- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
President for one day?? :think: I would:
1) give women the priesthood and all equal status and rights in the church in all positions of leadership and responsibility. Polygamy is a thing of the past. Done for that specific period. Now done with it and move forward with women taking their rightful place in church.
2) allow Same sex sealings in temples and teach love is greater than anything.
3) word of wisdom removed from worthiness interviews and taught not by way of commandment but by control and wisdom to manage in moderation not abstinence.
Then run for the hills and let smarter people than me figure out how to implement it and teach it to everyone.
Heber13 wrote:
3) word of wisdom removed from worthiness interviews and taught not by way of commandment but by control and wisdom to manage in moderation not abstinence.
I talk about substance abuse now to my 8 year old in terms of control as opposed to a commandment from God. I tell her that our family does not do well with alcohol or drugs, that the best personal policy is to avoid them. 3 out of 4 of my grandparents were alcoholics. 1 of my brothers ended up in jail and rehab due to alcohol and drugs. 2 out of my husband’s 4 grandparents were alcoholics. My husband’s dad, my husband, and probably my daughter have personalities that can become easily addicted to substances.
I don’t know specifically whether God cares what my family does – but I do believe that “God helps those who help themselves” – and that in this instance, abstinence is a better option. Because my daughter takes a Ritalin-like medicine, I am teaching her about how to handle medication responsibly (don’t give your meds to your friends, consult your doctor regarding all changes in the doses you take, etc).
I have about 2 years to sneak in the important foundational principles
, here’s hoping it continues to go well. Heber13 wrote:
Then run for the hills and let smarter people than me figure out how to implement it and teach it to everyone.
Yup.
Say no. I have a couple more: – Allow apostles to become “emeritus” after a certain age (75?) either by their own choice or upon medical certification that they are incapacitated mentally or physically (which would include a diagnosis of terminal cancer).
– Stop standing when the president enters the room. Really. Go ahead and sing the stupid song, but don’t stand up.
I just thought of one: -I’d abolish the position of Prophet/President/First Presidency forever.
We praise him and thank him too much. We take all he says as revelation from God. We stick him on a much higher pedistal than I think God would be happy with. Stick with the Q12, with everyone getting an equal say.
Wow! Such excellent ideas (a few I’d already thought of and a few others that had never crossed my mind)! I know most of these have already been mentioned but I’ll just give my “Amen” to them and add a few additional ones of my own… 1. Get rid of the Word of Wisdom as a “commandment”
because God never intended it to be one. Remove it as a requirement for a temple recommend. 2. Ideally, get rid of the whole checkbox list of requirements for a temple recommend. Turn it into a one-question interview: “Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord’s house and participate in temple ordinances?”
3. Scrap the stupid rules regarding facial hair on men serving in certain positions (e.g. missionaries and temple workers) and relax the white shirt and tie dress code for men. (I know the dress code isn’t an official policy, but the way it’s seen now, it might as well be.)
4. Get rid of the one-year waiting period for a temple sealing after a civil wedding (anywhere in the world where that requirement still exists), and actually encourage couples with non-member parents to marry civilly first so that they can actually obey the commandment to honor their parents instead of excluding them.
5. Allow LGBT couples to be sealed in the temple, or at least stop considering them to be apostates. Make fidelity within marriage be the criteria for worthiness.
(Will add more as I think of them.)
Katzpur wrote:
5. Allow LGBT couples to be sealed in the temple, or at least stop considering them to be apostates. Make fidelity within marriage be the criteria for worthiness.
I was trying to figure out how to word that one. I’m not actually of the mindset that we have to force the church to perform or even recognize gay marriage BUT I do agree that removing the apostate label is important. The paradox in my own mind is that the church admits being gay is not a choice, but at the same time forbids following that natural need for sexual fulfillment.
dande48 wrote:
I just thought of one:-I’d abolish the position of Prophet/President/First Presidency forever.
We praise him and thank him too much. We take all he says as revelation from God. We stick him on a much higher pedistal than I think God would be happy with.
Stick with the Q12, with everyone getting an equal say.
(emphasis added)
You do know that it does actually work on unanimity among the Q15, right? And they’re not just rubber stampers. That really makes this whole discussion an exercise in futility because I don’t think I’d get total buy in on most of them, but it’s just for fun anyway.
DarkJedi wrote:
You do know that it does actually work on unanimity among the Q15, right? And they’re not just rubber stampers. That really makes this whole discussion an exercise in futility because I don’t think I’d get total buy in on most of them, but it’s just for fun anyway.
I know it does (or at least, we’re told it does), BUT I have the feeling there is a strong obligation most of the Q12 have to “follow the prophet”. With official declarations and changes in policy, it’s usually signed on by the prophet, or the prophet and his two counselors. They are not a council of equals. If an apostle disagrees with the prophet (as has happened), it defaults to the prophet.
Just like with our sustaining vote, we can choose to vote against, but there’s an expectation that any dissenting votes are the fault of the individual and not the leadership. We’re expected to learn to accept the leader’s decision, in spite of our reservations, and if we cannot do that, we get into trouble. It’s the freedom of “getting to do what I tell you to do.”
dande48 wrote:
I just thought of one:-I’d abolish the position of Prophet/President/First Presidency forever.
We praise him and thank him too much. We take all he says as revelation from God. We stick him on a much higher pedistal than I think God would be happy with. Stick with the Q12, with everyone getting an equal say.
FWIW, that is very similar to the Church of Christ, aka Church of Christ (Temple Lot), aka Hedrickites. When I met with a couple of them around two decades ago, they explained that they believed the institution of the office of High Priest and Presidencies to have been a false teaching. From wikipedia:Quote:Although the Temple Lot church accepts the veracity of Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, it does not necessarily accept everything that Smith taught or claimed to be revelation. One distinct difference between it and other Latter Day Saint churches lies in its rejection of the office of President of the Church. Instead of a president–prophet, the Church of Christ is led by its Quorum of Twelve Apostles, with all members of that body being considered equal in precedence and authority. Members of the Temple Lot church believe that Smith was wrong to assume the office of church president, an office they deem to not have been provided for in either the Bible or the Book of Mormon, their two scriptural standards. Although Granville Hedrick was ordained to be president of his church in 1863, he later repudiated this ordination, even referring to Smith as a “fallen prophet”.
dande48 wrote:
DarkJedi wrote:
You do know that it does actually work on unanimity among the Q15, right? And they’re not just rubber stampers. That really makes this whole discussion an exercise in futility because I don’t think I’d get total buy in on most of them, but it’s just for fun anyway.
I know it does (or at least, we’re told it does), BUT I have the feeling there is a strong obligation most of the Q12 have to “follow the prophet”. With official declarations and changes in policy, it’s usually signed on by the prophet, or the prophet and his two counselors. They are not a council of equals. If an apostle disagrees with the prophet (as has happened), it defaults to the prophet.
Just like with our sustaining vote, we can choose to vote against, but there’s an expectation that any dissenting votes are the fault of the individual and not the leadership. We’re expected to learn to accept the leader’s decision, in spite of our reservations, and if we cannot do that, we get into trouble. It’s the freedom of “getting to do what I tell you to do.”
I may be a little optimistic on what goes on in the highest councils, but at the same time I think you might be being a bit pessimistic. Actuality is probably somewhere in the middle.
It is not beyond the realm of possibility that I might be getting hoodwinked, but I honestly believe those few who have talked about it when they say that they do have vigorous discussions in those meetings and that they don’t do anything until unanimity is reached (which Nelson himself as an apostle has said). Looking at it from the opposite point of view, I think that’s why some changes we’d like to see don’t seem to come very quickly. It is why it took so long to end the priesthood ban. It’s why when they say things like ministering took years in the making took years in the making. There are clearly strong personalities in that bunch, and at that level I don’t think “follow the prophet” has that much sway when they’re privy to all the same stuff he is and when they know how revelation works (it works the same as it does for us – feeling good). And they know full well the prophet isn’t having regular sit downs with the Master in the Holy of Holies.
I also believe stakes are microcosms of the big church – mini versions (and I think it was meant to be that way and was, in fact, how Joseph ran the church). We, too, have vigorous discussions to the point of what a true council is meant to be – anyone can say anything without fear of repercussion or disrespect. As a council we have made changes to things the SP has wanted (two recent examples are our stake goals, which we tuned down considerably and a proposal to turn off wifi during SM which we nixed). And we have sent them back to the drawing board on some individuals proposed for callings, not because of “worthiness” but because of time requirements in some cases or just plain lack of ability (like the 75 year old who is losing his mental capacity and has a wife with terminal cancer as EQP).
DarkJedi wrote:It is not beyond the realm of possibility that I might be getting hoodwinked, but I honestly believe those few who have talked about it when they say that they do have vigorous discussions in those meetings and that they don’t do anything until unanimity is reached (which Nelson himself as an apostle has said).
I’ve always suspected that part of the reason it took so many years for the Priesthood ban to be lifted was that Harold B. Lee was so opposed, not only to Black men holding the priesthood, but to civil rights for African-Americans in general. In “David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism,” his daughter is quoted as having told a friend, “My daddy said that as long as he’s alive, they’ll never have the priesthood.” Obviously, that proved to be the case. Wow.
:problem: He was only 74 when he died and had been in good health. Had he lived into his nineties, my very strong opinion is that the ban would not have been lifted until about 20 years ago. It actually wouldn’t have mattered whether he had become the President of the Church or was just on the Quorum of the Twelve. If they don’t do anything until unanimity is reached, just look where we’d be today. And if two or three of the men now serving on the Quorum of the Twelve were no longer serving, there’s no telling how quickly men like Uchtdorf would be able to bring about the changes so many of us would like to see.Katzpur wrote:
DarkJedi wrote:It is not beyond the realm of possibility that I might be getting hoodwinked, but I honestly believe those few who have talked about it when they say that they do have vigorous discussions in those meetings and that they don’t do anything until unanimity is reached (which Nelson himself as an apostle has said).
I’ve always suspected that part of the reason it took so many years for the Priesthood ban to be lifted was that Harold B. Lee was so opposed, not only to Black men holding the priesthood, but to civil rights for African-Americans in general. In “David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism,” his daughter is quoted as having told a friend, “My daddy said that as long as he’s alive, they’ll never have the priesthood.” Obviously, that proved to be the case. Wow.
:problem: He was only 74 when he died and had been in good health. Had he lived into his nineties, my very strong opinion is that the ban would not have been lifted until about 20 years ago. It actually wouldn’t have mattered whether he had become the President of the Church or was just on the Quorum of the Twelve. If they don’t do anything until unanimity is reached, just look where we’d be today. And if two or three of the men now serving on the Quorum of the Twelve were no longer serving, there’s no telling how quickly men like Uchtdorf would be able to bring about the changes so many of us would like to see.
It was not only Lee that was opposed, there were several others among that staunch conservative group of apostles at the time (including McConkie and Fielding Smith). There’s some kind of interesting church politics that went on during the DOM administration and shortly thereafter that involved J. Reuben Clark, who did not get along with DOM, and a concerted effort by Clark to bring into the Q12 more ultra conservatives. But that’s a bigger and more in depth story. Suffice it to say, that group of conservative members are what kept the ban for so long because, as stated, the quorums could not reach unanimity. No unanimity, no change.
McKay had a partial victory – barely ever discussed – which allowed blacks of non-African origins to get the priesthood e.g. Fijians, Aborigines, Tamils, Papuans etc. I guess the opponents could cook up a strong enough link to Ham. DarkJedi wrote:
the quorums could not reach unanimity. No unanimity, no change.
This is something I’m unclear on. I know there have been recent statements that the Q12 must be all together to make a change. However, it has not always been so, and I don’t think it was even so in this specific event. Back in the old days, especially when the Q12 were on far flung missions or assignments, all that was needed was a seven-member majority. In a certain way, this is why an organization like Q12 works, because the group is large enough and diverse enough (in theory) that there can be disagreement on how to vote, but it takes at least seven, which is 58%, and at least two more than the opposition, creating a kind of super majority.For example, when BY was voted to become president of the Church, there were a few Apostles who were against the idea, but they weren’t even present and there were at least seven (including BY and HCK) who voted for it.
When the Manifesto was issued in 1890, a junior member of the Q12 was John W Taylor, and it’s hard to imagine him voting for it.
After the Second Manifesto was issued and voted for in GC, two of the Q12, JWT and Matthias F Cowley remained in opposition and resigned from the Q12 about 18 months later.
In the case of HBL, my understanding is that the Q12 voted in favor or rescinding the BAN at a time when HBL wasn’t there, but had exactly seven votes. When HBL returned and heard what had happened, he objected that he had never had an opportunity to speak. The Q12 was reconvened and he gave a convincing argument for upholding the ban. FWIW, I get the assumption that it was racially motivated, and it probably was to a significant degree, but his argument was that it was not something that could be reversed except by a revelation; it wasn’t up to the Q12 to vote out a doctrine. With the benefit of historical research, I think we now understand that it wasn’t a doctrine, but a man-made policy, but I’m sympathetic to the paralyzed state of the church leaders who felt they could only act at the request of God on such an issue, which they felt to have been God-given. Caveat: the Ban was wrong and terrible. I am in no way defending it or the Church for instituting it. I just think that lifting it was more difficult because of their firm faith.
BKP used the term “unanimous voice”, but that isn’t necessarily the same as “unanimous vote”. I wonder if the “unity” or “unanimous” nature of the Q12 is more along the lines that once a vote has been made, they all accept and move on together in total agreement.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.