They were indignant at His comments. It filled them with wrath. They thought they should be given the same signs, the same proof, of His claim to Messiahship as He would put before others. (Luke 4: 28-29.) However, He explained to them that He would be without honor among those closest to Him. (Luke 4: 24.)
What happened on that first day of teaching was a microcosm of His entire ministry. It is often the case that those who regard themselves as the “most religious” and “most correct” are capable of missing the truth sent to them by the Lord. They prefer the Lord package the truth in one way, coupled with a written guarantee that the package will never fail them, while the Lord is always sending it in another, and requiring them to receive it when only their hearts can guide them into recognizing it. It is little wonder, then, that our day is when “men’s hearts will fail them” because they fear, and trust not the things sent to them. (Luke 21: 26.)
Even if the person whose blood was shed departed this earth forgiving those who made offense against him, yet would “the ground” cry out for vengeance because the earth has become filthy by reason of the killing which took place upon her. She, as the “mother of men,” regards the killing of men upon her as an abomination. She cries out. She is offended. She wants righteousness to appear on her, as has happened before. She longs that it be brought about again. When, instead of Zion, she has the murder of men upon her face, it is so great a lamentation by her spirit that “the ground cries out for vengeance” because of the atrocity.
There is a great deal of unrest in the church. Oftentimes the result is inactivity. I believe that is a mistake. If all those who continued to care about the Gospel persisted in attending meetings and serving, it would do more to help the church than drifting into inactivity. Those who are sensitive to the troubles which beset the church need to be there, faithfully serving. If only those who are blinded to the troubles remain active, then the organization becomes narrower and narrower, less and less aware of its situation, and prone to continue in a course that will discard yet more of what matters most.
We’re all in this together. This is our dispensation. You are responsible for helping it be preserved and passed along to the rising generation. Do not grow weary in this fight. We share a common enemy, and it is not the leadership of the church. It is the one who stirs people up to anger. (2 Ne. 28: 20.)
“If the first presidency and the twelve really operate much like the lay members do, how then do you reconcile the MEANING of the words: Prophet; Seer; and Revelator. Aren’t these gifts unusual and set apart for the highest positions of the church? Wouldn’t one necessarily receive visions and dreams to qualify as a Prophet, Seer, or Revelator? How else would one SEE into the past, or the future, let alone clearly understanding the present? How do you reconcile the current revelatory state of the leadership with the meaning of the words, prophet, seer, and revelator?”
Inside the Church the current interpretation is that the “office” has associated with it a “title” set out in scripture. The “office” of the President of the High Priesthood (D&C 107: 65-66) , who is the President of the Church, also bears the “title” of “prophet, seer and revelator.” (D&C 107: 91-92.) The current interpretation of these verses is that the possessor of the office is entitled to the title of “prophet, seer and revelator” by virtue of office alone. Therefore, nothing more is needed in current church usage other than possession of the office, which alone gives the possessor of the office the title accorded to the office. So, no, our current terminology does not require something other than office.
It is possible to read the words of the verses differently, of course. First, the words we have adopted as they appear in scripture are not actually “prophet, seer and revelator” but are instead: “a seer, a revelator, a translator, and a prophet.” Those are different words and include in the phrase “a translator” in addition to “seer, revelator and a prophet.” We have dropped the word “translator” from the title we now use.
Second, it is possible that the following words may be viewed to mean something different than the way we currently read them, “to be like unto Moses— Behold, here is wisdom; yea, to be a seer, a revelator, a translator, and a prophet,” (D&C 107: 91-92). They could be read to mean that before you fill the office of President of the High Priesthood you must first locate “a seer” who is also, by definition, “a revelator” and “a translator” who is undoubtedly therefore “a prophet” and, having found such a person, you are to sustain him into the office. The office doesn’t make the man, but the Lord makes a man into such an instrument, and having done so then the church is to put him into the office. There are of course those who have these gifts. Many of them have no church office involving priesthood, because they are female. They may possess gifts, but they are disqualified for office. Then there are men who possess such gifts, but they may be living in South America, serving in a small branch, and completely unnoticed by the leadership, and therefore, never called.
The problem with the second point is that it invites near chaos. You would have dozens, hundreds or perhaps thousands of people who would step forward and make the claim that they are entitled to the office. Ambitious men who are either deceived or, worse still, cunning and dishonest, would seek to gain the office to further their ambitions. Such a parade of the deluded or the dishonest would be foisted upon the Saints every time the President died. Therefore, no matter how much merit you may think the second interpretation holds, it would be far more problematic to implement than the current interpretation and method.
The advantage of the current system is that the man who fills the vacancy is distinguished by how long he has held the church’s office of Apostle. Generally that means an elderly man, often suffering from the decline of advanced years and poor health. That means you are likely to have a man whose ambitions and exuberance are tempered by the maturity of age and the wisdom that comes from long life’s experience. It gives stability to the decision, as well as the person chosen.
If the second approach were to be adopted, then the choice would need to be made by the serving President before he left office (died), by making the choice of his successor as part of his official service. This is the method that the Lord revealed to Joseph Smith. (D&C 43: 3-4.) Joseph attempted this, but the one he chose to succeed him died with him (his brother Hyrum). So the office was left vacant and we had to sort it out.
There is another method that we haven’t tried, so far as I know. That would be to use “lots” to choose from every male in the church. This method was used to fill Judas’ vacancy in the original Twelve in Jerusalem. (Acts 1: 21-26.) The description there is ambiguous, but was intended to be random, unpredictable and not just a vote. It was a recognized way to choose someone. (See, e.g., 1 Ne. 3: 11.) It has been used to sort through the entire nation of Israel when all twelve tribes were assembled. Someone had stolen an idol, resulting in the withdrawal of the Lord’s Spirit from them in battle. The result was defeat for Israel and the death of many men. They needed to find the one who committed the offense. So they had to choose from the entire gathering of all twelve tribes. Beginning at the tribe level, they sorted through to find the right tribe (Judah). Then proceeded to sort through the tribe to locate the larger family involved (Zarhites). Then went through the family to find the individual involved (Achan). The whole thing is in the scriptures. (Joshua 7: 13-23.)
Such a system was uncontrolled by man, done by lot, completely random, but produced the right person. Left to God, it obtained God’s answer. Did with the sons of Lehi, and with the vacancy in the Twelve in the Book of Acts, too. There is no reason why such a system wouldn’t generate the Lord’s choice today.
If the President died without a successor having been designated, then random choosing using a lot system would put the choice in the Lord’s hands. But I suppose we don’t have the stomach to try it, particularly when we already have a system that seems to work for us.
Your question raises the issue of “authority” or office on the one hand, and “power” or gifts of the Spirit on the other hand. You should read President Packer’s talk in last General Conference for a recent statement by a respected church leader on that subject. I think I’ve commented on that talk enough already. As I re-read it this week I was again stirred by President Packer’s sagacity. I believe he is being candid, honest and giving the Saints the absolute best advice and counsel he can at this time.
Interesting subject. Something worth contemplating. Perhaps there will come a time when we are able to implement the system in D&C 43. Or when we put the Lord’s hand to work by using lots to choose a President. Though I do not expect to see any change made during my life.
“And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light; and there was light. And they (the Gods) comprehended the light, for it was bright; and they divided the light, or caused it to be divided, from the darkness. And the Gods called the light Day, and the darkness they called Night. And it came to pass that from the evening until morning they called night; and from the morning until the evening they called day; and this was the first, or the beginning, of that which they called day and night. And the Gods also said…” (Abr. 4: 3-6.)
Get your motor runnin’
Racin’ with the wind
And the feelin’ that I’m under…..
When Joseph Smith died, the crisis in succession produced arguments from various contenders who claimed it their right to lead the Church. Although no one argued that Section 107: 22-24 controlled the decision, ultimately the decision was that the Twelve Apostles held keys to lead the Church. A few years later the verses in Section 107 just cited became the rationale for why the Twelve would lead.
This decision was further clarified by adoption of the rule that the senior (one who held office longest) Apostle would be the presiding authority and by virtue of that seniority would be the President. Initially he was President of the Twelve. Then when Brigham Young reformed the First Presidency after a few years, he became President of the Church. Then in 1955 he became the living “prophet” as well.
Since the system has now reached a stable, orderly manner of choosing and recognizing whose right it is to preside over the church, what happens if another, more senior Apostle happens along? Whose right is it to preside if you are required to choose between direction that comes from the presiding authority of the church or direction that comes from John (who tarries in the flesh), (D&C 7: 1-4.) or Peter, James and John? (D&C 27: 12) Everyone presumes the messages from those who preside over the church on the earth and those who “tarry in the flesh” will be congruent, and that there is no conflict between the messages. But query what choice should be made if there is at least some inconsistency? Upon whom does the seniority rest?
A simpler question is what choice should be made between the Lord and those who preside in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I think all would agree that all church authorities are inferior to the Lord. However, we also presume that there will be no conflict between the two. What if there is at least some inconsistency?
It is an interesting question to ponder. Not that I have anything to add to your reflection on the matter. Sometimes it is just interesting to consider a question. Like I’ve said elsewhere, answers are less important than a good question to ponder from time to time. In the pondering, new and important ideas can occur to you.
Although my views are explained in this blog, I do not debate them. You are welcome to have contrary views, to disagree and to think I am altogether incorrect. But you shouldn’t waste the effort to try and persuade me to change my own view.
My testimony of Christ is informed both by what I have studied and what I have witnessed. It has taken decades of devotion in study and living to obtain a stable, firm view of the Lord and His role in my life. No one should expect to acquire an unchanging view of the Lord without paying a significant price in their time and effort. I can try to help, give advice and make suggestions. I can explain my views. But, in the end, every person must determine for themselves what Christ means and how they intend to relate to Him.
I believe the truth exists independent of your view or my view. Just because someone believes a false notion does not make it so. Eventually we will all come into agreement by the things which we experience. For most of the world, that will be some time after they are dead.