Quorums and Unanimity

[Anonymous]

What happened to the prophet alone affecting change?

During the priesthood section Saturday night, Russell Nelson said:

Quote:

The calling of 15 men to the holy apostleship provides great protection for us as members of the Church. Why? Because decisions of these leaders must be unanimous. Can you imagine how the Spirit needs to move upon 15 men to bring about unanimity? These 15 men have varied educational and professional backgrounds, with differing opinions about many things. Trust me! These 15 men—prophets, seers, and revelators—know what the will of the Lord is when unanimity is reached! They are committed to see that the Lord’s will truly will be done.

Right after that, Carol McConkie said:

Quote:

In the Lord’s true Church, “there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred.” We sustain President Thomas S. Monson as our prophet, seer, and revelator. He reveals the word of the Lord to guide and direct our entire Church. As President J. Reuben Clark Jr. explained, “The President of the Church … alone has the right to receive revelations for the Church.”

Consider the following from the D&C:

Quote:

D&C 21 (1830)

Behold, there shall be a record kept among you; and in it thou shalt be called a seer, a translator, a prophet, an apostle of Jesus Christ, an elder of the church through the will of God the Father, and the grace of your Lord Jesus Christ…Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me…

D&C 43 (1831)

…ye have received a commandment for a law unto my church, through him whom I have appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations from my hand. And this ye shall know assuredly—that there is none other appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations until he be taken, if he abide in me. But verily, verily, I say unto you, that none else shall be appointed unto this gift except it be through him; for if it be taken from him he shall not have power except to appoint another in his stead.

D&C 107 (1835)

…three Presiding High Priests…form a quorum of the Presidency of the Church…

…the Twelve Apostles…form a quorum, equal in authority and power to the three presidents…

…The Seventy…form a quorum, equal in authority to that of the Twelve special witnesses or Apostles…

…every decision made by either of these quorums must be by the unanimous voice of the same…

…A majority may form a quorum when circumstances render it impossible to be otherwise…

I suppose “either of these quorums” really means “any of these quorums” since three quorums are mentioned. Anyway, it seems that me that the prophet alone can receive commandments and revelations from God, while each quorum must have unanimity when making administrative decisions that are not commandments or revelations.

Are we doing it wrong today? Didn’t Peter alone have a vision and receive a commandment to take the Gospel to the gentiles? Didn’t Joseph Smith alone receive commandments and revelations, even after 1835? Wouldn’t it have been nice if one bigot did not have the power to keep the priesthood and temple ordinances from black people? It really is interesting to “imagine how the Spirit needs to move upon 15 men to bring about unanimity.”

[Anonymous]

There hasn’t been one clear answer in our modern history – and I like, very much, not having one person be the sole decision-maker at the top of the modern LDS Church. I’m a big fan of the quorum approach, generally.

[Anonymous]

I see what you mean, Ray. It can be scary for one man to have so much power. But if he really does receive commandments and revelations from God, then it can be awesome. What if David McKay (or an earlier prophet) had unilaterally kicked the priesthood restriction to the curb? As it was, one man alone was able to stop that from happening.

[Anonymous]

From perhaps another perspective, D&C 21 and 43 could be referring only to Joseph Smith, although 43 does talk about another who could be ordained in his stead. If it is referring only to Joseph it would not necessarily apply to any succeeding prophets (like the stupor of thought doesn’t seem to apply to many besides Oliver Cowdery).

I like that it’s not just one person in that it makes it harder to push an individual agenda. I also like that it has been clearly explained in conference now – I’m not sure the majority of the active membership really saw it quite that way before. Contrasting Nelson and McConkie, Nelson is an apostle who has sat in those councils and McConkie appears to have nothing more than parroted. I’d take Nelson’s word over hers.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

From perhaps another perspective, D&C 21 and 43 could be referring only to Joseph Smith…

That’s a good point and I have considered it. I think it still applies today, though (see below).

DarkJedi wrote:

I like that it’s not just one person in that it makes it harder to push an individual agenda. I also like that it has been clearly explained in conference now – I’m not sure the majority of the active membership really saw it quite that way before. Contrasting Nelson and McConkie, Nelson is an apostle who has sat in those councils and McConkie appears to have nothing more than parroted. I’d take Nelson’s word over hers.

It think it’s not just about contrasting Nelson and McConkie. It seems quite official that “We sustain the President of the Church as prophet, seer, and revelator—the only person on the earth who receives revelation to guide the entire Church.”

There are examples of church presidents seemingly acting alone after Joseph Smith. Some are not cool:

Quote:

In order to enforce the constant wearing of the garment, Joseph F. Smith had the following instructions hung in all temples: “The following is to be regarded as an established and imperative rule. The garments worn by those who receive endowments must be white and of the approved pattern; they must not be altered or mutilated, and are to be worn as intended, down to the wrist and ankles and around the neck. Admission to the temple will be refused to those who do not comply to these requirements.” “The Saints should know that the pattern of endowment garments was revealed from Heaven…” (Messages of the First Presidency, 5:110, June 28, 1906)

https://www.scribd.com/doc/41977917/History-of-the-Garment

And some are cool:

Quote:

However, after JFS’s death, Pres Heber J. Grant, in 1923, ordered the instructions left by Pres Smith at all temples to be “taken down and burned.” (Messages of the First Presidency, 5:110). Not just thrown away, he wanted them burned. Pres Grant did not believe there was a garment pattern given to the saints, and he did not believe that wearing a shorter garment would violate any supposed covenants, evidenced by the fact that in 1923 he shortened the garment and changed it’s style, and over the years made further changes up until the day he died.

(Same source)

Anyway, I like my analysis – “the prophet alone can receive commandments and revelations from God, while each quorum must have unanimity when making administrative decisions that are not commandments or revelations.“

[Anonymous]

People are famous in the church for heralding the divinely revealed means by which we do things in general. In this case, it’s not so much different than leadership in any context. A wise leader (president of a corporation) will lead by listening to the people he or she leads. There is normally some kind of executive committee at the top that provides input and guidance; this is not unique to our organization. In order to get the most engagement and commitment from these leaders, a wise head of any organization will make decisions by consensus wherever possible (there are times when this is not possible). Where there is no consensus, the leader will have to decide for the group, or go with a majority.

I no longer believe in the “magical” way we do things as far above what any other organization does. This method has led to a lot of mistakes. We could list them in detail. The fact that the leaders serve for life, and are promoted from within creates a very slow-moving organization that makes change slowly. And that leads to mistakes.

I still remember a couple years ago when Stake Sunday School leaders came to our Ward and went on with great pride about the new way of teaching the youth in our Church. The whole thing was presented as a divinely revealed, glorious approach to teaching youth — less reliance on scripted lessons, an emphasis on interaction, use of online resources. It was as if they felt the heavens had opened and rays of new light and knowledge where shone on the church.

What they didnt’ realize that as a career teacher, I know these principles have been practiced in enlightened educational institutions for decades (with the exception of the technology part, which has been around for about a decade or more). That I’ve sat frustrated in church meetings for years as people read from stilted manuals and taught “don’t adapt the lesson” etcetera.

So, I see the way we do things as temporary (but slow moving in being progressive), representative of the learning all organizations go through, and certainly not the best way. Nor does it represent bolts of lightening from God telling us the best and absolutely perfect way of doing things.

[Anonymous]

I see that any revelations, or inspirations or actions that the prophet wants to do, are to be unanimously sustained by the first presidency and the quorum of the twelve. Perhaps this pattern has not been perfectly followed in the past. I would be surprised if it was.

If we believe all truth from whatever source it comes, it does not surprise me that we take better teaching techniques from where they are found. We learn line upon line and precept upon precept. Both individually and collectively.

[Anonymous]

richalger wrote:

I see that any revelations, or inspirations or actions that the prophet wants to do, are to be unanimously sustained by the first presidency and the quorum of the twelve. Perhaps this pattern has not been perfectly followed in the past. I would be surprised if it was.

If we believe all truth from whatever source it comes, it does not surprise me that we take better teaching techniques from where they are found. We learn line upon line and precept upon precept. Both individually and collectively.

I think you’re right, Rich, in that this practice may not have been common in the past. I suppose that could be for any number of reasons, including that the prophet just didn’t ask (for whatever reason) or that the duties of the quorums became clearer over time. It is possible that the quorums were asked but didn’t know they could dissent or were bullied in some way into compliance. Whatever the reason, I’m glad it’s the way it is now.

[Author]

Posts