The Mormon Prime Directive

[_Valorius]

Apsotles are ordained and are sustained as Prophets, Seers and revelators. I do not know the exact words used.

They were ordained as apsotles and later sustained as prophets, seers and revelators. I think this idea came later then 1835 so when they were ordained they would not have been ordained as such.

If you are saying that there was sufficient for a legal quorum of the Quorum, and that a majority voted for Brigham Young, would you kindly list the names of the Apostles living at the time of that vote, and indicate how each voted? Was a majority (of the Quorum) at that time considered SEVEN members, or some other number?

My memory is a bit sketchy on all the details. I recommend Quiins first volume on the Mormon Heirarchy if you are interested in the details.

How do you know, that is what records exist that show, that Apostles are ordained as well as being sustained as Prophets, Seers and Revelators? Are the words to these ordinations not available? When I was ordained to the Aaronic Priesthood, I was given a copy of the words used. I was not told they were so sacred they couldn't be shown to others. The Blessings on Israel are in print, and that's a higher level of blessing and ordination, if you will, than an individual's. I have Quinn's book, and have perused it, but not yet found the details. He references his sources, but even the History of the Church is secondary. I would be happier were a primary source available. The actual words, with date.

My source, which I doggone it cannot find at the moment but will search and search till I do, indicates that it was not a majority of the Quorum who voted for BY. I do not recall what it was they voted for; my memory is that it was to "sustain" him in his office. I have never seen a record or reference to a record in which BY was ordained to be head of the church. I think the Apostles would have said "President" rather than "Prophet". Like I said, I'm still looking. If you have exact dates, tally of votes, and precise office to which he was ordained/sustained, I'd be grateful for that information. I am looking in Quinn. It's kind of . . . "compact" shall I say? So it's tuff finding the reference; if you have a page number, I'd be grateful for that, too.

Thanks

[_Livingstone22]

I never understood the phrase "I know the church is true." I'm not sure what that entails. I suppose to everyone who says it, it may mean something unique and different. I know the church is true in the way that I can see that I am in a building on Sunday, and not in an empty field--if, that is, I can rely on my senses of touch and sight. But what is truth? Is truth ultimate, unchanging, and non-relative? Most people think so, but how do we know what is truth unless we can prove it? Can we expect others to accept "truth" if we can't prove it to them beyond any doubt? Do we need to justify our own opinions of truth when they are personal and don't affect others?

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Livi22, how come you pose such good questions? LDS, ex-Mo, Non-denom???? You ask:

Can we expect others to accept "truth" if we can't prove it to them beyond any doubt? Do we need to justify our own opinions of truth when they are personal and don't affect others?

IF that's how we "accepted truth" we would likely expect others to do the same. "...need to justify..." is a very strong "need" with most 'joiners' who generally speaking are more consumers than creators, followers than leaders and prone to authoritarianism... Which is what's wrong with the world, generally speaking, of course, ROTFL... Warm regards, Roger

[_harmony]

I never understood the phrase "I know the church is true." I'm not sure what that entails. I suppose to everyone who says it, it may mean something unique and different. I know the church is true in the way that I can see that I am in a building on Sunday, and not in an empty field--if, that is, I can rely on my senses of touch and sight. But what is truth? Is truth ultimate, unchanging, and non-relative? Most people think so, but how do we know what is truth unless we can prove it? Can we expect others to accept "truth" if we can't prove it to them beyond any doubt? Do we need to justify our own opinions of truth when they are personal and don't affect others?

"I know the church is true" is kinda like "I pledge allegiance to the flag". It's rote. It's automatic. Very few even think about what they're saying, when they say it. They learn it as children and repeat it monthly throughout their adult life and seldom if ever ponder what it means.

[_Coggins7]

"I know the church is true" is kinda like "I pledge allegiance to the flag". It's rote. It's automatic. Very few even think about what they're saying, when they say it. They learn it as children and repeat it monthly throughout their adult life and seldom if ever ponder what it means.

I don't know who Harmony actually is, but now at least I know where she lives.

Delphi.

[_Coggins7]

The Church, by definition, cannot be True. The Church is an earthly institution, and is subject to the imperfections of the humans that inhabit and populate it. Humans are, by definition, imperfect. Therefore, any institution made up of humans is perforce: imperfect. Thus cannot be True.


The Church is an earthly institution.

Humans are imperfect.

Therefore, the Church is imperfect.



The Church is an earthly institution

Humans are imperfect.

Therefore, the Church cannot be true.

The first argument is valid, but unsound, as we don't know if the first premise is true. The first premise begs the question.

The second argument, the one Harmony actually made, suffers from the same problem. If the Church isn't an earthly institution, the argument falls to pieces. But this cannot be explored in a deductive form such as this. The problem with this conclusion, as opposed to simply claiming that the Church is imperfect, is the definition of the term 'true". Even if the Church is not true as an organization, in the sense of being divinely commissioned by God institutionally, much of its teaching could still be true. Harmony is then required to choose between them, with all this implies regarding subjective bias and agenda relative to that process.

[_harmony]

The problem with this conclusion, as opposed to simply claiming that the Church is imperfect, is the definition of the term 'true". Even if the Church is not true as an organization, in the sense of being divinely commissioned by God institutionally, much of its teaching could still be true.

That is where the whole "true"ness falls apart. If the church is really "true", then there is nothing false in it, no imperfections, no human-ness. Can you honestly look yourself in the mirror and claim that is so?

[_Valorius]

[quote="Jason Bourne"]


Apsotles are ordained and are sustained as Prophets, Seers and revelators. I do not know the exact words used.

Brigham Young said that no one would replace Joseph, that the Twelve Apostles would continue in their place. Later he said the Twelve Apostles were as a group the Presidency of the Church. This was reported in the Millennial Star and in Roberts' History.

Although it is not my preferred source, Apostle Heman C. Smith's "True Succession in Chruch Presidency" details some of the history of the changes in the role of the Quorum of Apostles and the eventual acceptance of Brigham Young as the single chief President of the entire church which followed him.

I can nowhere find any information regarding the attribution to the members of the Quorum of Apostles as being "Prophets, Seers, and Revelators." Not in the Journal of Dicourses, where Brigham Young more than once denies being a prophet, at one point saying only, well since people say I am I guess I must be. Certainly not in the Holy Bible and definitely not in the Sainted Book of Mormon. Nowhere in the Book of Commandments nor Lectures on Faith nor Doctrines and Covenants. If they are so ordained today, it is utterly without scriptural sanction in any form. If they are so ordained today, it is a secret. The coronation of kings and queens are public, the swearing in of the President of the United States is public. The ordination of apostles and prophets is so unpublic that one is justified in asking if it even really takes place, or is it in fact just another corporate assignment?

[_mocnarf]

Joseph Smith never was ordained by mortal hand as a prophet, seer, and revelator. Joseph Smith was odained to these offices by God or God's spiritual representitives. So, maybe the PSR, just enters the Holy oF Holies in the SL temple and when he exits it, God himself has annointed and ordained him. ..... Why not???.... works as well as any other explaination.

[_Valorius]

Joseph Smith never was ordained by mortal hand as a prophet, seer, and revelator. Joseph Smith was odained to these offices by God or God's spiritual representitives. So, maybe the PSR, just enters the Holy oF Holies in the SL temple and when he exits it, God himself has annointed and ordained him. ..... Why not???.... works as well as any other explaination.

That's a possibility. Yet, the Mormon Church, including its organizational structure and appointment rituals, is so cartesian, that I can not but believe that some formal ordination process is in place, even if it is closed to the general public.