2 of the 12 apostles not at General Conference Sessions

[pam]

Okay maybe I just learned something new today.

 

I didn't know that there always has to be 2 gone from the General Conference Sessions in case something happens. So there are 2 witnesses left.

 

Anyone else ever heard this?

[beefche]

No.  I always thought it was because the 2 went to the tabernacle (or that other building on Temple Square that I can't remember the name of) to preside.

[Palerider]

No.  I always thought it was because the 2 went to the tabernacle (or that other building on Temple Square that I can't remember the name of) to preside.

They use to always have two Apostles in the Salt Palace.

[beefche]

Okay maybe I just learned something new today.

 

I didn't know that there always has to be 2 gone from the General Conference Sessions in case something happens. So there are 2 witnesses left.

 

Anyone else ever heard this?

Hmmm, are they sent to Jerusalem?  

[skippy740]

In the event of some "disaster" (natural or man), I think it would take two apostles to reconstitute and call new leadership for the Church.

 

But yes, I've always heard of this.  I've noticed that whenever the First Presidency travels, it's almost always 2 out of the 3 (it seems).  I noticed this at the Gilbert Arizona temple dedication as well.  President Uchtdorf wasn't in attendance.

[pam]

I just had not heard of this but it makes perfect sense.

[skippy740]

I'm sure they rotate which 2 during General Conference so they can all have the opportunity to address us.

 

I noticed the absence of President Packer during conference, but I bet he'll be in tomorrow morning.

[pam]

That's what brought up the conversation that led to this.  I had mentioned that I had not seen President Packer at any of the sessions and hoped he was okay.

[Wingnut]

President Packer has looked ready to keel over for a few years now.  I would chalk his absence up to physical inability to attend.

 

I've never noticed before that not all of the Brethren are there.  I suppose it makes sense, sort-of.  I mean, the Lord restored keys once -- couldn't He do it again?  I guess I just assumed that they're all there, because they all speak in Conference, but over the course of five sessions, I suppose.

 

There's an episode in the first season of The West Wing where POTUS is about to go give his first (I think) State of the Union address, and someone on his staff has to make sure they "pick a guy."  Someone in the line of succession has to stay home from the address, in the event of an attack that wipes everyone out.

[pam]

That's why company execs don't all travel together too.  If the plane crashes there goes the whole executive board.

 

Even 2 years ago when I and all of my siblings and their spouses went on a trip to Alaska...we split up onto different flights.  If the plane were to crash..there's kids left at home with no parents, aunts, uncles etc.

[mirkwood]

I have heard the same thing for several years now.  Two are separate, just in case.

[classylady]

Interesting.  I've never thought or heard of this before.

[Guest]

The broadcast on our station froze up for the last 45 minutes of the first session, and in the back of my mind I wondered if something had happened. . . and if it did, what would that mean for the line of authority? It makes sense that there's a plan in place.

[mordorbund]

I have heard this rumor as well, but nothing authoritative. My understanding is that the 1st quorum of the 70 also hold keys and would be the governing body of the Church if the other two govering bodies were out of commission. The Church already handled one succession crisis really well, I think it would do just fine if there was another.

 

President Joseph F. Smith was asked a bit of a hypothetical about the proper course of action if various offices in the priesthood were suddenly wiped out. He was asked specifically about if the sole survivor was an elder. His reply seemed agitated at the absurdity of the scenario, but he responded that the elder would ordain a high priest (as he could officiate in the absence of a high priest) and from there the various quorums and governing bodies would be reconstituted.

[Just_A_Guy]

If that's possible, Mordorbund, then why didn't the primitive church do that after the apostles were taken? Or should we all be Catholics now?

[The Folk Prophet]

The absurdity of the scenario is what strikes me too. I don't think keeping 2 away makes much sense in terms of the idea that the Lord is leading the church and is pretty much not going to let the conference center get nuked while the 12 were there. But...maybe... In some cases the Lord does expect practical means to be used. However, I swear I've seen all of them there at conference before.

[mordorbund]

I think this thread illustrates it well. Take away what President Smith said, and think about what you would do in that scenario. I might continue to conduct meetings, instruct priests, teachers, and deacons, organize a quorum if there were other elders, but I wouldn't have thought to ordain a high priest.

 

The other thing to consider with the apostasy is the classic argument we use as evidence: you only need to look as far as the epistles to see that there was already a mutiny in the church. And while Paul contends against false doctrine, the next generation of Clementine epistles emphasize and reiterate the importance of following the elders in the church. So at best, from the picture I see painted at the time, the best they could hope for was an elite band of elders and bishops who would root out the poison and from their small group ordain a new head. Historically, new leadership was chosen but he held the same office. And additionally, the heresies remained as the "itching ears" listened to false teachers and wolves in priests' clothes.

[mnn727]

I'm pretty positive that I have seen all the Apostles at conference most of the time (usually only missing if they are ill).

Easy to check now that Conferences are stored online.

[Dravin]

The absurdity of the scenario is what strikes me too. I don't think keeping 2 away makes much sense in terms of the idea that the Lord is leading the church and is pretty much not going to let the conference center get nuked while the 12 were there. But...maybe... In some cases the Lord does expect practical means to be used. However, I swear I've seen all of them there at conference before.

 

It brings to mind the 'parable' of the man and the flood, who expecting the Lord to save him, turns down practical means of (physical) salvation because he expects the Lord to save him through miraculous means. Truly, the Lord could use miraculous means to protect the leaders of his Church, reading some of the experiences of Joseph Smith I have no doubt about that, but he may still expect the Leaders of the Church to be wise to the dangerous of the world. 

 

I have no clue if they are:

 

1) Always 2 short.

2) Always 2 short because of concerns of attacks against the leadership of the Church.

 

I'm just saying that if they are I don't see anything incongruous with them taking practical steps. President Monson has bodyguards and my thinking concerning them is similar. 

[The Folk Prophet]

It brings to mind the 'parable' of the man and the flood, who expecting the Lord to save him, turns down practical means of (physical) salvation because he expects the Lord to save him through miraculous means. Truly, the Lord could use miraculous means to protect the leaders of his Church, reading some of the experiences of Joseph Smith I have no doubt about that, but he may still expect the Leaders of the Church to be wise to the dangerous of the world. 

 

I have no clue if they are:

 

1) Always 2 short.

2) Always 2 short because of concerns of attacks against the leadership of the Church.

 

I'm just saying that if they are I don't see anything incongruous with them taking practical steps. President Monson has bodyguards and my thinking concerning them is similar. 

 

Right. Just that there's a difference between practicality and paranoia. :) But maybe.

[Dravin]

Right. Just that there's a difference between practicality and paranoia. :) But maybe.

 

I'm disinclined to call the actions of the 1st Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve paranoia. I can see the argument but I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.

[The Folk Prophet]

I'm disinclined to call the actions of the 1st Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve paranoia. I can see the argument but I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

Well, yeah....if that's what they do and the reason they do it, then I give them the benefit of the doubt too. I'm just skeptical that that's really a policy. That's all I'm saying.

[pam]

An answer that I was just given is that 1 presides over the tabernacle overflow congregation and the other presides over the overflow congregation in the assembly hall.

[beefche]

An answer that I was just given is that 1 presides in the tabernacle overflow congregation and the other presides in the overflow congregation in the assembly hall.

 

 

Assembly Hall--that's the name of the building I couldn't remember.  And yes, that's what I understood. 

 

I remember back in the olden days when conference was held in the Tabernacle that they would show the 2 Apostles in the Assembly Hall as they read their name to be sustained.

[john doe]

Right. Just that there's a difference between practicality and paranoia. :) But maybe.

 

One man's paranoia is another man's practicality. I don't think it's paranoid to take simple precautions to ensure the whole leadership of the church doesn't get entirely wiped out in one tragedy. Now, if they were to house the two Apostles in a sealed impenetrable vault during conference sessions, I could see how some would say that might possibly be paranoid.