LDS Freedom Forum

Have you ever seen a Bishop, Stake President, or any other officer in the church ordained prior to being sustained by the members? What is the justification for ordaining or setting apart the President of the Church prior to him being sustained by the common consent of the members?

D&C 20: 65 No person is to be ordained to any office in this church, where there is a regularly organized branch of the same, without the vote of that church;

investigator wrote: ↑March 6th, 2018, 5:12 am Have you ever seen a Bishop, Stake President, or any other officer in the church ordained prior to being sustained by the members? What is the justification for ordaining or setting apart the President of the Church prior to him being sustained by the common consent of the members?

D&C 20: 65 No person is to be ordained to any office in this church, where there is a regularly organized branch of the same, without the vote of that church;

He had already been sustained a prophet,seer, and revelator, in fact dozens of times.

investigator wrote: ↑March 6th, 2018, 5:12 am Have you ever seen a Bishop, Stake President, or any other officer in the church ordained prior to being sustained by the members? What is the justification for ordaining or setting apart the President of the Church prior to him being sustained by the common consent of the members?

D&C 20: 65 No person is to be ordained to any office in this church, where there is a regularly organized branch of the same, without the vote of that church;

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding about the relationship between the first presidency and the twelve. We sustained President Neilson years ago and repeated the process many times sense. All the members of the twelve and the first presidency are equals in authority. Nothing can be done without the unanimous agreement of all of them. The President of the Church has no more authority than any of the others. This is a critical check and balance built into the government of the church. I prevents any one man from having or claiming to have dictatorial authority.

drtanner wrote: ↑March 6th, 2018, 6:44 am

investigator wrote: ↑March 6th, 2018, 5:12 am Have you ever seen a Bishop, Stake President, or any other officer in the church ordained prior to being sustained by the members? What is the justification for ordaining or setting apart the President of the Church prior to him being sustained by the common consent of the members?

D&C 20: 65 No person is to be ordained to any office in this church, where there is a regularly organized branch of the same, without the vote of that church;

He had already been sustained a prophet,seer, and revelator, in fact dozens of times.

Ok, I see. You do not consider the "Office" of the President of the High Priesthood an office in the church that falls under the admonition of D&C 20: 65.

gkearney wrote: ↑March 6th, 2018, 7:26 am

investigator wrote: ↑March 6th, 2018, 5:12 am Have you ever seen a Bishop, Stake President, or any other officer in the church ordained prior to being sustained by the members? What is the justification for ordaining or setting apart the President of the Church prior to him being sustained by the common consent of the members?

D&C 20: 65 No person is to be ordained to any office in this church, where there is a regularly organized branch of the same, without the vote of that church;

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding about the relationship between the first presidency and the twelve. We sustained President Neilson years ago and repeated the process many times sense. All the members of the twelve and the first presidency are equals in authority. Nothing can be done without the unanimous agreement of all of them. The President of the Church has no more authority than any of the others. This is a critical check and balance built into the government of the church. I prevents any one man from having or claiming to have dictatorial authority.

To understand your view, you do not consider the person who is the President of the Corporation of the Church, who, according to the charter of The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, actually owns all of the assets of the church, to have any more authority than any other members of the quorum of the twelve or the first presidency. And thus he does not need to be sustained by the church, like all other officers in the church as directed in D&C 20: 65.

From the bylaws of The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

"[T]his corporation shall have power, without any authority or authorization from the members of said Church or religious society, to grant, sell, convey, rent, mortgage, exchange, or otherwise dispose of any part or all of such property."

You should go directly to SLC and straighten those people out!

investigator wrote: ↑March 6th, 2018, 10:42 am To understand your view, you do not consider the person who is the President of the Corporation of the Church, who, according to the charter of The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, actually owns all of the assets of the church, to have any more authority than any other members of the quorum of the twelve or the first presidency. And thus he does not need to be sustained by the church, like all other officers in the church as directed in D&C 20: 65.

From the bylaws of The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

"[T]his corporation shall have power, without any authority or authorization from the members of said Church or religious society, to grant, sell, convey, rent, mortgage, exchange, or otherwise dispose of any part or all of such property."

It works great.

Craig Johnson wrote: ↑March 6th, 2018, 10:31 pm You should go directly to SLC and straighten those people out!

GC is soon. Maybe he can hold up one of the signs in protest since he found the silver bullet?

thisisspartaaa wrote: ↑March 7th, 2018, 5:44 am

Craig Johnson wrote: ↑March 6th, 2018, 10:31 pm You should go directly to SLC and straighten those people out!

GC is soon. Maybe he can hold up one of the signs in protest since he found the silver bullet?

Except Investigator probably is not the originator of this idea. Rock Waterman published a blog post on this a couple of weeks ago--and I could be wrong, but Investigator is not Waterman. And, it seems that Waterman got his ideas from Radio Free Mormon--from a podcast "Illegitimate First Presidency"?

These 'offerings' by ex-LDS are sometimes 'talking points' for some of the controversial and dissident threads that are brought up on the forum. Here's the one that Waterman wrote on this, but be warned, since his excommunication, he's pretty bitter and it shows. I think he's decided who's side he's on and it's not the LDS church.

http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2018/ ... ident.html

gkearny and drtanner are right and explain the reason why this a pattern we follow in ordaining a new prophet, but these people aren't interested in facts, as they just get in the way of their opinions--mainly that they don't like how the LDS church is run and so try to stir the pot and sow seeds of doubt among those who don't have a gkearny or drtanner around to talk them off the ledge.

drtanner wrote: ↑March 6th, 2018, 6:44 am

investigator wrote: ↑March 6th, 2018, 5:12 am Have you ever seen a Bishop, Stake President, or any other officer in the church ordained prior to being sustained by the members? What is the justification for ordaining or setting apart the President of the Church prior to him being sustained by the common consent of the members?

D&C 20: 65 No person is to be ordained to any office in this church, where there is a regularly organized branch of the same, without the vote of that church;

He had already been sustained a prophet,seer, and revelator, in fact dozens of times.

That is like saying a stake president does not need to be sustained before his stake because he has already been sustained as a high priest in his high priest's quorum.

investigator wrote: ↑March 7th, 2018, 9:45 amThat is like saying a stake president does not need to be sustained before his stake because he has already been sustained as a high priest in his high priest's quorum.

Not at all the same thing. A Stake President is not a member of a quorum of equals. The stake high council is not a quorum they act upon the direction of the Stake President. It is similar to being a Bishop. The president of the church is one of 15 persons all sustained as prophets and all equal to one another in authority.

gkearney wrote: ↑March 7th, 2018, 11:10 am

investigator wrote: ↑March 7th, 2018, 9:45 amThat is like saying a stake president does not need to be sustained before his stake because he has already been sustained as a high priest in his high priest's quorum.

Not at all the same thing. A Stake President is not a member of a quorum of equals. The stake high council is not a quorum they act upon the direction of the Stake President. It is similar to being a Bishop. The president of the church is one of 15 persons all sustained as prophets and all equal to one another in authority.

I would also add that collectively the high council does not hold any keys, and in this case the stake president had never previously been sustained a stake president by the body of the stake.

investigator wrote: ↑March 6th, 2018, 10:42 am

gkearney wrote: ↑March 6th, 2018, 7:26 am

investigator wrote: ↑March 6th, 2018, 5:12 am Have you ever seen a Bishop, Stake President, or any other officer in the church ordained prior to being sustained by the members? What is the justification for ordaining or setting apart the President of the Church prior to him being sustained by the common consent of the members?

D&C 20: 65 No person is to be ordained to any office in this church, where there is a regularly organized branch of the same, without the vote of that church;

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding about the relationship between the first presidency and the twelve. We sustained President Neilson years ago and repeated the process many times sense. All the members of the twelve and the first presidency are equals in authority. Nothing can be done without the unanimous agreement of all of them. The President of the Church has no more authority than any of the others. This is a critical check and balance built into the government of the church. I prevents any one man from having or claiming to have dictatorial authority.

To understand your view, you do not consider the person who is the President of the Corporation of the Church, who, according to the charter of The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, actually owns all of the assets of the church, to have any more authority than any other members of the quorum of the twelve or the first presidency. And thus he does not need to be sustained by the church, like all other officers in the church as directed in D&C 20: 65.

From the bylaws of The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

"[T]his corporation shall have power, without any authority or authorization from the members of said Church or religious society, to grant, sell, convey, rent, mortgage, exchange, or otherwise dispose of any part or all of such property."

There is, of course, a fundamental difference between ecclesiastical authority and the authority to carry out secular business on the Church's behalf.

Our stake sustained the First Presidency and the Twelve in our recent Stake Conference. Many other stakes have done the same. The publicity hounds (and attention whores) don't perform extravagant stunts at such events, so I rather suspect that the sustaining votes were unanimous in the other stakes, as they were in mine.

And we will all sustain the First Presidency and the Twelve at the upcoming General Conference. So the body of the Church will indeed give its consent to the ordination, just as has been done in the case of every new Church President within living memory.

The Prophet is the mouthpiece of the Lord, not of the Church. We could all refuse to sustain him, in which case, he could not serve as President of the Church; and then he and the Twelve would bear off the kingdom on their shoulders, and we would all go to hell together.

2 Ne 28: 14 They wear stiff necks and high heads; yea, and because of pride, and wickedness, and abominations, and whoredoms, they have all gone astray save it be a few, who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men.

Nephi saw our day and prophesied about it. He said that all would go astray except a few who were the humble followers of Christ. Those humble followers of Christ cannot be the leaders of the LDS or any church because Nephi continues and tells us that even those few humble followers of Christ make mistakes because of their leaders who teach them the precepts of men.

The Prophet is the mouthpiece of the Lord, not of the Church. We could all refuse to sustain him, in which case, he could not serve as President of the Church; and then he and the Twelve would bear off the kingdom on their shoulders, and we would all go to hell together.

You condemn those who do not sustain the leaders of the church to hell, when in reality, according to the prophecy of Nephi, it is the leaders who should be worrying about condemnation.

I think we misunderstand the reason we are to vote before he is ordained. It is not so that we can vote him out if we disagree. He is supposed to be called of God by the Spirit or Revelation. It does not matter whether we vote for or against in regards to whether or not he will be ordained. It only gives us an opportunity to sustain him or not.

investigator wrote: ↑March 11th, 2018, 10:09 am You condemn those who do not sustain the leaders of the church to hell, when in reality, according to the prophecy of Nephi, it is the leaders who should be worrying about condemnation.

Even if you are correct in your assessment (i don’t think you are), who are you to criticise and berate these men? Do you not know how serious God takes his commandment to not slander his anointed? If God should need to reprove his servants, he will do so himself. He isn’t accepting volunteers to assist him in this regard.

I did not criticize, berate, or slander anyone. I only pointed out what a true prophet of God said about the latter-day religious leaders. There are plenty more prophets who do the same thing; Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Moroni, Mormon,and the Lord himself. You are right, the Lord does not need volunteers to warn of the abominations that will occur in the latter-days he has true prophets who have done that. Most of those warnings we choose to ignore, and put on others, thinking they do not apply to us. But they do apply to us. I just pointed out one example. Here is another...

D&C 50: 4 Behold, I, the Lord, have looked upon you, and have seen abominations in the church that profess my name.

Quorums aren't ever sustained prior to being ordained. Stake Presidencies and Bishoprics aren't quorums.
Offices in the priesthood require being sustained prior to ordination but the first presidency isn't an office, whereas being an apostle is.
Example- I was sustained as an Elder prior to being ordained but as a member of the Elders Quorum presidency I was sustained after the fact. Same with my son who is Deacons quorum president. Sustained as a deacon prior to be setting apart but as president he was ordained first.

investigator wrote: ↑March 11th, 2018, 12:34 pm I did not criticize, berate, or slander anyone. I only pointed out what a true prophet of God said about the latter-day religious leaders. There are plenty more prophets who do the same thing; Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Moroni, Mormon,and the Lord himself. You are right, the Lord does not need volunteers to warn of the abominations that will occur in the latter-days he has true prophets who have done that. Most of those warnings we choose to ignore, and put on others, thinking they do not apply to us. But they do apply to us. I just pointed out one example. Here is another...

D&C 50: 4 Behold, I, the Lord, have looked upon you, and have seen abominations in the church that profess my name.

You need to understand the context of this verse of scripture you just quoted. Clearly you either do not or you are misapplying it to stir the pot to create division. Based on your other posts I suspect the latter. The Lord was not condemning Joseph and those who were faithfully serving in their apostolic callings when he pointing out these abominations. There were false spirits and false notions that had entered into some of the membership and they were creating upheaval in some of the branches of the church. Read the background of this revelation and the reason for it. This is an example of why we need watchmen on the tower to protect the membership from deceptive voices who attempt to scatter the flock. Kind of like what you seem fond of doing here by attempting to put church leadership into a negative light.

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and ... 0?lang=eng

investigator wrote: ↑March 11th, 2018, 10:09 am
Nephi saw our day and prophesied about it. He said that all would go astray except a few who were the humble followers of Christ. Those humble followers of Christ cannot be the leaders of the LDS or any church because Nephi continues and tells us that even those few humble followers of Christ make mistakes because of their leaders who teach them the precepts of men.

No.

investigator wrote: ↑March 11th, 2018, 10:09 am Nephi saw our day and prophesied about it. He said that all would go astray except a few who were the humble followers of Christ. Those humble followers of Christ cannot be the leaders of the LDS or any church because Nephi continues and tells us that even those few humble followers of Christ make mistakes because of their leaders who teach them the precepts of men.

So, you are saying that Nephi is telling us that the leaders of the Church cannot be humble followers of the Lord? That is a far cry from what I read in Nephi in the Book of Mormon. Read the entire chapter of 2 Nephi 28, he is not talking about The Church, he is talking about other churches.

2 Ne 28: 14 They wear stiff necks and high heads; yea, and because of pride, and wickedness, and abominations, and whoredoms, they have all gone astray save it be a few, who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men.

Okay so tell me this,
1. Who is it that are leading the humble followers of Christ causing them to error?
2. Who are the humble followers of Christ following?
3. If the humble followers of Christ are being led, can they be the leaders?

investigator wrote: ↑March 11th, 2018, 10:22 pm 2 Ne 28: 14 They wear stiff necks and high heads; yea, and because of pride, and wickedness, and abominations, and whoredoms, they have all gone astray save it be a few, who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men.

Okay so tell me this,
1. Who is it that are leading the humble followers of Christ causing them to error?
2. Who are the humble followers of Christ following?
3. If the humble followers of Christ are being led, can they be the leaders?

I find it fascinating that whenever a discussion of prophesy from BoM Prophets like Nephi or Mormon or Moroni concerning corruption from apostate religion comes up that immediately the accusations and innuendos start flying primarily aimed at the LDS church and its leadership in our day. It's as if those like Investigator and his other fault finder friends on this board can only see apostasy in the current church and completely ignore the real apostate fruits that have come down thru the ages by those who have adopted creeds that are an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. These apostate factions have changed the ordinances and corrupted the pure gospel taught by the Savior and his apostles. Yet they don't even get a mention when the accusations heat up. It just becomes an indictment on the LDS faith in their confirmation bias world. Hmmm..

Mark wrote: ↑March 11th, 2018, 11:03 pm

investigator wrote: ↑March 11th, 2018, 10:22 pm 2 Ne 28: 14 They wear stiff necks and high heads; yea, and because of pride, and wickedness, and abominations, and whoredoms, they have all gone astray save it be a few, who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men.

Okay so tell me this,
1. Who is it that are leading the humble followers of Christ causing them to error?
2. Who are the humble followers of Christ following?
3. If the humble followers of Christ are being led, can they be the leaders?

I find it fascinating that whenever a discussion of prophesy from BoM Prophets like Nephi or Mormon or Moroni concerning corruption from apostate religion comes up that immediately the accusations and innuendos start flying primarily aimed at the LDS church and its leadership in our day. It's as if those like Investigator and his other fault finder friends on this board can only see apostasy in the current church and completely ignore the real apostate fruits that have come down thru the ages by those who have adopted creeds that are an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. These apostate factions have changed the ordinances and corrupted the pure gospel taught by the Savior and his apostles. Yet they don't even get a mention when the accusations heat up. It just becomes an indictment on the LDS faith in their confirmation bias world. Hmmm..

Correct. Nephi is talking about humble followers of the Lord who are in "other" churches. Read better, it will be good for you!

investigator wrote: ↑March 11th, 2018, 10:22 pm 2 Ne 28: 14 They wear stiff necks and high heads; yea, and because of pride, and wickedness, and abominations, and whoredoms, they have all gone astray save it be a few, who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men.

Okay so tell me this,
1. Who is it that are leading the humble followers of Christ causing them to error?
2. Who are the humble followers of Christ following?
3. If the humble followers of Christ are being led, can they be the leaders?

Joseph Smith called his brother Hyrum as co-president of the church without any sustaining vote until a few months later. I'm sure he understood the revelation now found in the D&C quite well regarding ordination and sustaining, better than you or I do.