A Perspective on Authority

I would suggest that there is a vast expanse between enlisted members (stake level and below) and officers (70’s and up) in terms of authority. No one of the enlisted men, no matter how long they have served, will ever outrank a GA. Other than controlling the affairs of their own stakes/wards and managing the pittance of budget, no enlisted man can apply for promotion, or have any influence on church policy or procedure. If a certain enlisted man is very charismatic and valiant, no amount of support or petition from his ward/stake members will grant him special favor with the officers. He cannot be voted in or run for office.

The only way to bridge that gap is to have his name advanced by the officers, and it seems they prefer to keep their circle of power from being contaminated by, oh let’s say a simple fisherman or a carpenter.

In summary, the lay clergy and general members of the chrch have priesthood authority to do intangible things when exercising the power of God. They can bless the sacrament, but how do you know anything actually happened to it? They can bless a person who is sick, and they might or might not get better. They have authority in the social fiction of the church.

However if a GA was to bless the sacrament, members would feel strongly that it is somehow more blessed or more sacred, than when brother Jake did it, because the real authority is in the idea of the social fiction, regardless of it being the same prayer and same priesthood authority. The worst part of this, is when the person in authority feels every crazy idea is inspired by God, and there is no filter anymore to give balance and prevent abuse.

Perhaps a 14 year old boy fits the bill?

Founding a religion is a bit different than maintaining one. In the beginning you’ve got to select leaders through unconventional means because the convention hasn’t been established. I suppose these days the calling of bishop is proving grounds for stake presidents, the calling of stake president is proving grounds for the general authority, and so on. I certainly don’t expect to see the next apostle coming out of the ranks of someone that’s only ever served as an EQP for instance. They haven’t been proven yet… or they haven’t had callings which facilitate learning learn line upon line. There’s an order to it, for the most part it works out.

Still it makes me wonder if convention has trumped revelation. Meaning the top leaders of the church would be completely cut off from revelation indicating that a “nobody” be called as an apostle simply because it falls so far outside the established pattern. Of course the established pattern itself is a result of revelation so if it is the lord’s will that a “nobody” become an apostle they will rise through the ranks, become a “somebody,” and then be called up to apostleship.

We’re never going to have leaders that don’t have weaknesses. The question then becomes, what does it mean to overlook weakness?

However if a GA was to bless the sacrament, members would feel strongly that it is somehow more blessed or more sacred, than when brother Jake did it, because the real authority is in the idea of the social fiction, regardless of it being the same prayer and same priesthood authority.

This same scenario plays out nearly every single Sunday in many wards. A bishop’s comment (or a person with what some would view as a prestigious calling) is held in higher regard. Making a comment in class doesn’t require priesthood. I chalk it up to human nature, celebrity culture. A visiting GA is a celeb in the church so some people are going to think what they say and do is more important. I don’t think it has much to do with the priesthood itself, especially considering that we’re always taught that the prophet has the same priesthood as the recently ordained elder. Please don’t start talking about keys now.