Could the church overthrow the prophet?

[Moliere]

Thus saith the Lord, Let the first Presidency of my Church, be held in full fellowship in Zion and all her stakes, untill they shall be found transgressors, by such an high Council as is named in the above alluded section, in Zion, by three witnesses standing against each member of said Presidency, and these witnesses shall be of long and faithfull standing, and such also as cannot be impeached by other witnesses before such Council, and when a descision is had by such and Council in Zion, it shall only be for Zion, it shall not answer for her stakes, but if such descision be acknowledged by the Council of her stakes, then it shall answer for her stakes, But if it is not acknowledged by the stakes, then such stake may have the privilege of hearing for themselves or if such descision shall be acknowledeged by a majority of the stakes, then it shall answer for all her stakes

And again, The Presidency of my Church, may be tried by the voice of the whole body of the Church in Zion, and the voice of a majority of all her stakes

And again Except a majority is had by the voice of the Church of Zion and a majority of all her stakes, The Charges will be concidered not sustained and in order to sustain such Charge or Charges, before such Church of Zion or her stakes, such witnesses must be had as is named above, that is the witnesses to each President, who are of long and faithfull standing, that cannot be immpeached by other witnesses before the Church of Zion, or her stakes, And all this saith the Lord because of wicked and asspiring men, Let all your doings be in meekness and in humility before me even so Amen—

This is from the Joseph Smith papers project and is an unpublished revelation that was apparently read in a church conference back in 1838 at a time of mass apostasy in Kirtland. It's interesting how we have gone from having a revelation that would allow the stakes of the church to remove the prophet from his church position to the current doctrinal thinking that only God would remove the prophet from that position.

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.

[Flystripper]

wow. I never knew about that. Even if implemented now I don't know that there would be impeachments of prophets happening with any frequency given the current culture of the church. I do wonder how different the church's culture would be today if this idea had survived the trek west though.

[Indy Coug]

wow. I never knew about that. Even if implemented now I don't know that there would be impeachments of prophets happening with any frequency given the current culture of the church. I do wonder how different the church's culture would be today if this idea had survived the trek west though.

Has there ever been a time since the settlement of the Salt Lake valley where this could have even possibly been an option for the membership -- meaning there were enough members who would have signed off on such an action?

[Moliere]

Has there ever been a time since the settlement of the Salt Lake valley where this could have even possibly been an option for the membership -- meaning there were enough members who would have signed off on such an action?

Abandonment of polygamy maybe? Commandimazation of the WoW? Just throwing out ideas, both of which might not be even close to a possibility. It was definitely a possibility back in the 1830s and 1840s.

[byu71]

This is from the Joseph Smith papers project and is an unpublished revelation that was apparently read in a church conference back in 1838 at a time of mass apostasy in Kirtland. It's interesting how we have gone from having a revelation that would allow the stakes of the church to remove the prophet from his church position to the current doctrinal thinking that only God would remove the prophet from that position.

That is just unthinkable to me. If I got that dissatisfied, I wouldn't bother with the hassle. I would just stop going.

This might be heresay, but like the government, I think the church is run by a lot of beaurocrats. Heck, when I got married my Dad's uncle went to the church offices to get permission to marry us. While there he bumped into President Smith. In the conversation it came up Dad's uncle was there to get permission to marry us. President Smith said, Ben, of course you can and told his Secretary to get it done. When Pres. Smith walked away, the Secretary said, you will still have to go through the procedure and get the proper authorizations.

[Flystripper]

Has there ever been a time since the settlement of the Salt Lake valley where this could have even possibly been an option for the membership -- meaning there were enough members who would have signed off on such an action?

Probably not, but it is an interesting idea and I do wonder what the church would be like today if the idea had survived the trek west. However given the bonding of the Mormon pioneers through their hardships, I doubt that this idea had any chance of survival within the culture of the church. It is interesting to contemplate though, given that the idea sprang from Joseph Smith.

[Indy Coug]

Abandonment of polygamy maybe? Commandimazation of the WoW? Just throwing out ideas, both of which might not be even close to a possibility. It was definitely a possibility back in the 1830s and 1840s.

Yeah, which was probably the impetus for what you originally quoted and also why I framed my question as being post-this-is-the-right-place.

[Moliere]

Yeah, which was probably the impetus for what you originally quoted and also why I framed my question as being post-this-is-the-right-place.

While I don't disagree with you, I would argue that the change from "the prophet can be overthrown by the church members" to "only God can overthrow the prophet" has had a substantial impact on church culture and even church doctrine.

Let's take Prop 8 for an example. In our current line of thinking, when the prophet speaks and tells us to support Prop 8 we are encouraged to pray and find out if that is something we should do. If, after praying, someone comes back with a feeling that they don't agree with the counsel, then they are going against the prophet, which can be ostracizing in Mormons congregations.

If we use the previous line of thinking, then the counsel can be challenged to some extent without fear of being ostracized or rebuked. In essence, the idea of common consent is more fulfilled since a prophet's counsel or doctrine has to be accepted by the congregation, which congregation is given the power to receive revelation equal in authority to the prophet to the extent that revelation is obtained by the majority of the church.

This is ostensibly do away with the phrase "when the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done."

[Indy Coug]

While I don't disagree with you, I would argue that the change from "the prophet can be overthrown by the church members" to "only God can overthrow the prophet" has had a substantial impact on church culture and even church doctrine.

Let's take Prop 8 for an example. In our current line of thinking, when the prophet speaks and tells us to support Prop 8 we are encouraged to pray and find out if that is something we should do. If, after praying, someone comes back with a feeling that they don't agree with the counsel, then they are going against the prophet, which can be ostracizing in Mormons congregations.

If we use the previous line of thinking, then the counsel can be challenged to some extent without fear of being ostracized or rebuked. In essence, the idea of common consent is more fulfilled since a prophet's counsel or doctrine has to be accepted by the congregation, which congregation is given the power to receive revelation equal in authority to the prophet to the extent that revelation is obtained by the majority of the church.

This is ostensibly do away with the phrase "when the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done."

There was that whole war in heaven thing where we put competing plans to a vote. The thinking had been done, but it was still ultimately up to all of us there to decide whether to accept it or not.

If the majority had accepted Satan's plan, what would have become of God?

[Moliere]

There was that whole war in heaven thing where we put competing plans to a vote. The thinking had been done, but it was still ultimately up to all of us there to decide whether to accept it or not.

If the majority had accepted Satan's plan, what would have become of God?

I don't think you are getting the point of this thread.

[Jeff Lebowski]

That is fascinating, but an equally fascinating thing is that there are unpublished/uncanonized revelations by JS. How many more are out there?

[Goatnapper'96]

That is fascinating, but an equally fascinating thing is that there are unpublished/uncanonized revelations by JS. How many more are out there?

The guys who did "Booty Call" found one: "I'm gonna wax that ass...I'm gonna wax that ass!"

I am sure there are more!

[NorthwestUteFan]

When was the 'final version' of the First Vision written? I know it was 1838 but don't know what month. For review, the final version is the only one describing both Heavenly Father and Jesus appearing to Joseph, and afterward the doctrinal belief of the structural makeup of the Godhead changed a bit to match. This is also in the wake of the Kirtland Banking Society scandal, immediately before Joseph fled Kirtland.

This is also prior to the doctrine of sealing families for time AND eternity, and the full temple ceremony (IIRC they did washing and anointing at Kirtland, but the full 'Celestial Masonry' temple ceremony came about in Nauvoo). Once this came about the church leadership became more top-down authoritarian and was able to hold leverage over members through the Eternal Family and Eternal Ordinances doctrines. You apostatize, you can lose your family in this life AND in the life to come.

Because of this change, I do not believe the body of the church could overthrow the leadership today.

[Indy Coug]

When was the 'final version' of the First Vision written? I know it was 1838 but don't know what month. For review, the final version is the only one describing both Heavenly Father and Jesus appearing to Joseph, and afterward the doctrinal belief of the structural makeup of the Godhead changed a bit to match. This is also in the wake of the Kirtland Banking Society scandal, immediately before Joseph fled Kirtland.

This is also prior to the doctrine of sealing families for time AND eternity, and the full temple ceremony (IIRC they did washing and anointing at Kirtland, but the full 'Celestial Masonry' temple ceremony came about in Nauvoo). Once this came about the church leadership became more top-down authoritarian and was able to hold leverage over members through the Eternal Family and Eternal Ordinances doctrines. You apostatize, you can lose your family in this life AND in the life to come.

Because of this change, I do not believe the body of the church could overthrow the leadership today.

Some might interpret this post as cynical.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Some might interpret this post as cynical.

Perhaps in tone, but that wasn't my intention. It is one possible interpretation of the historical timeline.