EmmaLeigh Posted December 8, 2004 Report Posted December 8, 2004 Originally posted by Ray@Dec 6 2004, 05:31 PM But President McMurray seems to be side-stepping those procedures and that help, deciding instead that he thinks it’s better to have more time to work on these problems by himself. Or in other words, he didn’t seek counsel and support from his fellow priesthood authorities, he basically just said that he needs to quit so that he can work on his problems all by himself, and his fellow priesthood leaders have simply said “okay, that sounds right to me”. Heh, is it just me or does anyone else think that's weird, and not a good way for leaders to set an example for others who have problems? Would you really want people who have made serious mistakes to simply write letters to their priesthood authorities saying they’d like to be released from their responsibilities so that they can work out their problems on their own? If you had read the statements, or if you saw the meeting the remaining First Presidency had with the world church ministers, you would know that President McMurray has been getting help from other priesthood through this situation that he stated has been going on for a few years. He has counceled with other members of the FP as well as other ministers in the church, who, the statement says, will continue to work with him.... Sometimes all the counsling in the world wont fix a problem... I dont agree with what has happened in any way, shape or form, but who am I??? Apparently it doesnt matter... I was the first to bring up to the former WC Worship Corrdinator that I'm just waiting for section 162 to be called into question... But that would also mean that the members would have to admit to not prayerfully considering something, which will never happen.... *shrugs*I'm strange, I know... Quote
Jenda Posted December 8, 2004 Report Posted December 8, 2004 Originally posted by EmmaLeigh@Dec 8 2004, 01:17 PM Funny that if there is no organization - how do they hold reunions and such .... And it isnt that they are not allowed to worship as they want to - it is that they (for the most part) do not beleive and agree with the church's stance on certain things (mainly women in the priesthood)... Even Pres. McMurray's inlaws are restorationists... and that is about the extent of my knowledge. We had a huge fight in our family over 156, but when it all panned out, we were one of the first families with three generations of women in the priesthood... But then again - you probably know best, right?? :) I wouldn't say that I know best (about anything), but since I am a restorationist, I can say that I can speak about then with a bit of knowledge....................I stated that there is no official unity between the restoration branches, and there isn't. There is informal cooperation, though, and some branches come together to plan reunions, etc. The Conference of Restoration Elders is a group of priesthood who have come together, also unofficially, to offer their services for those groups in need. That varies from offering educational and spiritual ministry (classes or sermon series), to offering to organize individual branch business things (recording baptisms and ordinations, etc.). There is no official unity, though.As far as your statement about them not believing in the church's stance so they don't worship, there is a bit more to it than that. There are problems with many priesthood members who were illegally silenced, which lead to problems with the church recognizing baptisms and ordinations, there are problems with the church not wanting those members to return and become involved in church business. It is much more than just an isolated reason. Quote
EmmaLeigh Posted December 8, 2004 Report Posted December 8, 2004 Then I stand corrected... i dont know why my dad's friend would have said that to us... *shrugs*... Now I"m confused!!! :) What else is new. Quote
EmmaLeigh Posted December 8, 2004 Report Posted December 8, 2004 I can understand the CofC's difficulty accepting priesthood, but why, with open communion and accepting the baptism of all would they have an issue with accepting baptisms? Quote
Jenda Posted December 8, 2004 Report Posted December 8, 2004 Originally posted by EmmaLeigh@Dec 8 2004, 01:42 PM Then I stand corrected...i dont know why my dad's friend would have said that to us... *shrugs*... Now I"m confused!!! :) What else is new. It was probably in the Remnant or the Restoration LDS that he was ordained an apostle. Quote
Jenda Posted December 8, 2004 Report Posted December 8, 2004 Originally posted by EmmaLeigh@Dec 8 2004, 01:44 PM I can understand the CofC's difficulty accepting priesthood, but why, with open communion and accepting the baptism of all would they have an issue with accepting baptisms? I have wondered the same thing, myself. Quote
Snow Posted December 9, 2004 Report Posted December 9, 2004 Originally posted by EmmaLeigh@Dec 8 2004, 07:28 AM Snow - CofC has a First Presidency just like the LDS... the two remaining members are acting as the presidency still, simply without the third. What the CofC is without is a prophet. I think it was mentioned somewhere that Wallace B Smith is still the prophet, but when he retired, he was no longer prophet but rather Evangelist i believe.The 12 will be theones in charge of bringing a name of the successor... it is not the stance of the CofC to be against that. Okay ( I misread the part about Linda Booth) but I am still wondering..."Is the one of the major stances of the CoCC that the 12 can't choose a new prophet else Brigham Young would have been the prophet?" Quote
EmmaLeigh Posted December 9, 2004 Report Posted December 9, 2004 Snow - I guess i'm not understanding your question. In the case of Brigham Young, the successor had been made known to those around Joseph Smith Jr - that Joseph III was to be the next prophet. (I know, I know, there is a huge discreptioncy in the beliefs surrounding that fact, but I'm only talking from my own knowledge and experience)... Because the successor was known, there was no need for the 12 to be involved. If so, at that point in time, it would have taken quite a while because my great-great-great-great-great grandfather was one of those 12 and he was in Texas when Joseph was murdered. Again - i know there are different beliefs surrounding that time... Quote
EmmaLeigh Posted December 14, 2004 Report Posted December 14, 2004 There will be a meeting of the World Church Leadership Council tomorrow (Tuesday) at the Temple. This council consists of the FP, Council of 12, presidents of seventy, presiding bishopric... I'm sure the presiding evangelist is on that council too, but I cant find alisting of it... Just know my uncle will be there for it.... Should be interesting to hear if anything comes of it.... Quote
Blessed Posted December 14, 2004 Report Posted December 14, 2004 And EL... I am curious... are you on the church's webboard? Quote
EmmaLeigh Posted December 14, 2004 Report Posted December 14, 2004 Blessed - no - i'm not... And my uncle is a pres of seventy.... Quote
Blessed Posted December 14, 2004 Report Posted December 14, 2004 You have a PM coming your way, EL. Quote
EmmaLeigh Posted December 14, 2004 Report Posted December 14, 2004 GOt it and shot one back to you... :) Quote
Randy Johnson Posted December 14, 2004 Report Posted December 14, 2004 Originally posted by EmmaLeigh@Dec 9 2004, 08:33 AM Snow - I guess i'm not understanding your question. In the case of Brigham Young, the successor had been made known to those around Joseph Smith Jr - that Joseph III was to be the next prophet. (I know, I know, there is a huge discreptioncy in the beliefs surrounding that fact, but I'm only talking from my own knowledge and experience)... Because the successor was known, there was no need for the 12 to be involved. If so, at that point in time, it would have taken quite a while because my great-great-great-great-great grandfather was one of those 12 and he was in Texas when Joseph was murdered.Again - i know there are different beliefs surrounding that time... Hi Emma,Are you related to Lyman Wight then? He was the Apostle who was in TX when the Prophet was killed. Just curious.Just a couple of comments though......1) Who are the Counselors in the First Presidency supposed to counsel? My answer would be...the President of the Church. My next question is ....if no President who do they counsel? My answer....no one, because the First Presidency is dissolved upon the death of the President...then the NEXT presiding quorum would devolve upon the Quorum of the 12. Just my two cents on that. What are your thoughts?Also....in your opinion, why do you think that the issue of JSIII being the "openly designated successor" was never brought up by Emma, James Whitehead, William Marks...or ANY other of the Saints who had allegedly witnessed it.....at the special conference/meeting of the Church on August 8, 1844? Dont you think that would have been the most perfect time to bring that fact forward for remembrance of the Saints? It has been put forward that it was because Emma would have been afraid for her life....indeed, any Saint that would have spoken up in favor of that motion would have had their lives put in jeopardy by Brigham Young. Do you agree with that wild tale? Just curious. Quote
Jenda Posted December 14, 2004 Report Posted December 14, 2004 Randy, you have a one-track mind. Do you disbelieve what you have been told, or do you think you will get different answers from different people? Just curious. Quote
EmmaLeigh Posted December 14, 2004 Report Posted December 14, 2004 Randy... Yes, Lyman Wight is my great-great-great-great-great grandfather... maybe a great less, but my grandfather none the less... You are correct about the lack of a person to council in the office of President... Nice point, but... :) As far as the first conference after Joseph's death, JSIII was way too young and therefore was not brought as the prophet at that point in time... I'll have to do some searching through my information, but I feel like there was another reason - I'll get back to you.... :) Quote
Randy Johnson Posted December 14, 2004 Report Posted December 14, 2004 Originally posted by Jenda@Dec 14 2004, 08:06 AM Randy, you have a one-track mind. Do you disbelieve what you have been told, or do you think you will get different answers from different people?Just curious. Hi Dawn,You are absolutely correct...I always get different answers!! That why I love asking that particular question!!Well, I will give you guys this much....ya'all are perty creative on how you perceive things might work out this time!! Now you have "two" Prophets with the right to name a successor! Maybe between the two of em..they can come together and be in agreement on the next one!Dawn....I dont mean to be flippant, but really....where is this situation covered in your D&C? I have been told by RLDS/CoC that the Lord will "cleanse" his house..and it will start at the "top". This "house cleaning" has been going on since 1844 according to you guys! Has the RLDS/CoC been that disorganized and disheveled that it would take this long to "cleanse"? Do you believe your church will ever achieve any degree of unity...or do you believe it will simply remain in this confused and controversial state until the Lord comes? Just curious. Quote
Randy Johnson Posted December 14, 2004 Report Posted December 14, 2004 Originally posted by EmmaLeigh@Dec 14 2004, 12:59 PM Randy...Yes, Lyman Wight is my great-great-great-great-great grandfather... maybe a great less, but my grandfather none the less...You are correct about the lack of a person to council in the office of President... Nice point, but... :) As far as the first conference after Joseph's death, JSIII was way too young and therefore was not brought as the prophet at that point in time... I'll have to do some searching through my information, but I feel like there was another reason - I'll get back to you.... :) Hello again Emma,I will look forward to your more detailed response!Oh...I wanted to mention that way back in 1977 I worked for two brothers, whose last name was Wight. They were LDS also...and direct descendants of Lyman. They lived in up by Platte City, Missouri. I wish I could remember their first names....dang.....oh well, they were super people....and we had lots of good discussions about Lyman. Quote
EmmaLeigh Posted December 15, 2004 Report Posted December 15, 2004 Randy - I'm jumping to the fun part to respond to - then I'll be back with the more serious part later tonight. (probably after a discussion with my dad - MR. History when it comes to this stuff or a quick read of one of my many books...) You worked with LDS Wight's?? See, there are quite a few Wights, mainly because Lyman had a handful of (we are descendants of the first wife) but... There were only three brothers that initially came to the states from the Isle of Wight... but that was back when the first buildings of Harvard were being built (they were bricklayers and laid the brick for most of the buildings).... and anyone with the name Wight in the US is related since no other's have made the trip from the Isle of Wight... I'm in Lamoni actually - not far from Platte City I dont believe - and would totally be interested in looking them up. I was adopted, but I'm the most versed in family history (I've actually READ the two volume Wight Family History) in my family. I wasnt aware that there were Wights that were still LDS. Interesting!!! One of Lyman's grandchildren was an apostle in the RLDS church as well - John Rymerian - and he now has a great-great-great-great grandson that is a President of Seventy. The two left in the presidency will NOT be naming the successor - just like int he D&C it will fall to the 12... Not sure where you go the idea the other two would be making the 'choice'... And in all actuality, there will also be confirmation saught from the other quorums of the World Church Leadership Council.... Oh - and the other two are NOT Prophets... simply councelors in the first presidency... There is only one prophet, though in the last eight years the only one ordained to that office has shirked away from its calling... *shrugs* maybe a reason for the cleansing... Quote
Randy Johnson Posted December 15, 2004 Report Posted December 15, 2004 Originally posted by EmmaLeigh@Dec 14 2004, 06:45 PM Randy - I'm jumping to the fun part to respond to - then I'll be back with the more serious part later tonight. (probably after a discussion with my dad - MR. History when it comes to this stuff or a quick read of one of my many books...)You worked with LDS Wight's?? See, there are quite a few Wights, mainly because Lyman had a handful of (we are descendants of the first wife) but... There were only three brothers that initially came to the states from the Isle of Wight... but that was back when the first buildings of Harvard were being built (they were bricklayers and laid the brick for most of the buildings).... and anyone with the name Wight in the US is related since no other's have made the trip from the Isle of Wight... I'm in Lamoni actually - not far from Platte City I dont believe - and would totally be interested in looking them up. I was adopted, but I'm the most versed in family history (I've actually READ the two volume Wight Family History) in my family. I wasnt aware that there were Wights that were still LDS. Interesting!!! One of Lyman's grandchildren was an apostle in the RLDS church as well - John Rymerian - and he now has a great-great-great-great grandson that is a President of Seventy. The two left in the presidency will NOT be naming the successor - just like int he D&C it will fall to the 12... Not sure where you go the idea the other two would be making the 'choice'... And in all actuality, there will also be confirmation saught from the other quorums of the World Church Leadership Council....Oh - and the other two are NOT Prophets... simply councelors in the first presidency... There is only one prophet, though in the last eight years the only one ordained to that office has shirked away from its calling... *shrugs* maybe a reason for the cleansing... Emma,I got the idea from those on the CoC web board. It is my understanding from members of the CoC, that...as of this moment....there still is a functioning First Presidency. If those two councilors still comprise a functioning First Presidency (which I personally do not believe)...then those two would of necessity have a "voice"...along with the 12, on who would be the next President of the CoC.But you see...this is where the confusion comes in with the members of the CoC. On the one hand they believe the First Presidency is intact, in which case they are the Presiding Quorum of the Church....and yet on the other, they believe that the 12 would now bear the responsibility of naming the successor because the President relinquished that responsibility. So you have a situation where there are two equal heads at the same time. In addition to that, from what I have been told...both President McMurray and Wallace B. Smith both still hold the right to name a successor. Figure that one out. The Lord has said this kind of confusion is not to be found in his house. In the LDS church, when the President dies....the First Presidency automatically becomes dissolved...and the 12 are the Presiding Quorum....as it states in the D&C. No confusion. Its all very straightforward.I will try to investigate the two Wight Brothers and get you their names. There are many LDS direct descendants of Lyman Wight. Quote
Jenda Posted December 15, 2004 Report Posted December 15, 2004 In the CoC, all three are considered presidents. EmmaLeigh, are you related to Darlene Wight? She taught at Graceland for a while, and I had her for a few classes. She was great. One of my favorite perfessors. Quote
EmmaLeigh Posted December 15, 2004 Report Posted December 15, 2004 I believe that Darlene Wight was the wife of Les Wight and they are distant relatives to us. My relatives that taught at Graceland were Joel and Francine(Enslee) Wight... I had a grandfather Les Wight, but not the Les Wight that taught at Graceland most recently (though he did when it was a jr college I believe).... Interesting look on the presidency... Can you tell me where in the D&C it says that the first presidency should resolve in this type of event? Jenda is right that the CofC condisers all three presidents, and has moved away from the 'counselor' bit of it in recent (McMurray) years... but there is only ONE prophet - THE President of the church... I think it is part of the whole not wanting to be singled out thing that Grant had.... Neither Grant nor Wallace B. have a 'right' any longer to name a successor. They have both given up the office of prophet and are no longer president of the church, which is what gives that person the right - not the responsibility like I initially thought. Thanks for the info you're looking for on the LDS Wights... :) It is funny - cause there is a new organ prof at Graceland that is LDS. When I joked with him that I can say who my great..... grandfather is and LDS people always know it he laughed (cause he knew of him - and about him cause he's from TX originally himself ) and then he went home and told his wife... :) It was a funny story to me, anyways.... I'm looking forward to talking with my parents tonight, who most likely have talked to my uncle (or I'll be calling my grandmother shortly) to find out if anything came of today's meeting. I'll try to keep you posted on anything I find out!! :) Quote
Randy Johnson Posted December 15, 2004 Report Posted December 15, 2004 Originally posted by Jenda@Dec 14 2004, 08:44 PM In the CoC, all three are considered presidents.EmmaLeigh, are you related to Darlene Wight? She taught at Graceland for a while, and I had her for a few classes. She was great. One of my favorite perfessors. Dawn,It just seems like such a simple thing to see....I am amazed about how members of the CoC/RLDS cant see it. Counselors are called to counsel with the President of the Church. No President....no need for Counselors. Who are they going to counsel? Show me anywhere in the D&C or in your Church history where a "Presidency" still remained a Presidency without a President.Just ask yourself that question a couple of times...."Can there be a Presidency without a President?Let me ask you this....and this may sound like a stupid question at first...but given the belief that Counselors can still counsel without a president......would it be possible for Counselors to be called into a Presidency without the President first being called? In the LDS church the President selects his counselors.....then when he dies the Counselors are automatically released...and in our Church they would go back into the Quorum from which they were called....normally the 12.As it stands right now...at this moment in the CoC....who is the Presiding quorum of the Church....First Presidency without a President....or the 12? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.