Q12 leading the church

This is for encouragement, ideas, and support for people going through a faith transition no matter where you hope to end up. This is also the place to laugh, cry, and love together.
Post Reply
User avatar
2bizE
Posts: 2491
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 9:33 pm

Q12 leading the church

Post by 2bizE »

Since Nelson died, the Q12 has taken over the church. What is the doctrine around this. I do know the D&C 107 says that the FP, Q12, and Q70 are all equal in authority.

Why doesn’t the Q70 have a place at the table in this transition?
~2bizE
Cnsl1
Posts: 608
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2018 1:27 pm

Re: Q12 leading the church

Post by Cnsl1 »

Interesting.

Those three bodies (FP, Q12, Q70) should each get one vote.
User avatar
alas
Posts: 2431
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:10 pm

Re: Q12 leading the church

Post by alas »

Cnsl1 wrote: Sun Oct 05, 2025 11:57 pm Interesting.

Those three bodies (FP, Q12, Q70) should each get one vote.
No, the RS presidency and primary and YW presidency all need one vote also. That way, women have equal say to all the men in the church. And if there are any disagreements, then that group’s vote is just canceled. Because I am sure that some one among the 70 or women’s organization would have nixed the POX before it ever could become policy.
User avatar
Angel
Posts: 843
Joined: Thu May 31, 2018 8:26 am

Re: Q12 leading the church

Post by Angel »

The Lord will never leave the Church without guidance!!!

Oh wait... in the moments between death and new prophet - I suppose the entire earth falls under darkness with no guidance and no leadership.... scary :lol:
“You have learned something...That always feels at first as if you have lost something.” George Bernard Shaw
When it is dark enough, you can see the stars. ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson
User avatar
Red Ryder
Posts: 4203
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 5:14 pm

Re: Q12 leading the church

Post by Red Ryder »

After a bit of research it appears it’s fairly common amongst Mormon practice.

Key Historical Interregnums Before 2025

Here are some past interregnums (examples) where the Church went through that process:

Joseph Smith ~ June 27, 1844 ~3 years, 6 months
Long delay before Brigham Young became President and First Presidency was reorganized.

Brigham Young - August 29, 1877 ~1.5 months
After his death, John Taylor eventually reorganized things.

John Taylor - October 10, 1880 ~1 year, 8 months
Lots of deliberation and some dispute before Wilford Woodruff assumed the role.

Wilford Woodruff - September 2, 1898 ~11 days Very short interregnum before Lorenzo Snow was set apart.

Lorenzo Snow - April 10, 1901 ~7 days
Quickly succeeded by Joseph F. Smith.

Joseph F. Smith - October 10, 1918 ~4 days
Reorganization quickly followed.

Heber J. Grant - May 14, 1945 ~7 days
Succession moved swiftly; George Albert Smith became president.

George Albert Smith - April 4, 1951 ~5 days
David O. McKay followed.

Thomas S. Monson - January 2, 2018 - 10-12 days
President Nelson (Russell M. Nelson) succeeded Monson
“It always devolves to Pantaloons. Always.” ~ Fluffy

“I switched baristas” ~ Lady Gaga

“Those who do not move do not notice their chains.” ~Rosa Luxemburg
User avatar
deacon blues
Posts: 2139
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 7:37 am

Re: Q12 leading the church

Post by deacon blues »

Here's my 2 cents: Pres. Oaks suspects he may die soon, like within a year. If he makes himself president with new councilors and dies within a year it implies that God had to take him out, for whatever reason. Also Holland and Eyring are in the same boat. What would inquiring minds think if 2-4 presidents/prophets died in a single year? Maybe it's just my weird imagination. ;)
God is Love. God is Truth. The greatest problem with organized religion is that the organization becomes god, rather than a means of serving God.
User avatar
nibbler
Posts: 1041
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 7:12 pm

Re: Q12 leading the church

Post by nibbler »

deacon blues wrote: Thu Oct 09, 2025 3:58 pm What would inquiring minds think if 2-4 presidents/prophets died in a single year?
I think normal people would say that the model that transitions the role of church dictator to the next oldest guy in the org probably isn't the best model to use. I know it's longest tenured and that doesn't necessarily equate to next oldest, I'm just simplifying. Plus that's kind of how it's worked out in practice.

Mormon folk doctrine doesn't follow the thoughts of normal people though. Mormon folk doctrine would say that even though god thought those people were good enough to be apostles for 30-40 years, god didn't think they were good enough to be the prophet so god stacked the deck to ensure their tenure was short or even nonexistent.

God killed them, it's the only rational explanation. Much more rational than realizing that calling a 93 year old to a position probably means you're going to need to fill that position again sooner rather than later. No worries though, we've got someone else in their 90s waiting in the wings.
We don’t see things as they are, we see them as we are.
– Anais Nin
Post Reply