posted
So, there's a "today in history" thing in my local newspaper, and today it said that
quote: In 1970 Mormon president David McKay died at the age of 96.
My question is: where do presidents fall into the church heirarchy? I know there are elders, is this sort of the same thing?
Posts: 3420 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
well, that would make sense, but I've never heard of presidents being of religions before... just countries. I guess maybe I wasn't paying attention when people were talking about the church.
Posts: 3420 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the most basic terms: The president of the LDS church occupies the same position as the pope does in Catholocism.
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The president of the church is the head of the church, and the one we generally call "The Prophet". He is an apostle, as opposed to an elder.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
He is functionally the President of the church, but is also the Prophet. We use the terms interchangeably.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:president of the church is the head of the church
Don't most Christian faiths claim that Jesus is the head of the church? The pope's only in charge until the Man gets back?
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Church on the Earth is a mortal church and must be headed by a mortal being. This is filled by the President/ Prophet until Christ comes to reclaim his throne.
Posts: 1660 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Harry Reid is more likely than Mitt Romney. Still a snowball's chance in hell, though.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll be 35 by then. But I don't think I could beat Dagonee. Still, maybe I'll run an aggressive issues charged campaign in hopes of making the ticket as Veep.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
President, here, is more accurately applied as President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. This is often considered to mean also President of the Church, but really, the title is specific for the Quorum.
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
The President of the church is a different office from the President of the quorum of apostles. The PQA succeeds the POC when the POC dies. The current POC is President Hinckley. The PQA is President Monson. The acting PQA, because President Monson is serving as a counselor to the POC, is President Packer.
The POC and his two counselors serve vastly different roles from the Quorum of Apostles. At least, that is the gist I got from President Hinckley's biography.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, thanks. I guess it was the President/Prophet thing that messed me up. (Though, what with the whole "three in one" Catholic thing you'd think I'd be able to deal with two names for the same guy... )
Posts: 3420 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's easy for the title "President" to sound strange when someone is used to thinking of a "President" as someone holding a political office, rather than a religious calling. But since all the word really means is "Person who presides over something," it really does fit.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
All of the apostles are considered prophets, but only the president of the church is "The Prophet". The president of the church is the one who has been an apostle for the longest time. Since there is no set age for being called an apostle he may or may not be the oldest of the apostles. The president of the church is the most senior of the apostles, but the next senior after him is the president of the quorum of the apostles. Does that help, gn?
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
i'm just not sure where i got it confused. see, i know all this stuff... but then, i'm not really a church scholar. too much time away from the mission field, i guess.
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
maybe i should just claim that it was someone else posting as me... since everyone knows i rebel against capitalization... >_>
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is both a religion and a corporation. He is referred to as The President of The Corporation of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and as a religious leader stands as The Prophet for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
Posts: 527 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Steev, I have never heard the Prophet referred to as "The President of the Corporation" of anything. The Church's finances, operations, and such are managed as a corporation, but people who point it out to me are usually trying to suggest that the Church is somehow less of a religion because of it. Is that your intent?
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, with the possible exception of backwater stand-alone churches, aren't all churches in the US corporations? Don't they have to be to have tax exemption status?
If so, then why does it matter for the LDS church?
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:A legal entity, allowed by legislation, which permits a group of people, as shareholders (for-profit companies) or members (non-profit companies), to create an organization, which can then focus on pursuing set objectives, and empowered with legal rights which are usually only reserved for individuals, such as to sue and be sued, own property, hire employees or loan and borrow money. Also known as a "company." The primary advantage of for profit corporations is that it provides its shareholders with a right to participate in the profits (by dividends) without any personal liability because the company absorbs the entire liability of the organization.
Most churches are non-profit corporations.
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
A corporation is a sort of legal entity with many useful attributes, particularly in terms of protecting assets. I wouldn't be surprised if the LDS church consists of several corporations in fact, to protect the temples from litigation against local churches, similarly to how the Catholic church protects its holdings.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a terrible thing to do! Randomly attack dkw's sister! You're going to get one of those "We Hates the Nasty Oldies" threads on you.
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a good point: If you're falsely convicted and punished for a crime, then later found innocent, you should get a voucher for one free crime.
Posts: 144 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure if it's still the case, but for a long time "Trustee-in-Trust," a legal/economic designation, was among the titles of the president of church; older Book of Mormon title/copyright pages s refer to, for example, Heber J. Grant that way.
Gnx is also right, in some sense; Brigham Young was not "set apart" as president of the Church until the mid-1850s; he led the pioneers across the plains as president of the Twelve. Additionally, I believe that it was only with David O. McKay that church presidents began to be 'ordained' president rather than 'set apart,' as all between McKay and Joseph Smith were.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Matt, please clarify for me exactly what the difference is between the two. I think you may be confusing me.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Anyway, my apologies for the obscurity. To clarify the jargon, being 'set apart' means that one has been designated to perform a service that is not necessarily a formal, ecclesiatical, priesthood office; people are set apart to lead choirs or teach in Sunday school. To be ordained to an office means that the office is a formal part of the priesthood hierarchy.
Edit: I should also note that it's standard now to be both set apart and ordained as president of the church.
posted
No, no, no, you misunderstood me. But in all fairness, I didn't actually ask the proper question.
I know all the jargon. I'm LDS. Although other people here probably needed the clarification anyway, so it's not like it's wasted or anything.
The part that I'm referring to is this:
quote: Additionally, I believe that it was only with David O. McKay that church presidents began to be 'ordained' president rather than 'set apart,' as all between McKay and Joseph Smith were.
Which is where you make it sound like they've been only ordained and not set apart.
I would assume that now, and in recent history, they've been both ordained and set apart. But just the way you phrase it . . . But I don't know church history well enough . . . I don't read the fine print . . . I get bored too easy . . . So I assume that everything's been done properly. So if it hasn't, then please clarify.
Ugh. Have I just made the mud even thicker than it was before?
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was a 3 year lag between the death of Joseph Smith and the ordaining of Brigham Young. Likewise between Brigham Young and John Taylor. I believe it was actually with Wilford Woodruff, the 4th president, that they decided to have ordaining occur as soon as possible after the death of the predecessor.
I dug this thread up to explain that we don't really use POC and PQA as acronyms in the church. I was just saving effort in this thread. It was very arduous to capitalize properly on the machine I was using.
Also, I believe there is an entity called "The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints." There is another that is "The Coporation of the Presiding Bishopric" that is who I buy church related items from. That one actually is shortened to CPB.
posted
Whoops, my bad. I obviously misunderstood you misunderstanding me.
quote:So I assume that everything's been done properly. So if it hasn't, then please clarify
I wouldn't disagree with the first sentence. A good deal has changed in the church over the past hundred and fifty years; one would expect that, if it's led by continuing revelation. Authority and the hierarchy change along with the needs of the church. It's natural.
I would have to beg to differ with pooka (who I think mt is, right?), though. I'm not talking about lag times between being set apart and ordination; rather, I'm saying that for a hundred years or so presidents were not ordained president at all, merely set apart. It has to do with the conception of the office, in part related to the confusion over the succession to Joseph Smith, when it wasn't at all clear for a while who had authority and in what capacity they could execute it. Even Brigham Young believed, based on statements Joseph Smith, Jr. made in Nauvoo, that Joseph Smith III had the authority to claim the presidency, if he would just repudiate the RLDS church.
I'll look up the reference in the next couple of days, though I can point people to Tom Alexander's _Mormonism in Transition_, and Mike Quinn's _The Mormon Hierarchy_.
Edit: I know there's been some question over how esoteric discussions about the church on hatrack should get. I hope this one isn't crossing the line here; I'm perfectly willing to reedit posts or drop it entirely if anyone or the mods feel it necessary.
posted
I don't know anything about the ordained vs. set apart stuff. And I don't have to. There has to be some benefit of being a woman in this church.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I know all about the lag time, too, and there are no issues there with me, either. Same as the confusion about succession (did I spell that correctly? I think so, but I'm losing my brain. . .) - no confusion for me there, either. I remember my church history well enough. Erm, for these purposes, at any rate. I also knew about the Corporation of the President of the Church of etc etc - it's who owns the copyright for all official church publications, including those that we are to use for talks and lessons in church (although I seem to be the only one out here in outer darkness who knows that little bit of info). I didn't know about CPB, although that shouldn't surprise me too much. And having separate corporations under the main one only makes sense from both a legal perspective and an accounting perspective. So, no issues there for me.
Mine only issue is the one about being ordained and not set apart. That's my only question at this point.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
