Your home for discussing politics, the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, and the principles of liberty.
https://ldsfreedomforum.com/
o boy, that was my answer too. this must be the end of days.Seek the Truth wrote:
BTW they are all Prophets when called to the 12, so selecting one if more or less a formality.
Agreed. It's pretty interesting when you have multiple apostles called at the same time as it comes down to who was set apart first of the order of tenure that may just be a few minutes apart but could be the difference in being called the president of the church.BrentL wrote:This thread is not really about who is the next Prophet, its about who is the next president. aksing who is the next prophet under the paradigm mostly posted here you ought to be tryign to figgure out who will be the next person called to the Q12. seeing as they are sustained as P/S/R's. not trying to figure out who the most senior of "those left" will be when the "current" dies. THAT question, ought to be posed as "who will be the next "President of the Church" . THAT person, then selects two people, and RE-FORMS the First Presidency. Truth Matters.
ps, God can and still does call by his own voice, not by the jbalm process.:-ss :ymcowboy:
:))clarkkent14 wrote:Well of course not. Joseph is dead.bobhenstra wrote:Denver Snuffer will never be the Prophet!
:))BrentL wrote:o boy, that was my answer too. this must be the end of days.Seek the Truth wrote:
BTW they are all Prophets when called to the 12, so selecting one if more or less a formality.
@-) That would be quite the movie.Seek the Truth wrote:Heh, I smell the basis for an odd couple type buddy car trip movie.
A Random Phrase wrote::))clarkkent14 wrote:Well of course not. Joseph is dead.bobhenstra wrote:Denver Snuffer will never be the Prophet!
It took me a minute to get this.
I don't get it.For the first 100+ years in the church "The Prophet" meant Joseph. All others were "The President of the Church." A reference to Papal Worship.Called to Serve wrote:
I believe he is working from both sides of the veil trying to straighten things out.SkyBird wrote:It would be nice if Joseph Smith could come back and straiten thing out... He is still head of this gospel dispensation! I wonder what he is doing on the other side... maybe straitening things out
Where did you get this. Is this something Snuffer teaches.clarkkent14 wrote:For the first 100+ years in the church "The Prophet" meant Joseph. All others were "The President of the Church." A reference to Papal Worship.Called to Serve wrote:
I have never read someone referring to the Prophet Joseph Smith as President Smith. In fact, what I have read -even after he was dead- is that he was continually referred to as "the Prophet." If he is continually referred to as President Smith in the History of the Church, in what year was that history printed?Seek the Truth wrote:You don't have to read History of the Church much in order to see that JS is continually referred to as President Smith.
Abraham 3:23, Jeremiah 1:4, etc.boo wrote:This is not an attempt to derail this thread nor to be disrespectful but for an organization that believes in and periodically ( in my experience ) actually receives revelation I have always wondered why the Prophet is selected in the way he is . Unlike say the method the Catholic church uses which at least hypothetically permits revelation to be part of the selection process our approach not only doesn't need revelation but does not even permit it. No other large organization except certain feudal kingdoms passes leadership SOLELY on seniority . Even in this organization executive leaders ( bishops ,stake presidency apostles etc) are chosen by inspiration . But not the Prophet. I am familiar with the idea that we know who God wants because he kills off everyone until the right and chosen person is the last man standing but that has always been spiritually and emotionally unsatisfying. That wan't the way he chose OT prophets . This approach leaves us with perennially aged and often infirm leadership .This has not generally been the case earlier in this dispensations nor in prior ones. Your thoughts would be appreciated . I personally think Dallin Oaks is the most likely candidate
No, it's as he said--the saints did not answer and believe all alike, because of the reasons he said, in that same statement.Called to Serve wrote:[President} Woodruff says:What other decision has caused more divisiveness among the church members than this one matter? Aren't the many polygamist split offs from the church proof that the saints did not answer and believe all alike on that matter? Is not this evidence that Wilford Woodruff did in fact lead the church members astray?The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question, and He also told me that if they would listen to what I said to them and answer the question put to them, by the Spirit and power of God, they would all answer alike, and they would all believe alike with regard to this matter.
The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?
Which reasons are those? It seems to me that he said if they would listen and answer, they would all answer the same. There are no other conditions that I see. Do you see something different?JohnnyL wrote:No, it's as he said--the saints did not answer and believe all alike, because of the reasons he said, in that same statement.Called to Serve wrote:[President} Woodruff says:What other decision has caused more divisiveness among the church members than this one matter? Aren't the many polygamist split offs from the church proof that the saints did not answer and believe all alike on that matter? Is not this evidence that Wilford Woodruff did in fact lead the church members astray?The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question, and He also told me that if they would listen to what I said to them and answer the question put to them, by the Spirit and power of God, they would all answer alike, and they would all believe alike with regard to this matter.
The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?
He was frequently referred to as President Smith in contemporary documents. Here is one example, but there are hundreds more:A Random Phrase wrote:I have never read someone referring to the Prophet Joseph Smith as President Smith. In fact, what I have read -even after he was dead- is that he was continually referred to as "the Prophet." If he is continually referred to as President Smith in the History of the Church, in what year was that history printed?Seek the Truth wrote:You don't have to read History of the Church much in order to see that JS is continually referred to as President Smith.
In case there are those who cannot see the thanks button in this forum, I want to say "thanks." I appreciate the information.Hyrcanus wrote:He was frequently referred to as President Smith in contemporary documents. Here is one example, but there are hundreds more:A Random Phrase wrote:I have never read someone referring to the Prophet Joseph Smith as President Smith. In fact, what I have read -even after he was dead- is that he was continually referred to as "the Prophet." If he is continually referred to as President Smith in the History of the Church, in what year was that history printed?Seek the Truth wrote:You don't have to read History of the Church much in order to see that JS is continually referred to as President Smith.
http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSumma ... l-1838?p=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
That doesn't detract from the point, which I think is true, that the Church has become much more administratively oriented than some would prefer.
During his life, Joseph was frequently referred to as "President Smith," as has been shown. The issue surrounding the terminology "the Prophet" is that until the mid 20th century, this term almost always referred to Joseph Smith. The first presidency and quorum of the 12 were always sustained as "prophets, seers, and revelators", but the term "the prophet" meant Joseph.Hyrcanus wrote:He was frequently referred to as President Smith in contemporary documents. Here is one example, but there are hundreds more:A Random Phrase wrote:I have never read someone referring to the Prophet Joseph Smith as President Smith. In fact, what I have read -even after he was dead- is that he was continually referred to as "the Prophet." If he is continually referred to as President Smith in the History of the Church, in what year was that history printed?Seek the Truth wrote:You don't have to read History of the Church much in order to see that JS is continually referred to as President Smith.
http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSumma ... l-1838?p=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
That doesn't detract from the point, which I think is true, that the Church has become much more administratively oriented than some would prefer.
Yes. I agree.Hyrcanus wrote:
That doesn't detract from the point, which I think is true, that the Church has become much more administratively oriented than some would prefer.
My point was... Joseph was THE Prophet. For over 100 years it was so. We've now created papal worship by calling all presidents of the church "prophet." That was not common practice in the church for 100 years. It started with David O McKay and has continued until now. Big difference in meaning and position. We're looking more like the Catholic church. The doctrine of infallibility was first preached in 1890, 46 years after Joseph's death. Joseph detested such an idea. It's mainstream now.Seek the Truth wrote:Where did you get this. Is this something Snuffer teaches.clarkkent14 wrote:For the first 100+ years in the church "The Prophet" meant Joseph. All others were "The President of the Church." A reference to Papal Worship.Called to Serve wrote:
You don't have to read History of the Church much in order to see that JS is continually referred to as President Smith. How is this papal worship.
It may be that the term "The Prophet" was generally used in reference to Joseph Smith in the first hundred years of the church, I haven't researched that at all and so I couldn't speak to it. However, referring to the President's of the Church as a "Prophet" was definitely not a twentieth century change. That would be really easy to verify, it's present throughout journals, correspondence, etc.clarkkent14 wrote:My point was... Joseph was THE Prophet. For over 100 years it was so. We've now created papal worship by calling all presidents of the church "prophet." That was not common practice in the church for 100 years. It started with David O McKay and has continued until now. Big difference in meaning and position. We're looking more like the Catholic church. The doctrine of infallibility was first preached in 1890, 46 years after Joseph's death. Joseph detested such an idea. It's mainstream now.
Quinn says that it was a calculated change. That while people wouldn't hesitate in questioning the president of the church, they would feel reluctant to question a living prophet.By the min-1950s a change was underway in Mormonism that profoundly affected its political influence. The hierarchy and church publications encouraged an unprecedented adoration of church president David O. McKay. His "graceful, witty manner, his imposing physical appearance, his deep warmth, all made people see him as THE prophet, to be classed with Joseph Smith and Brigham Young." Extensive television broadcasts of two general conferences annually after 1953 heightened McKay's personal and ceremonial impact on members of the church. By the late-1960s LDS publications and speakers routinely identified McKay as "the Prophet," "our Prophet," and "Beloved Prophet." Those terms had previously applied to the martyred prophet, Joseph Smith, while the living LDS president had simply been "the President."
That changing devotional status of the LDS president can be dated precisely through the official Church News. Published weekly by the Deseret News since 1931, every headline reference of Church News to each LDS president referred to him as "President" until 1955. During those twenty-four years no headline referred to the living LDS president as "prophet," and that term was used exclusively to refer to Joseph Smith or to prophets of the Bible and Book of Mormon. In February 1955 the Church News published the first headline reference to the living LDS president as the "Prophet."
Concerning such "adulation," a First Presidency secretary acknowledged that McKay liked his "celebrity status," and wanted "to be recognized, lauded, and lionized." However, that was something J. Reuben Clark had declined to give to any of the church presidents he had served as a counselor since the 1930s, and he seemed to avoid calling anyone "the Prophet" except Joseph Smith. Rather than adulation, Clark reminded LDS religion teachers in July 1954 that "even the President of the Church has not always spoken under direction of the Holy Ghost." The only known time Clark referred to McKay by any other title than "President" was in a letter to the church president's secretary about "your Chief." Clark's influence may have been the reason why no other reference to McKay as "the Prophet" appeared in the Church News until after the counselor's death.
...
In apparent response to "loyal opposition" against the First Presidency's political wishes, the Church News began emphasizing that David O. McKay was "the Prophet." On 11 September 1965 there was an article headline: "Honors For a Prophet," and within a year typical headlines proclaimed: "The Beloved Prophet, Seer and Revelator, President David O. McKay."
Thanks for the reference. This is a little more nuanced than I and perhaps other in the thread understood the argument to be. So the position isn't the people thought of and referred to other President's of the Church as Prophet, it's that culturally that wasn't emphasized as a primary title until McKay? That passes the smell test, I'll add it to my list of things to pay attention to.briznian wrote:This idea comes from Michael Quinn's Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power
Quinn says that it was a calculated change. That while people wouldn't hesitate in questioning the president of the church, they would feel reluctant to question a living prophet.By the min-1950s a change was underway in Mormonism that profoundly affected its political influence. The hierarchy and church publications encouraged an unprecedented adoration of church president David O. McKay. His "graceful, witty manner, his imposing physical appearance, his deep warmth, all made people see him as THE prophet, to be classed with Joseph Smith and Brigham Young." Extensive television broadcasts of two general conferences annually after 1953 heightened McKay's personal and ceremonial impact on members of the church. By the late-1960s LDS publications and speakers routinely identified McKay as "the Prophet," "our Prophet," and "Beloved Prophet." Those terms had previously applied to the martyred prophet, Joseph Smith, while the living LDS president had simply been "the President."
That changing devotional status of the LDS president can be dated precisely through the official Church News. Published weekly by the Deseret News since 1931, every headline reference of Church News to each LDS president referred to him as "President" until 1955. During those twenty-four years no headline referred to the living LDS president as "prophet," and that term was used exclusively to refer to Joseph Smith or to prophets of the Bible and Book of Mormon. In February 1955 the Church News published the first headline reference to the living LDS president as the "Prophet."
Concerning such "adulation," a First Presidency secretary acknowledged that McKay liked his "celebrity status," and wanted "to be recognized, lauded, and lionized." However, that was something J. Reuben Clark had declined to give to any of the church presidents he had served as a counselor since the 1930s, and he seemed to avoid calling anyone "the Prophet" except Joseph Smith. Rather than adulation, Clark reminded LDS religion teachers in July 1954 that "even the President of the Church has not always spoken under direction of the Holy Ghost." The only known time Clark referred to McKay by any other title than "President" was in a letter to the church president's secretary about "your Chief." Clark's influence may have been the reason why no other reference to McKay as "the Prophet" appeared in the Church News until after the counselor's death.
...
In apparent response to "loyal opposition" against the First Presidency's political wishes, the Church News began emphasizing that David O. McKay was "the Prophet." On 11 September 1965 there was an article headline: "Honors For a Prophet," and within a year typical headlines proclaimed: "The Beloved Prophet, Seer and Revelator, President David O. McKay."
Correct. They DIDN'T listen and answer by the Spirit and power of God, so they didn't get the same answer. They were deceived, not the prophet.Called to Serve wrote:Which reasons are those? It seems to me that he said if they would listen and answer, they would all answer the same. There are no other conditions that I see. Do you see something different?JohnnyL wrote:...
No, it's as he said--the saints did not answer and believe all alike, because of the reasons he said, in that same statement.