Church President Succession

[Sullyute]

Yes and no. He had been estranged for some time.

Ridgon is a wierd case. He was in and out of the good graces of JS so many times that it is hard to keep track of. He was on relatively good terms with Joseph in the Spring of 1844 as Joseph allowed the Council of Fifty to select Rigdon (their third choice) to be Joseph's running mate for the president of the US. Which is one of the reason's he was "estranged" from the Church: the Vice President and President were not allowed to be from the same state, so Rigdon moved to Pennsylvania.

Also, I don't think Utah Dan is correct on the transfiguration bit. I think Quinn found contemporary journals. But don't quote me.

I just finished the book by Quinn, and you are correct. He did find a handful of journal entries that were contemporary, but the majority did not come until long afterwards.

[Pheidippides]

So you subscribe to the idea that the Lord chooses the next prophet by killing off the others? I've never been comfortable with that idea. I think the Lord lets nature takes its course and that he has been OK with his leaders deciding the succession policy. We, of course, have no known revelation on the matter either for or against the current rule.

I don't subscribe to that either. It implies a God that is far more activist than I believe in. I view God as a huge donor football fan at home: cares passionately about the results, gets frustrated and yells at the screen sometimes, but doesn't call up the AD to demand a change unless things get really screwed up.

[Pheidippides]

Ridgon is a wierd case. He was in and out of the good graces of JS so many times that it is hard to keep track of. He was on relatively good terms with Joseph in the Spring of 1844 as Joseph allowed the Council of Fifty to select Rigdon (their third choice) to be Joseph's running mate for the president of the US. Which is one of the reason's he was "estranged" from the Church: the Vice President and President were not allowed to be from the same state, so Rigdon moved to Pennsylvania.




I just finished the book by Quinn, and you are correct. He did find a handful of journal entries that were contemporary, but the majority did not come until long afterwards.

There was more to the estrangement than that - prior to that he'd been all but out of Joseph's graces and their relationship was on and off.

The more interesting part of the succession crisis is the Marks/Emma vs Brigham Young battle. Marks represented the abandonment of the "secret" stuff - polygamy, temple, literal kingdom of God theocracy - and Brigham was for the preservation. Some have made the argument that the wrong side won.

The period with the rowdy deacons bullying people and the actions of some of the 12 in particular to get to that point (some of them were real characters) are also interesting. As is the fact that Quinn apparently used a Hoffman forgery - perhaps negligently - to bolster the argument of a potential assassination of Samuel Smith.

[LA Ute]

So you subscribe to the idea that the Lord chooses the next prophet by killing off the others? I've never been comfortable with that idea. I think the Lord lets nature takes its course and that he has been OK with his leaders deciding the succession policy. We, of course, have no known revelation on the matter either for or against the current rule.

President Kimball wrote and spoke a lot about that and seemed to be making (or trying to make) a definitive statement about how succession works -- kind of like the way he drove a stake through the heart of Adam-God. It's persuasive to me. As for letting nature take its course, to me it is not a stretch at all to believe that the president of the church dies when the Lord is decides it is time for him to move on. (I admire, in a way, your "killing off the others" line, though - very strong, and a total mischaracterization of what I meant.)

[Jacob]

President Kimball wrote and spoke a lot about that and seemed to be making (or trying to make) a definitive statement about how succession works -- kind of like the way he drove a stake through the heart of Adam-God. It's persuasive to me. As for letting nature take its course, to me it is not a stretch at all to believe that the president of the church dies when the Lord is decides it is time for him to move on. (I admire, in a way, your "killing off the others" line, though - very strong, and a total mischaracterization of what I meant.)

I can't imagine what else you could have meant. You said it it is simply a matter of life and death, hence the Lord is in charge. What else did you mean if not that the Lord was in charge of who was dying to make a place for the successor?

In addition to Kimball, Packer recently gave a conference talk on the matter trying to boost or reinforce the idea that the successor is simply the next senior apostle and no one should ever question it. Actually, I think it was at the Hinckley funeral.

[LA Ute]

I can't imagine what else you could have meant. You said it it is simply a matter of life and death, hence the Lord is in charge. What else did you mean if not that the Lord was in charge of who was dying to make a place for the successor?

In addition to Kimball, Packer recently gave a conference talk on the matter trying to boost or reinforce the idea that the successor is simply the next senior apostle and no one should ever question it. Actually, I think it was at the Hinckley funeral.

Oh, please. If God preserves the lives of prophets or apostles until their mission is completed, then allows them to die, I don't think that can be fairly characterized as God "killing them off." It's hard to take you seriously when you get into that type of distortion.

[Jacob]

Oh, please. If God preserves the live of prophets or apostles until their mission is completed, then allows them to die, I don't think that can be fairly characterized as God "killing them off."

Well that's not really what you said. But OK. So you have not been talking about the topic at hand, which is what to do when a prophet is unable to fulfill any mission at all?

Extending life requires supernatural intervention. so you are saying that God will intercede to extend life, but not to end it? That doesn't address what we've been talking about.

[LA Ute]

Well that's not really what you said. But OK. So you have not been talking about the topic at hand, which is what to do when a prophet is unable to fulfill any mission at all?

Extending life requires supernatural intervention. so you are saying that God will intercede to extend life, but not to end it? That doesn't address what we've been talking about.

Try again:

I have been told (and it makes sense to me) that on the death of the sitting prophet, someone other than the senior apostle could be the next president, but that change from the standard succession would have to be revealed to the senior apostle by the Lord. That doesn't work when the senior apostle is incapacitated.

President Kimball taught that life and death are the controlling factors as to who becomes the senior apostle. (I.e., the Lord is in charge. Not a new concept!) That doesn't directly address the question of an incapacitated prophet, but assuming that life and death really are the controlling factors, then just putting up with an incapacitated prophet until he passes away seems to be the right approach. The remaining apostles would probably look to the 1st counselor in the FP, or perhaps the next-senior apostle if there is no FP, for leadership. When Pres. Benson was unable to do much, Pres. Hinckley pretty much took over, even though he was junior to Pres. Hunter.

[TripletDaddy]

President Kimball taught that life and death are the controlling factors as to who becomes the senior apostle. (I.e., the Lord is in charge. Not a new concept!) That doesn't directly address the question of an incapacitated prophet, but assuming that life and death really are the controlling factors, then just putting up with an incapacitated prophet until he passes away seems to be the right approach. The remaining apostles would probably look to the 1st counselor in the FP, or perhaps the next-senior apostle if there is no FP, for leadership. When Pres. Benson was unable to do much, Pres. Hinckley pretty much took over, even though he was junior to Pres. Hunter.

I agree with the bolded part of your quote

[LA Ute]

I agree with the bolded part of your quote

I agree with your entire post.

[UtahDan]

Yes and no. He had been estranged for some time.

Also, I don't think Utah Dan is correct on the transfiguration bit. I think Quinn found contemporary journals. But don't quote me.

Sort of. Quinn found a couple contemporary journal entries but they don't really describe a transfiguration. There is a good article that quotes all of them and sets forth the case that the transfiguration story is a "pious folklore" that takes hold in the post martyrdom Utah period, also in Dialog, here. It is a short easy read.

[UtahDan]

Ridgon is a wierd case. He was in and out of the good graces of JS so many times that it is hard to keep track of. He was on relatively good terms with Joseph in the Spring of 1844 as Joseph allowed the Council of Fifty to select Rigdon (their third choice) to be Joseph's running mate for the president of the US. Which is one of the reason's he was "estranged" from the Church: the Vice President and President were not allowed to be from the same state, so Rigdon moved to Pennsylvania.

This accords with my understanding as well. It is also crystal clear from Joseph's journal that in the wake of the destruction of the printing press that he sent Rigdon away because he wanted him alive.

[Pheidippides]

Sort of. Quinn found a couple contemporary journal entries but they don't really describe a transfiguration. There is a good article that quotes all of them and sets forth the case that the transfiguration story is a "pious folklore" that takes hold in the post martyrdom Utah period, also in Dialog, here. It is a short easy read.

Right. They didn't talk of it as a transfiguration so much as what we' call a mantle.

[myboynoah]

It's a can of worms, but there was a huge succession crisis when Joseph died. He had made it clear that Hyrum was next in line but beyond that there was disagreement. The RLDS broke off over the claim that descent was lineal, teh Strangites over the claim of a specific revelation naming Strang in some fashion as a successor, Sidney Rigdon took a shot at just taking over based on charisma, the counsel of 50 was a contender and the quorum of the 12 was a contender. Also William Marks as Nauvoo stake president.

Essentially Brigham just said "I am the president of the 12, no successor is necessary, follow me." Keep in mind that the 12 were initial traveling ministers with authority outside of "Zion" but that the governing body and power center internally was still the counsel of 50 and the stake president, though some of that had begun to shift. Anyway, at the August conference Rigdon made his bid to be "guardian" of the church and Brigham argued that the 12 had all the keys. This is the famous event where Brigham is transfigured into Joseph, though interestingly all of the more than 100 accounts of that came much later and it does not appear in any of the numerous journals of people who were there that day. The church at the time sustained the 12 as having the keys and Brigham as the president of the 12.

It was not until 1847 that Brigham again put the question of forming a new first presidency to the 12. There was no new revelation authorizing it, but they did rely on D&C 107:21-24 as implicit authority to do it. The twelve agreed and later the church ratified it I believe in Iowa.

Interestingly also, John Taylor became next in line first when he was moved ahead of Woodruff when Brigham changed succession from age to seniority, then Brigham also moved him ahead of the two Orsons by fiat and announced it at general conference in 1875. HOWEVER Brigham later than year was still saying that HE (he Brigham) remained the president of the 12 so Taylor was never sustained as president of the 12 while Brigham was alive. When Brigham died in 1877 it was decided by the 12 that the 12 would again become the presiding body of the church, that John Taylor would be the president of the 12 and that Brigham's two counselors would remain as counselors to the 12. The priesthood ratified this in a solemn assembly at conference

In 1880, John Taylor then reorganized the first presidency. There were additional important innovations to how succession worked but they had mostly solidified the process by 1918 when Grant became president. The best resource for information about the succession crisis when Joseph died is Quinn's Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power. For succession thereafter, the best source (and the one I scanned over to refresh my memory) is the Dialog article here.

I know that is a lot of info but it is fascinating, IMO. And having now reviewed it I am much more persuaded that if the president of the 12 were incapacitated at the death of the President of the church, that the 12 would take over as governing body and that they would wait to form a new First Presidency until there was a president of the 12 in full command of his faculties.

Do you need JL to change your vote for you?

[Paperback Writer]

Right. They didn't talk of it as a transfiguration so much as what we' call a mantle.

I find it difficult to sift through. What perplexes me is that I have several ancestors that were present at the Rigdon/Young conference. In their last will and testament, they describe something of a transfiguration but more in manner of behavior and speaking. These accounts were written in Utah territory years after the events. Could they have been influened by "transfiguration myth"? Perhaps. But these people interacted with JS and BY and don't mention other miraculous manifestations when they well could have. Perhaps the degree of the JS/BY transfiguration was embellished over time. It's plausible to me that many ordinary people in the audience had a profound spiritual experience and more renowned LDS leaders picked up on it and later wove that into their own narratives (the article suggests some prominent LDS leaders wrote about it despite not being there).

I'm convinced that they witnessed something beyond ordinary in that conference. It became part of their testimony along with the divine calling of JS, the BoM, and the power of the priesthood. It was a spiritual experience for them so I doubt they just latched onto a myth.