Sustaining the Prophets--Even and Especially in Old Age

Hello. I am back for another post, no doubt the most important one I could do right now. I intended it to be brief but it turns out that it needed to be what it now is. I was just rereading the article I posted earlier from the Deseret News about President Monson's health. That article contained a link to a masterful General Conference address given nearly three years ago by then-Elder Russell M. Nelson, who was at that time the third senior apostle in the Quorum of the Twelve. He and we could not have known then that less than a year later, he would become the man who is now merely a heartbeat away from the presidency of the Church. I have no doubts that in President Nelson's current situation, being three years senior to President Monson in age but 21 years his junior in the apostleship, and now in his capacity as the "heir-apparent" to President Monson, he is the one praying the most fervently for President Monson's life to be extended longer than his own. No one that I know of in his right mind seeks for the presidency of the Church, and the words that then-Elder Nelson spoke on that occasion are indicative of that. That said, they do sound strangely prophetic to me.

One or two particular passages struck me. He talks about his experience of operating on President Kimball, then the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, on the direction of the 11th Church President, Harold B. Lee. Following the prophetic utterance by President Lee that President Kimball should undergo the operation in question, which, at the time, had not been done before, that operation was performed, was successful, and enabled President Kimball to not only succeed the man who was four years junior to him in age but was his prophet, but also to function as the Lord's 12th Church President for nearly 12 years. And this man that performed the operation for President Kimball would not only go on to be one of those that the 12th Church President, under the Lord's direction, put his name forth for the apostleship, though the calling and ordaining of Elder Nelson was done by President Hinckley, but would also, 21 years after that call, be a heartbeat away from becoming the 17th Church President.

I am not saying that President Nelson will be our 17th prophet. That is not for me to declare. It is in the hands of the Lord, who controls the life and death of each prophet, and who knows when to release each one, and who in particular to put in his place. Those apostles that have died without ascending to the Church presidency have done so because the Lord wanted them to be special witnesses of Christ, not because every one of them was going to be His prophet. It is up to Him entirely how that succession happens. But reading Elder Nelson's remarks with this background and reasoning in mind, especially in light of what we have seen happen with every Sustaining of Church Officers in the General Conference of recent years makes his words all that much more significant and even in some ways prophetic.

Here's what struck me. Elder Nelson said: "My dear brothers and sisters, if the Restoration did anything, it shattered the age-old myth that God had stopped talking to His children. Nothing could be further from the truth. A prophet has stood at the head of God’s Church in all dispensations, from Adam to the present day. Prophets testify of Jesus Christ—of His divinity and of His earthly mission and ministry. We honor the Prophet Joseph Smith as the prophet of this last dispensation. And we honor each man who has succeeded him as President of the Church.

“When we sustain prophets and other leaders, we invoke the law of common consent, for the Lord said, ‘It shall not be given to any one to go forth to preach my gospel, or to build up my church, except he be ordained by some one who has authority, and it is known to the church that he has authority and has been regularly ordained by the heads of the church.’

“This gives us, as members of the Lord’s Church, confidence and faith as we strive to keep the scriptural injunction to heed the Lord’s voice as it comes through the voice of His servants the prophets. All leaders in the Lord’s Church are called by proper authority. No prophet or any other leader in this Church, for that matter, has ever called himself or herself. No prophet has ever been elected. The Lord made that clear when He said, ‘Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you. You and I do not ‘vote’ on Church leaders at any level. We do, though, have the privilege of sustaining them.”

I don't know how many of you have noticed this, but I have. In addition to the many expressions of unanimity by the apostles after each change in prophetic administration, during each Solemn Assembly, while the different groups of Church members and the Church membership at large is asked if there are any opposed to these changes, that is not asked of the new First Presidency and the other 12 apostles. This is clearly indicative of the fact that the apostles absolutely accept each transition. And our ability to do the same does not in any way hinder on what we know of each prophet personally, or whom we think and feel ought to lead the Church. The Lord picks His prophet.

And the apostles unanimously and with absolute confidence sustain each new prophetic administration, even when it means changes that are not expected nor have been sought after. Two notable examples of this come to mind. President J. Reuben Clark had served under a few prophets as Second Counselor and subsequently First Counselor. When 9th Church President David O. McKay, who was President Clark's senior apostle but who had been the junior member of the First Presidencies in which they served together, became the prophet, he felt inspired to name a more senior member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as his First Counselor, with President Clark has his Second Counselor. President McKay made it clear that it was not a demotion or punishment but that it had felt advisable in this case. And President Clark concurred with that feeling because he knew President McKay had been inspired to do so. He would later go on to succeed the First Counselor, and never once resented the fact that things had happened the way they did.

More recently, when President Monson became the Church President, Presidents Henry B. Eyring and Dieter F. Uchtdorf were chosen by the Lord to serve as his counselors. While President Eyring being retained in the First Presidency was no surprise (since he had served for almost four months prior to that with Presidents Hinckley and Monson), President Uchtdorf voiced his shock about being selected as the  Seccond Counselor. But since he knew that President Monson had come to the office of Church President under the direction of the Lord, he had no qualms about accepting the call. And in the 9 years since that time, President Uchtdorf has given so many masterful addresses in his capacity as the junior member of the First Presidency. He was another who was quoted in the Deseret News article I cited above about President Monson's general condition.

Sorry for that sidetrack. To get back to my point, as I said, no one acting under the right spirit seeks for or declines the Church presidency or most other callings. As another small sidetrack, I had an instance in my own life where I did have to decline a calling that came to me, but it wasn't really officially issued, as the intent was to determine if I would be physically capable of handling the responsibilities of that calling. When I asserted that I could not do so, the acknowledgment was made that this was a wise decision, and that I should not guilt myself over not being able to accept it.

That said, those who do come, under the Lord's direction, to the presidency of the Church may fervently wish and pray with all their might for the extension of the lives of their predecessors so that the heavy responsibility to preside over the Lord's Church and be the primary mouthpiece for the conveyance of the Lord's witll does not come to them. President Monson's own biography, just as those of some of his predecessors have, indicates the hours he spent alone in the temple following the death of President Hinckley, reminding the Lord of how fervently he (President Monson) had pled for the extension of his (President Hinckley's) life, but ultimately bowing to the Lord's greater wisdom and pleading for the strength to carry on the legacy of those who preceded him as the Lord's prophet.

With all that in mind, and with Elder Nelson's stated declaration on this occasion that these sustainings held once every six months are not meant to be an election, but a concurrence with the expressed will and desires of the Lord, I hope everyone understands more why I have been so upset by and so vocal in my opposition against the cries that have come of "opposed" in response to the invitation to sustain the 15 apostles during the last several conferences. It is not for any of us to oppose the Lord's will on any of this. Those who do will no doubt be held accountable for their actions at the day of judgment. And I think that the perpetrators of such that have surfaced of late are just in it for the fame. It sickens me how many sites I have come across in cursory internet searches about the Church Presidency to see the public call for groups to join the small minority in the Conference Center who so oppose these votes.

I have to wonder what they hope to gain. To the best of my knowledge (and I may be mistaken in this regard, so please correct me if I'm wrong), the last time such opposition occurred was during the tenure of President Kimball, where his loyal counselors explained prior to numerous sustainings what happens when an opposing vote is cast. During that time, it was customary for those voicing those opposing the sustaining to meet with a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (which, on those occasions, was typically then-Elder Hinckley, who would a few short years later join the First Presidency, and who just shy of a decade and a half after that succeed to the Church presidency himself) to explain their reasons for an opposing vote, leaving Elder Hinckley to then determine whether the reasons had any merit (which generally they did not) and, if so, to take it up with his 14 other colleagues. I hope with all my heart that it is obvious (as it should be to anyone who is familiar with the process) why something like that cannot be done anymore.

If every dissenting vote meant a visit with an apostle, no apostle would be able to do anything other than that. And the loud minority should not feel so free to drown out the much stronger power of the silent sustaining of the majority. As part of the process of delegating more responsibility to local leaders to enable the apostles to focus more on Churchwide issues rather than some few individual's petty problems with the leaders they declined to sustain, stake presidents have been tasked now with the responsibility to meet with the dissenting votes, and that has been clearly stated by the First Presidency member who has lately led out in those sustainings. The fact that these dissenting voters continue to loudly voice there opposition to a matter that should not be up for a vocal vote indicates that they are not taking the invitation to get their concerns resolved through the proper channels, and that their actions are indeed petty and small.

It is abundantly clear to me, as it should be to anyone who really considers the matter, that there is more of an issue with the mentality of such individuals than there is with any Church leaders to whom they are not giving their sustaining vote. This is not, never has been,  and never will be, an election. These men are called by God. I echo the sentiment expressed by Brigham Young, the Lion of the Lord, when he spoke in defense of his beloved prophet, Brother Joseph, in response to dissidents and apostates who were seeking to declare this prophet fallen and to remove him from the office to which he was called by God. One cannot remove the prophet of God from his place. Only the Lord can do that. The individuals who are so spiritually blind that they are seeking to do so can only cut the ties that bind them to the prophet, and, by so doing, can sink themselves to hell if they choose. That statement also proved prophetic in light of the apostasy that continued during that time and in light of the fact that the good brother that made that statement would go on to succeed the man whom he defended so vigorously with these sentiments.

What Brother Brigham said, as paraphrased above, may sound harsh. But it is not really so. One key principle of the Church is agency. But it is not "free" as some have termed it. The principle of the word "free" implies that it comes at no cost. But agency was so valuable and vital to the plan of our Heavenly Father that he let one-third of His children who would not, by that same principle of common consent to which we adhere today, agree to that plan, be cast out of heaven. So the idea that agency is somehow "free" is misguided.

Some have hit the nail directly on the head that we do have freedom of a sort. We have the freedom to choose how to act. But taking such actions, especially those out of harmony with the Lord's will and plan for us, leaves us without the freedom to choose the consequences of such actions. Gerald Lund demonstrated this principle very well when he used one story in his epic The Work and the Glory series to explain the principles of agency, how the atonement works, and how much the Lord must have loved us to undertake that. The example was given of a loving father whose son was playing baseball and had a hit that broke a window of a nearby store. That boy would then have to experience the consequences that resulted from that action. He himself would be unable to pay for the broken window. No one in their right mind would require that. But there would be consequences for his actions. His father, acting out of the love he had for his son, would pay for the window, but that would still leave the boy with the consequences of his actions.

As his father paid for the window, it would thus only be fair to that father if he were the one to set the conditions under which his son would repay him for paying the price of his mistake. It would not be easy, but it would be fair. In like manner, those who believe they can do what they want without consequence do not take into account that while the Savior did suffer for their sins, He, as the one who paid that price, would be the one to set the conditions under which such an arrangement would cover such actions. Sorry, I got off on yet another tangent. The point I was trying to make is that the Lord, as the one who has wrought His atonement to cover our sins, and His Father, who loved and valued agency so much to let 33% of his children go to ensure that would be preserved, and who loved us all so much that He was willing to let His Only Begotten Son in the flesh pay the price that would allow us both agency and the ability to repent of our sins, will one day call upon all of us to answer for our actions.

With all of that in mind, it is our duty to gain a testimony of the importance of agency and the atonement, and of the divine call of each prophet and apostle, to share that witness with the world, and to sustain His chosen servants as fully as we want to follow the Lord Himself.

So it is most tragic to me that some few have it in their heads that there will be no consequences for their actions, including a failure to sustain those the Lord has put into place to lead us. The choice remains ours. We can either sustain these men and follow their counsel, or face the consequences for failing to do so. The choice, when seen in this light, is clear and obvious. I would like to thank President Nelson for the words he spoke 2.5 years ago that motivated this post. President Monson is still very much our prophet and Church president until the Lord calls him home. And, just as that has been true for the other 15 men that preceded him as the Lord's mouthpiece, it will continue to be so for every other man that subsequently succeeds him, whomever they may be.

May we sustain the Lord's prophet, regardless of age or health, and remember these sacred and vitally important truths is my humble prayer in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.