LDS Freedom Forum

As I listened to the remarks from the 3 newest Apostles, one thing stood out to me from the first 2. I don't know if anyone noticed this or mentioned it on LDSFF but Elder Ronald A. Rasband said that President Monson said to him, “This call comes from the Lord Jesus Christ.” Elder Gary E. Stevenson said "President Monson described that acting on the will of the Lord, he was extending a call to the Quorum of the Twelve to me."

Considering various views that I have come across here on LDSFF, that raised a couple of questions in my mind and ones that I have been pondering. President Monson said to these men that the calls came from Jesus and that it is His will for them to be called. In making statements like that, there are 3 motivations that President Monson could have to say something like that.

1 is that he was making it up, much like Korihor and by doing so becoming guilty of dishonesty.
2 is that he didn't really know one way or the other, didn't care and was just making a guess or just making a decision because one had to be made, thus again being guilty of dishonesty.
3 is that he spoke the truth, that the calls came from the Lord and it was the will of the Lord for president Monson to extend the calls which then opens up some real possibilities. Those being that he really and truly does know who Jesus Christ is and does converse with Him as the true prophet on the earth today. It also shows us that President Monson does receive revelation for the church in these days and acts on the will of Christ in the administration of the church.

As I have never known of president Monson to be dishonest It also shows me that President Monson does have the authority of God and that the church still has the authority despite the weaknesses that we all have, any condemnation we may be under and what some people may claim to the contrary. I know we still have the authority to act in the name of God. The testimonies of those 2 men revealed to us the personal testimony of the Prophet that was shared with them. We truly do have a modern day prophet that does commune with and know our Savior.

sushi_ noticed the first one, elder rasbands. most members alike accept as stated, unless counter/contrary ones are shown/stated by some close to the matter or who have remote viewing power etc.... :-B

I would venture there might be more than 3 motivations. Another possible motivation...President Monson does care, very much, and he is acting in good faith these calls come from the Lord. He genuinely feels the calls come from God, but could this kind of "called of God" be slightly different from having God's own voice call you, as was in the case with the boy Samuel.

Elder Ballard said this in October conference 2014 -----

.... when the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve speak with a united voice, it is the voice of the Lord for that time. The Lord reminds us, ‘Whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same’ [D&C 1:38].

This process has also been described by Pres Eyring in a press conference. When the FP and Q12 reach an agreement, they believe that is the will of the Lord. Therefore, when they reached a united agreement on who should fill the vacancies in the Q12, they believed they had found the will of The Lord on the matter.

background correlation committee/Council of Fifty/etcs screening/approval/endorsement also needed to reach the consensus?! :-B

I find it strange that they were surprised when they received the call. I imagine they would have already had this knowledge, as they are supposed to be special witnesses of Christ. I don't feel like a true Apostle should need assurance from Thomas Monson that the call is of God.

With that said, I don't know how God works, he works in mysterious ways. I hope that the current leaders are true prophets of God. I really liked Elder Renlund's talk. It wasn't about how much he loves the other leaders and his family and how long his family has been in the church etc. It was about the type of thing I come to conference to hear

What's the point of even discussing the 3 possibilities you brought up? (I'm not saying there's no usefulness in such discussion, but..)

What comes to my mind is that many Church members will take a statement such as “This call comes from the Lord Jesus Christ" and they will give it their own meaning... some will believe that Jesus appeared to Pres. Monson (not saying it couldn't happen)... I'd say probably not. If we're to assume that it's more likely to have happened in the way President Hinckley described his communications with the Lord, and other processes that have been described.. my assumption (and I could be way off here) is that someone came up with a list of potential candidates and eventually that list got narrowed down and Pres. Monson (and maybe others) prayed about it and got a good feeling about who they should select. There are sooo many degrees of what someone could mean when they say something came from the Lord. Pres. Hinckley said it's usually a good feeling.

feeling - - - voices/impressions those sushi_ heard at local levels/leaders, bishoprics, stakes. sushi_ kinda feels they locals have those revelatories with them....
but about holy communion(dc 107) to the president, urrrr, probably not. :-B

BrianM wrote:What's the point of even discussing the 3 possibilities you brought up? (I'm not saying there's no usefulness in such discussion, but..)

What comes to my mind is that many Church members will take a statement such as “This call comes from the Lord Jesus Christ" and they will give it their own meaning... some will believe that Jesus appeared to Pres. Monson (not saying it couldn't happen)... I'd say probably not. If we're to assume that it's more likely to have happened in the way President Hinckley described his communications with the Lord, and other processes that have been described.. my assumption (and I could be way off here) is that someone came up with a list of potential candidates and eventually that list got narrowed down and Pres. Monson (and maybe others) prayed about it and got a good feeling about who they should select. There are sooo many degrees of what someone could mean when they say something came from the Lord. Pres. Hinckley said it's usually a good feeling.

This seems to be the same process with every other calling at every other level in the church hierarchy. There's a list complied, and prayerfully names are filtered out until they choose one name. I think that it makes sense for it to be the same process at the highest level.
It was said that Thomas Monson goes and asks members of the Q12 if they have any candidates. Also, with the 2nd Endowment, those who receive it are asked to give any referrals of people they think qualify for this ordinance. It would surprise me if this is the method throughout the whole church and then be different at the highest level.

I'll just post the quote so you can read it straight from Pres. Hinckley:

KING: Does that mean that, according to the church canon, the Lord speaks through you?
HINCKLEY: I think he makes his will manifest, yes.
KING: So if you change things, that's done by an edict given to you.
HINCKLEY: Yes, sir.
KING: How do you receive it?
HINCKLEY: Well, various ways. It isn't necessarily a voice heard. Impressions come. The building of this very building I think is an evidence of that. There came an impression, a feeling, that we need to...
KING: And that came from something higher than you.
HINCKLEY: I think so.

Brian, do you think it's possible for the President of the church to still be God's true prophet if God hides his face from them like some have claimed he is currently doing?

I remember that interview. It seems to me that President Hinkley was not as assertive as he might have been. The expressions "I think he makes his will manifest" and " I think so" come across to me as a "well maybe", like he didn't want to make too much of it.

Stahura wrote:Brian, do you think it's possible for the President of the church to still be God's true prophet if God hides his face from them like some have claimed he is currently doing?

I'm not sure why you chose to use the words "God's true prophet" since God could have many "true prophets" on the earth - perhaps because of common word usage within LDS culture.. i.e. they assume that being called to a position is the same as BEING that thing which they were called to do. I feel that diminishes the true meaning of the word prophet. The early saints seemingly understood the distinction. To give an example we can probably all agree on, Judas was called by Christ to be one of the 12 apostles but that didn't make him a prophet, yet some of the 12 were most likely prophets. Many are called but few are chosen.

Anyways,getting back to how I want to answer your question.. I think it's possible the President of the Church could be authorized/called of God to that position even if God hides his face from them.

There is also another Hinckley interview that touches on the same topic:

Q: You are the president, prophet, seer and revelator of the Mormon Church?

HINCKLEY: I am so sustained, yes.

Q: And this belief in contemporary revelation and prophecy? As the prophet, tell us how that works. How do you receive divine revelation? What does it feel like?

HINCKLEY: Let me say first that we have a great body of revelation, the vast majority of which came from the prophet Joseph Smith. We don't need much revelation. We need to pay more attention to the revelation we've already received.

Now, if a problem should arise on which we don't have an answer, we pray about it, we may fast about it, and it comes. Quietly. Usually no voice of any kind, but just a perception in the mind. I liken it to Elijah's experience. When he sought the Lord, there was a great wind, and the Lord was not in the wind. And there was an earthquake, and the Lord was not in the earthquake. And a fire, and the Lord was not in the fire. But in a still, small voice. Now that's the way it works.

Why am I posting this? I'm not saying the Church leaders couldn't be inspired of the Lord in what they do but I think it illustrates that often what many members assume is not actually reality.

BrianM wrote:

Stahura wrote:Brian, do you think it's possible for the President of the church to still be God's true prophet if God hides his face from them like some have claimed he is currently doing?

I'm not sure why you chose to use the words "God's true prophet" since God could have many "true prophets" on the earth - perhaps because of common word usage within LDS culture.. i.e. they assume that being called to a position is the same as BEING that thing which they were called to do. I feel that diminishes the true meaning of the word prophet. The early saints seemingly understood the distinction. To give an example we can probably all agree on, Judas was called by Christ to be one of the 12 apostles but that didn't make him a prophet, yet some of the 12 were most likely prophets. Many are called but few are chosen.

Anyways,getting back to how I want to answer your question.. I think it's possible the President of the Church could be authorized/called of God to that position even if God hides his face from them.

I believe the same thing, I just worded it that way because I assumed you believed it that way, apparently I was wrong

I believe the same thing though. Was just curious as to your beliefs

Stahura wrote:I find it strange that they were surprised when they received the call. I imagine they would have already had this knowledge, as they are supposed to be special witnesses of Christ. I don't feel like a true Apostle should need assurance from Thomas Monson that the call is of God.

With that said, I don't know how God works, he works in mysterious ways. I hope that the current leaders are true prophets of God. I really liked Elder Renlund's talk. It wasn't about how much he loves the other leaders and his family and how long his family has been in the church etc. It was about the type of thing I come to conference to hear

I'm not convinced that many of the apostles come to their calling having yet received their special witness. If you study history, it is clear that many of them don't receive that witness until after they are called. President Kimball in his journal records the real struggle he had in obtaining his witness. So too does the record left by Heber J. Grant talk about his state of unreadiness for the call and his struggle for acceptance.

I'm confident there are many other examples of this.

ebenezerarise wrote:

Stahura wrote:I find it strange that they were surprised when they received the call. I imagine they would have already had this knowledge, as they are supposed to be special witnesses of Christ. I don't feel like a true Apostle should need assurance from Thomas Monson that the call is of God.

With that said, I don't know how God works, he works in mysterious ways. I hope that the current leaders are true prophets of God. I really liked Elder Renlund's talk. It wasn't about how much he loves the other leaders and his family and how long his family has been in the church etc. It was about the type of thing I come to conference to hear

I'm not convinced that many of the apostles come to their calling having yet received their special witness. If you study history, it is clear that many of them don't receive that witness until after they are called. President Kimball in his journal records the real struggle he had in obtaining his witness. So too does the record left by Heber J. Grant talk about his state of unreadiness for the call and his struggle for acceptance.

I'm confident there are many other examples of this.

I do think this is possible.There are also those that have never received this witness, some have said so. Brigham Young, Heber J Grant, Mark Peterson come to mind.

BrianM wrote:What's the point of even discussing the 3 possibilities you brought up? (I'm not saying there's no usefulness in such discussion, but..)

What comes to my mind is that many Church members will take a statement such as “This call comes from the Lord Jesus Christ" and they will give it their own meaning... some will believe that Jesus appeared to Pres. Monson (not saying it couldn't happen)... I'd say probably not. If we're to assume that it's more likely to have happened in the way President Hinckley described his communications with the Lord, and other processes that have been described.. my assumption (and I could be way off here) is that someone came up with a list of potential candidates and eventually that list got narrowed down and Pres. Monson (and maybe others) prayed about it and got a good feeling about who they should select. There are sooo many degrees of what someone could mean when they say something came from the Lord. Pres. Hinckley said it's usually a good feeling.

President Eyring:

I further testify to you that these wonderful men who have today been speaking to us as witnesses of the Lord Jesus Christ, as members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, are called of God. I know that the Spirit led President Monson to call them. And as you listened to them and their testimonies, the Holy Spirit confirmed to you what I now say to you. They are called of God. I sustain them and love them and know that the Lord loves them and will sustain them in their service. And I do it in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, amen.

The following comes from two books: "This is J. Reuben Clark: The Public Years", and "This is J. Reuben Clark: The Church Years" by Michael Quinn and Frank Fox, and published by the Brigham Young University Press in 1983. And I cannot remember what is from which, but AI think it is interesting about President Clark's calling into the First Presidency by President Heber J. Grant.

President Clark was very disturbed that he would be called to the First Presidency of the Church. One needs to know a little bit about the background of J. Reuben Clark at that time as far as the Church was concerned, to appreciate what a shock this was to him and probably to others as well. He hadn't been where he could be active in the church for 20 to 25 years. In Washington, D.C., where he lived and worked from 1906 until 1930, you could go to a little Sunday evening affair that Senator Smoot held, but that was all. He paid his tithing, but there wasn't any Church, very often, to go to. Then from 1931 to 1933 he served a U.S. Ambassador to Mexico. He'd never been a Bishop, never been a Stake President.

Then he suddenly found himself telling Bishops and Stake Presidents how to do their jobs, how run their Stakes and their Wards. Concerning his calling to the First presidency, J. Reuben Clark reportedly said to President Grant, "Don't you make these choices by inspiration?"
President Grant said, "Yes, we do."
J. Reuben Clark said, "I can understand why a lawyer of international prominence and so forth, like myself, may add to the prestige of the Church. But I don't know what I am doing here. I am doing things that I never was trained to do. I'm instructing people. I feel very inadequate."

Well, according to what I read, President Grant said, "That's not why you were chosen as a counselor."
Brother Clark asked, "Well, why was I chosen?"
President Grant told him, "You were chosen because the Constitution of the United States is in jeopardy. The Church needs to be aroused, the country needs to be aroused, and we've got to start training our people to defend that Constitution before it's shredded and lost."
"Oh, really?!"
"You are the best Constitutionalist in the Church."

And those of you who might remember President Benson’s talks and writings about our Constitution should be impressed by his having once referred to President Clark as "The eminent Constitutional authority".

lundbaek wrote:The following comes from two books: "This is J. Reuben Clark: The Public Years", and "This is J. Reuben Clark: The Church Years" by Michael Quinn and Frank Fox, and published by the Brigham Young University Press in 1983. And I cannot remember what is from which, but AI think it is interesting about President Clark's calling into the First Presidency by President Heber J. Grant.

President Clark was very disturbed that he would be called to the First Presidency of the Church. One needs to know a little bit about the background of J. Reuben Clark at that time as far as the Church was concerned, to appreciate what a shock this was to him and probably to others as well. He hadn't been where he could be active in the church for 20 to 25 years. In Washington, D.C., where he lived and worked from 1906 until 1930, you could go to a little Sunday evening affair that Senator Smoot held, but that was all. He paid his tithing, but there wasn't any Church, very often, to go to. Then from 1931 to 1933 he served a U.S. Ambassador to Mexico. He'd never been a Bishop, never been a Stake President.

Then he suddenly found himself telling Bishops and Stake Presidents how to do their jobs, how run their Stakes and their Wards. Concerning his calling to the First presidency, J. Reuben Clark reportedly said to President Grant, "Don't you make these choices by inspiration?"
President Grant said, "Yes, we do."
J. Reuben Clark said, "I can understand why a lawyer of international prominence and so forth, like myself, may add to the prestige of the Church. But I don't know what I am doing here. I am doing things that I never was trained to do. I'm instructing people. I feel very inadequate."

Well, according to what I read, President Grant said, "That's not why you were chosen as a counselor."
Brother Clark asked, "Well, why was I chosen?"
President Grant told him, "You were chosen because the Constitution of the United States is in jeopardy. The Church needs to be aroused, the country needs to be aroused, and we've got to start training our people to defend that Constitution before it's shredded and lost."
"Oh, really?!"
"You are the best Constitutionalist in the Church."

And those of you who might remember President Benson’s talks and writings about our Constitution should be impressed by his having once referred to President Clark as "The eminent Constitutional authority".

Now are there any current leaders that were called for similar reasons? Who knows.

ahhh, thats good, "Judas was called by Christ to be one of the 12 apostles....Many are called but few are chosen."

urr, more accurate quote would be, "But if a problem arises, as it does occasionally, a vexatious thing with which we have to deal, we go to the Lord in prayer. We discuss it as a First Presidency,and as a Council of the Twelve Apostles. We pray about it and then comes the whisperings of a still small voice.... "

gordon hinckley reservoir revelation
http://search.yahoo.co.jp/search?ei=UTF ... revelation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
:-B

Other than President J. Reuben Clark, I don't think any other Church General Authority has since then been called to inspire members of the Church to learn, uphold, and abide by the principles of the US Constitution to the extent that he seems to have been. Presidents G.A. Smith, McKay, and Benson seemed definitely motivated in their admonitions to the Church members. But since 1987 we have gotten only the occasional reminder to limited numbers of members about freedom and the Constitution, like President Hinkley's 1999 statement "both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States were brought forth under the inspiration of God"; like Elder Packer's 2009 statement "to honour the Constitution and to honour freedom is a sacred duty for all of us."; like Elder Quentin Cook's December 2011 statement at BYU-Idaho "Do Latter-day Saints believe the U.S. Constitution is a divinely inspired document? The Lord Himself answered that question when He declared, “I established the Constitution … by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose”; and like Elder Hale's April 2013 conference statement "We are role models to the world, protecting God-given and unalienable rights." And in May 2014 Elder Dallin Oaks stated in an interview with on KSL NewsRadio in Salt Lake City, " I see it as a responsibility for well-educated citizens, members of the bar and opinion leaders to be acquainted with the United States Constitution and its guarantees."

For various reasons I think that certain members of the Church and others as well have been and are now inspired to keep the flames alive, but in ways that keep the Church out of the picture. For example, this evening I will attend a presentation by an LDS acquaintance, the theme of which will be “Who Rules Us” and then he plans to talk about the Supreme Court adding to and changing the Constitution by judicial fiat. Another acquaintance has in the last couple of years done a few stake fireside presentations on the Constitution. And several members of my acquaintance are doing what then can thru John Birch Society chapter meetings, Tea Party events, a Constitution in the Classroom program to teach about the Constitution in private and charter schools, and even the occasional sacrament meeting talk and cottage meetings. So there is an effort to keep the flames alive, but it's not traceable to 50 East North Temple St.

I also feel to add that some of us may not need much is the way of strong inspiration or a spiritual kick in the butt to get into the freedom fight. Put another way, this is one thing we don't need to be commanded in. On at least one occasion I felt inspired to NOT say what I was about to say in a testimony meeting. A much better opportunity to say basically the same thing presented itself the following month.

Not arguing with your points, lundbaek....but I would remind you that the Church is a vastly different organization than it was in the days of J. Reuben Clark. The church was well under a million (maybe even half) and the US dominated membership numbers. No way is that true any more.

That doesn't lesson the importance of the Constitution or the principles of liberty. But it may explain why we hear what we hear from our leadership.

I think as Americans especially we are guilty of seeing things only through our own lens. The burden of the FP and Q12 to speak to the whole world and to be expressly understood in every context means they have to simplify their messaging a great deal.

The following was written by the late Jerome Horowitz, LDS author of THE ELDERS OF ISRAEL AND THE CONSTITUTION, and THE GOSPEL KEY TO OUR TRUE CONSTITUTION, and who in years past did many firesides on the Constitution:

".... I think the Church is cautious about openly participating in freedom promotion activities partly because of concern about government retribution that might unduly hinder its primary religious mission and partly because so many members have been indoctrinated to favor federal dominance and federal welfare and regulation that there is concern that a strong constitutional position might split the Church."