Could the church overthrow the prophet?

[hopfrog]

I bought the first volume of The Joseph Smith Papers and found it astonishing. I have a deep hunger for studying the history of the church, and we seem to be entering into an era of intense LDS scholarship, an era that lacks what once seemed the nervous fear of the church is regards to exposing too much of what went on before. I have just now order both editions of Volume II, as well as Parley P. Pratt: the Apostle Paul of Mormonism, by Terryl L. Givens. I've also bought the very first edition of The Book of Mormon and the Penguin edition of the BoM. Much, much to study.

In regards to this thread, one of the really astonishing things I noticed among church members is how authoritative anything the current Prophet says is seen as. I heard over and over again, in my first two years as a re-baptized member, "The Prophet says this," "President Hinckley tells us that," and the words spoken by the prophet were things that can never be questioned, they are from God's lips spoken to us by his mortal prophet. Something in the nature of this attitude of (as I saw it) the prophet is always correct and unquestioned made me uneasy, as I feel it is of vital importance for us to express absolutely our free agency.

[Blueintheface]

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.

Your uncle ran into Joseph Smith in the Kirtland church offices? You sir, are old.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Hopfrog, most of us love your posts and wish you would post more often. You bring an incisive perspective to the discussion.

Your post brings three thoughts to my mind:
1) I want to hear more about the Joseph Smith Papers regarding church history, particularly in the late 1830's to 1844.
2) The church you left in the 70's seems to be far different from the church into which you were rebaptized, but people like me who have been active for our whole lives may not recognize the change as it was more 'organic' for us. Because of this, you can bring quite a bit of insight to the discussion.
3) I WISH the church would publish Oliver Cowdery's journal...

[Moliere]

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.

Not to nitpick, but the 1838 version was the first, not the only, version to identify both personages.

I don't agree with your conclusion. I think the reason we couldn't overthrow the leadership today is because no one knows that it would be possible because the revelation was never published (despite being read in a conference).