Comments on: The Anointed Quorum http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/05/04/the-anointed-quorum/ A Mormon Blog Mon, 13 Feb 2012 20:12:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Splendid Sun » The Seventies 1835-1845: Apostles of the Lord http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/05/04/the-anointed-quorum/#comment-62061 Tue, 25 Jul 2006 04:44:26 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/05/the-anointed-quorum/#comment-62061 [...] The Anointed Quorum [...]

]]> By: Mark Butler http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/05/04/the-anointed-quorum/#comment-62060 Mon, 17 Jul 2006 01:04:44 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/05/the-anointed-quorum/#comment-62060 Frankly, I think any form of prayer where people take turns saying different things is creepy, a practical breeding ground for contention, and contrary to the very principle of prayer.

]]> By: BobC http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/05/04/the-anointed-quorum/#comment-62059 Mon, 08 May 2006 01:50:48 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/05/the-anointed-quorum/#comment-62059 Thanks for the post and subsequent comments. Mormon history feels to me to be as elusive as it is interesting.

]]> By: Ben S. http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/05/04/the-anointed-quorum/#comment-62058 Fri, 05 May 2006 19:58:05 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/05/the-anointed-quorum/#comment-62058 FHL, that is indeed different.

Ward prayer was a dating opportunity, prayer circle is a ritual ;)

Seriously, has anyone *ever* had ward prayer at BYU… in a married ward?

See Michael Quinn’s BYU Studies article on prayer circles, download for free here

]]> By: FHL http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/05/04/the-anointed-quorum/#comment-62057 Fri, 05 May 2006 19:49:15 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/05/the-anointed-quorum/#comment-62057 Re: #5 : why is there a policy against prayer circles now? Everything I hear suggests we should find more opportunities to pray – why limit that?

When I was in a BYU student ward, we had Ward Prayer on Sunday nights – is that different than a prayer circle? (Granted, we didn’t stand/kneel in a literal circle or anything.)

]]> By: J. Stapley http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/05/04/the-anointed-quorum/#comment-62056 Fri, 05 May 2006 16:21:44 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/05/the-anointed-quorum/#comment-62056 DKL, I don’t have the resources with me right now, but the (8 month?) break for the quorum was due to the the #2 man in the Church and other prominant Mormon’s crusading against polygamy and Bennett’s attacks. You see similar breaks in the development of the Council of Fifty and the Joseph’s marriages. Hyrum’s conversion does mark a dramatic shift in momentum and a basic rejuvination of all the “Nauvoo inovations.”

Talon, Brigham had quite a bit of fealty to the Smith family. I’m not sure that there is a single treatment, but you may consider the BCC post entitled theodemocracy as well as the resent LDSLF podcast on the law of adoption (and the associated BYU Studies article). Quinn has written a fair bit, too.

]]> By: Talon http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/05/04/the-anointed-quorum/#comment-62055 Fri, 05 May 2006 14:44:24 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/05/the-anointed-quorum/#comment-62055 perhaps it is like Joseph F. Smith being ordained an apostle, but not being admitted to the Quorum of the Twelve.

Could you expand on this please? I have not heard this before.

I recall reading somewhere that early latter-day Apostles felt it was their right and privilage to ordain their sons Apostles also, can you speak to that or point me to a source?

Sorry for the threadjack.

]]> By: DKL http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/05/04/the-anointed-quorum/#comment-62054 Fri, 05 May 2006 03:16:30 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/05/the-anointed-quorum/#comment-62054 Quinn believes that it was Hyrum’s acceptance that prompted the re-endowment. I see it as broader than that. Ehat notes that Law claimed to never have heard of the plural marriage until after D&C 132 was rec’d 7 weeks later. But Clayton and Richards both place him there. What Joseph did at that point was not just introduce polygamy to Hyrum; it marked a change the direction of the policy of introducing polygamy from one in which where was merely introduced in a calculated fashion to individuals to one that would lead to it becoming more or less common knowledge throughout the highest echelons of the church.

I also think that it’s a mistake to place too much importance on the final charge. I see that as a vast oversimplification. The primary role that the Holy Order (since we disagree about whether it was, in fact, a quorum, let’s call it that) played in changing the role of the Twelve was cultural. I believe that the Holy Order was the leadership organization of Joseph’s second church, and the prime spot of the twelve within the Holy Order made their ascension to leadership obvious to them and many of the other leaders in the Holy Order (not all of them, but certainly more than if they had been excluded or if no Holy Order had existed at all). This combined with the grass roots acceptance of their convert emigrants to Nauvoo to put them in the driver’s seat in the months after Joseph and Hyrum’s martyrdom.

]]> By: J. Stapley http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/05/04/the-anointed-quorum/#comment-62053 Fri, 05 May 2006 02:30:41 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/05/the-anointed-quorum/#comment-62053 We obviously have very different conceptions of this period. I think Ehat’s analysis is spot on.

Plus, after polygamy was officially introduced, Joseph re-endowed everyone (which at that time included re-annointing) everyone except Marks and Miller.

I don’t follow. Many had been introduced to the practice. I think you mean that after Hyrum accepted the principle, they were all re-endowed.

As to those many who recieved the ordinances yet weren’t initiated into the quorum, I am not familiar with these cases, at least in Joseph’s lifetime. If there were, perhaps it is like Joseph F. Smith being ordained an apostle, but not being admitted to the Quorum of the Twelve.

I agree that the body was quite informal, but again, I feel that this was necessary due to circumstances.

The body was a major factor in converting the Quorum of the Twelve into a the leading body in the church.

Yep. The final charge and the fullness.

]]> By: DKL http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/05/04/the-anointed-quorum/#comment-62052 Fri, 05 May 2006 01:49:15 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/05/the-anointed-quorum/#comment-62052 Correction: In the proceeding comment, I meant to say that it met only three times in ’44 after June, meaning during the succession crisis and the period immediately following. There were a few meetings after 1844. (In general, the body didn’t meet very frequently.)

]]>