Are Stake Presidents unimportant in the church Hierarchy?

[_SatanWasSetUp]

It looks like the latest strategy for MMM is to emphasise it was carried out by "local leaders." It's actually a good strategy in my opinion, because without a smoking gun in Brigham Young's hand, the highest level this crime rises to is the Stake Presidency in Cedar City. I also believe the statement issued by the church was a good move on their part, it was well worded and seemed sincere, but it would have been better if they had left out the "this isn't an apology" statement. They took two steps forward and one step back.

But anyway, my main point is why does the fact that local leadership, in this case a Stake Presidency, perpetrated the crime make it any better for the church? A stake presidency is called by the General Authorities in Salt Lake, through inspiration. It is a strict heirarchy. The church isn't a franchise type business, with local leaders detached from SLC. The local leaders get their marching orders from SLC, and they are led through inspiration from god, just like the prophet and GAs. There's an old saying "the fish rots from the head."

The Stake President is often times the highest ranking authority that a member will actually meet in person. How many members are in a Stake? About 5000? The Stake President is the spiritual leader for all of those members. That's a huge congregation. A Stake President is a big shot in the church. Think of your Stake President? What would it mean if he was involved in a scandal?

It's a good strategy, and a good point, to place the blame for MMM on the local Stake leadership, but I don't think it minimizes the church's responsibility all that much. When I think of my Stake Presidents over the years and imagine if they had rounded up their counselors and other prominent members in the stake and performed this type of atrocity, what would it mean to the truthfulness of the church? It would be enough to prove to me it was not led by god.

[_rcrocket]

We have examples in the New Testament of churches set up by apostles, with their own bishops, falling away. Of missionaries called by apostles to be their companions messing up.

And, most significantly, Peter receives a revelation from God to take the Gospel to the Gentiles. Three times he receives this revelation. But, we read in Galatians 2 that Paul called Peter a "false brother" for refusing to eat with Gentiles.

Or, there are examples of the Israelites being told by God that they would have His power notwitnstanding the enemies' possession of iron chariots, and then we read that they couldn't prevail with God's help because of the enemies' iron chariots.

Or, Joshua being deceived by a tribe of people who fool him into a treaty.

Judas betraying Christ.

David commiting adultery, after being called by Nathan.

Samuel's sons, the chief priests, awhoring with the women worshippers.

Go figure. You are so right.

Stop the sarcasm or you're outta here. FMODS.

[_Sethbag]

You're using fairy tales to prove another fairy tale.

If the local leadership of the church were solely responsible for the MMM, it wouldn't prove the church not true, to me, because the prophetic claims made of the local leaders aren't nearly as strong as those made by the top brass. If BY and the Q12 were responsible, I'd find that far more compelling evidence that the church wasn't really lead by God. Of course, even if the MMM could be pinned on BY and the Q12, that wouldn't be a slam dunk that the church weren't true if there was really good other evidence to support the idea that it was in fact lead by God and "true". Unfortunately for the church, I think there's plenty of evidence supporting the conclusion that it isn't "true", and so to me the MMM, while upsetting, doesn't really factor into my "is it true" calculations very much.

[_Polygamy Porter]

We have examples in the New Testament of churches set up by apostles, with their own bishops, falling away. Of missionaries called by apostles to be their companions messing up.

And, most significantly, Peter receives a revelation from God to take the Gospel to the Gentiles. Three times he receives this revelation. But, we read in Galatians 2 that Paul called Peter a "false brother" for refusing to eat with Gentiles.

Or, there are examples of the Israelites being told by God that they would have His power notwitnstanding the enemies' possession of iron chariots, and then we read that they couldn't prevail with God's help because of the enemies' iron chariots.

Or, Joshua being deceived by a tribe of people who fool him into a treaty.

Judas betraying Christ.

David commiting adultery, after being called by Nathan.

Samuel's sons, the chief priests, awhoring with the women worshippers.

Go figure. You are so right.

Stop the sarcasm or you're outta here. FMODS.

CROCKet you are full of it.
Stop using the "less correct book to defend the only true religion based on the "most correct book", k?

Sides that, we have no proof that any of the events you cited actually occurred. We do however, have eyewitness proof that this event did take place as well as very damning statements and testimonies from prominent leaders concerning 9/11/1857.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

[quote="rcrocket"]We have examples in the New Testament of churches set up by apostles, with their own bishops, falling away. Of missionaries called by apostles to be their companions messing up.

And, most significantly, Peter receives a revelation from God to take the Gospel to the Gentiles. Three times he receives this revelation. But, we read in Galatians 2 that Paul called Peter a "false brother" for refusing to eat with Gentiles.

Or, there are examples of the Israelites being told by God that they would have His power notwitnstanding the enemies' possession of iron chariots, and then we read that they couldn't prevail with God's help because of the enemies' iron chariots.

Or, Joshua being deceived by a tribe of people who fool him into a treaty.

Judas betraying Christ.

David commiting adultery, after being called by Nathan.

Samuel's sons, the chief priests, awhoring with the women worshippers.

Go figure. You are so right.

quote]

I don't get what you're trying to say. I'm not talking about the guys in the Bible. I'm talking about LDS Stake President, you know, judges of Israel, the guys with the authority to act in god's name in these latter days, the guys who hold the keys of Prietshood stewardship over thousands of members. Have you even met a Stake President? They will tell you all of this and more about themselves. They're big shots in the lord's one and only true church. You're comparing them to guys in the Bible? We don't even know if those guys existed.

[_Jason Bourne]

I think Seth makes a good point. Yes the SP had a lot of leadership. But if the prophet commanded it then it puts more negative light on the truth claims then one or two of may SPs. But even still if BY commanded it he could still be a prophet and that is Bob's point. There are lots of examples of religous leaders doing really bad or dumb things. As Seth noted BY being involved in MMM would not make the Church false.

[_Sethbag]

At least, it wouldn't make the church false by itself. In fact, it wouldn't make the church false at all, really. The church was either true before the MMM occurred, or it was false before the MMM occurred, and the MMM can't possible change that. What we're trying to do, absent a clear knowledge of the church's truth or falsity, is to divine by evidence of how the Prophets act whether it's likely that the church were true or not, and the MMM is a strike against that. But let's be clear about it; the church was either true before the MMM occurred, or it was false before the MMM occurred, and it's truth value itself was not changed in any way by the MMM.

I personally believe that the church was false before the MMM occurred. It was false before Joseph Smith boinked the first married woman, before he manipulated the first 14-year old, before he made up the Book of Abraham, before he induced people to buy his land in a festering, stinking swamp, before the Kirtland banking scandal, before he made up the Book of Mormon, etc. In short, the church was never true. It wasn't made not true by any of the things we commonly throw out there against Joseph Smith. We only use these things as evidence of the church's likely non-truth.

[_rcrocket]

Stop using the "less correct book to defend the only true religion based on the "most correct book", k?

At least I am using "a" book to make my points. K?

Knock it off. Polygamy Porter is one of more respected correspondents here, and you aren't. Hoser. FMODS
rcrocket

[_Jason Bourne]

At least, it wouldn't make the church false by itself. In fact, it wouldn't make the church false at all, really. The church was either true before the MMM occurred, or it was false before the MMM occurred, and the MMM can't possible change that. What we're trying to do, absent a clear knowledge of the church's truth or falsity, is to divine by evidence of how the Prophets act whether it's likely that the church were true or not, and the MMM is a strike against that. But let's be clear about it; the church was either true before the MMM occurred, or it was false before the MMM occurred, and it's truth value itself was not changed in any way by the MMM.

I personally believe that the church was false before the MMM occurred. It was false before Joseph Smith boinked the first married woman, before he manipulated the first 14-year old, before he made up the Book of Abraham, before he induced people to buy his land in a festering, stinking swamp, before the Kirtland banking scandal, before he made up the Book of Mormon, etc. In short, the church was never true. It wasn't made not true by any of the things we commonly throw out there against Joseph Smith. We only use these things as evidence of the church's likely non-truth.

Yes we know you do not believe the Church was ever true. You include a similar summary in many of your posts.