteous act that God would have performed, and since God had given that man the authority of God to do His will, God will honor that act as one that God did Himself.

In contrast, if that unrighteous man did something unrighteous in the name of God, or tried to do something unrighteous in the name of God, even though God may have given that man the authority of God to do His will, God will not honor the unrighteous act because it was not the will of God.

In other words, it doesn’t matter how much you pray about something or plead with God to honor an unrighteous act, even if God has given you the authority of God to do His will, because if it’s not a righteous act, God will simply not honor that act or YOU for trying to misuse His authority.

And btw, for anybody who might be thinking that God will honor your actions as long as you’re doing what God would do, I think you should consider the idea that it is not a righteous act to assume that you have the authority of God. In other words, if we think we do have the authority to do something in the name of God, I think we should be prepared to explain to Him why we think we have it.