If anyone would be able to claim that they are going to die when it is God’s will, and further would be guaranteed a quick trip to the Celestial Kingdom, it would be the current prophet.
Did Jesus have bodyguards?
Similairly, the apostles all have security details when they travel as well and I wonder why.
If that’s the case, why should he even bother to wear a seat belt in the car? Or visit a doctor? Or eat? If it’s God’s will that he live, the prophet wouldn’t die from any of those things, right?
It seems perfectly logical and reasonable that we should take sensible measures to prevent our own untimely demise. For a public figure who travels extensively, such as the prophet, a security detail is entirely reasonable (anybody remember Cody Judy?). I don’t know that Pres. Hinckley particularly cares one way or the other if he dies soon or lives for several more years (though I suspect that he is longing to be with his wife again), but I suspect that most members would hate to see him die from something preventable.
I wonder if the issue is not death per se but to make sure everything goes smoothly. Like, keeping crazies or just insistent people from mobbing the prophet. They (president of the church & apostles) generally have really tight schedules or are otherwise unable to spend a lot of time with any given person.
I agree with reply 1 and 2. I also want to add that this is somthing that has happened gradually as times require it. Also, are you sure that prophets of old didn’t sometimes have followers, friends, and family that traveled with them because of danger.
(1) It’s like a seat belt. Heavenly Father expects us to use our drains and (2) sign of the times (3) Logistics
Did Jesus have bodyguards?
Well, I’m sure Peter carried a sword for some reason.
There are many things worse than dying. Like being severly injured by accident or an attack.
Seatbelts, bodyguards and doctors lessen suffering, not just death.
“…I’m sure Peter carried a sword for some reason.”
Don’t give Packer any ideas… :P
“There are many things worse than dying.”
When you’re the prophet, everything is worse than dying according to doctrine, no?
“…why should he even bother to wear a seat belt in the car? Or visit a doctor? Or eat?”
Indeed. If you believe the doctrine to be true, then why bother? Except for the eating thing, of course, because doctrine specifically tells you to eat.
If death is a release and leads to the highest of heavens for you, why worry about dying?
All the comments, so far, have carefully steered clear from mentioning that the prophet is a seer and receives revelations.
Why would the prophet put himself in a position where he is in jeopardy and ostensibly knows so?
rick-
just because a prophet receives revelations doesn’t mean he knows everything that’s going to happen. In fact, it seems (to me at least) that often seers don’t really know what’s going to happen in specific detail but often in broad strokes.
I would think one’s own death isn’t really a small issue. In fact, it’s about as broad a stroke with which one can paint.
Death isn’t a small issue. But prophets and seers are not all knowing, if they were they would be Gods. President Hinckley may very well know when he is going to pass away. But it’s highly doubtful that he knows the precise time. I also doubt the prophet really cares when and where and how he will die (I know this was not brought up).
As for the security, it’s for many types of protection.
Prophets have done this before. As was mentioned if it’s God’s will, it will happen. But until then, prophets and everyone else, we should all do what we can to protect ourselves.
Rick, you’ve made several confident references to some “doctrine” but I don’t know which doctrine you’re talking about. Can you point it out to me in some Church publication or scripture?
The security guards also protect those visiting with the prophet from becoming potential “collateral damage” from any attack on the prophet.
They also might provide great comfort to immediately family members and the body of the church that is worried about the welfare of their greatly esteemed leader.
This reminds me of a story my Dad told me about a guy he knew on his mission. He and his companion were getting a ride somewhere from a couple other missionaries, and the guy at the wheel was driving too fast and being very reckless. When the passengers commented that he should be more careful he responded, “Oh nothing bad will happen, my patriarchal blessing says I will get married and have children and live a long life, so don’t worry.” Shortly after he dropped my dad and his companion off, he was in a fatal accident. You can interpret this story two ways I suppose.
I seem to recall a bible story about Satan tempting Jesus to jump off a cliff, since surely the angels would rescue him from falling.
Hmmm, perhaps the prophet feels no need to flaunt how invincible he is.
As for revelation regarding one’s own death, well there are countless lowly members with stories of the Holy Ghost warning them to do something, or not do something which resulted in the preservation of their lives, or the lives of others. I would imagine thenm that it’s possible that the prophet has such revelations also, though not in every single scenerio. If the security guards can handle it, then why clutter his time with revelations about every lurking danger on a daily basis when his mind needs to be open to revelations on behalf of the entire church?
What I find most bizarre about the starting post of this thread is what it implies: The more a man is reckless with his own safety, the more we should trust and accept him as a prophet(?)
I vote for number 2. (re: comment 12)
Funny. I didn’t get that.
Where do you come up with this crap?
Oh, I don’t know.
Why don’t you pick a section of doctrine which you think may apply and I’ll tell you whether or not I was thinking of that one.
JM, are you going to respond to what I’ve said, or refute it in some way? Or have you resorted to argument by name-calling?
Rick, if you’re going to cite doctrines, tell us which ones they are. Otherwise, we naturally have to assume they’re not doctrines, and you’re making things up out of thin air.
ltbugaf,
If you can stay on topic, I’ll probably respond.
If all you’re going to do is hop on your high horse and shower us with your self-righteous attitude, I’ll probably continue to be an ass.
If you can’t resist the need to hijack a thread, then start your own blog.
The topic of the thread is why the prophet should have a security detail when, according to rick, a prophet who doesn’t fear death shouldn’t have one. My comment deals directly with that topic.
Although I’m having a hard time disagreeing with your last seven words, I’d like to understand the rest of your comment: What have I said in my comment above that constitutes a high horse or a self-righteous attitude?
You think I’m making things up, ltbugaf?
At what point do I need to stop playing scripture chasers with you and you acknowledge that I have, at least, a cursory understanding of both doctrine and the socially assumed practices of the LDS?
You are the only one who requires I quote from canon, and I think it is merely a disingenuous request on your part.
For the sake of argument, feel free to claim what I say isn’t doctrine. If I feel like I need to justify it with a direct citation, I’ll include it.
Don’t you find it the least bit odd that I, the filthy gentile, can get along with others and for some reason you can not?
I might be unnecessarily petty by bringing up what I see as oddities in the LDS doctrine and practises, but you go above and beyond even me by your constant refusal to accept that non-members actually know what members do and believe; even in the face of explanation by members on this board.
You don’t value my opinions. I get it.
But why you gotsta diss the brethren, bro?
I do.
Either what you’ve described is supported by doctrine or it isn’t. If it is supported by doctrine, the doctrine should be identifiable. If it isn’t supported by doctrine, then no one should claim that it is.
I don’t know who called you a “filthy gentile” but it was not I.
You’re getting along with some people and not getting along with others. The same is true of me.
When I challenge your conclusions about what the teachings of the Church are, it’s because I think those conclusions are incorrect, not because I think a non-member is incapable of reaching correct conclusions. All I asked was that you back up your doctrinal claim with some substance. I ask that you simply tell us which doctrine—of which you claim to have knowledge—you’re talking about. Instead, you harrumph that I have no right to challenge your knowledge. You say you know about this, so show what you know. Which doctrine is it?
Are you implying that the Prophet would go directly to the Celestial Kingdom according to LDS belief?
Is not the Celestial Kingdom much, much better than our current existence?
Are you simply looking for me to quote some peripherally marginal doctrine so you can sidestep the spirit of the question?
Are you speaking to me?
yup
As near as I can tell, it’s you that are implying something about doctrine, not I. That’s why I was confused. Aren’t you the one who’s implying this?
In any case, I am unaware of any doctrine that says a man gets automatic, unconditional exaltation just because he became President of the Church. That’s one of the reasons I’m so curious to know why you seem to think such a doctrine exists, and where it is to be found.
I think a more correct statement of doctrine would be that being the Prophet, per se, makes no difference; the Prophet has the same need of faith, repentance, and so forth as the rest of us in order to receive exaltation. To illustrate this point, I refer you to D&C 3:4-9
RE: 28,
BRM specifically teaches this as doctrine in his many commentaries, specifically the Doctrinal New Testament Commentary.
In speaking about one’s calling and election made sure, his words regarding this doctrine are:
You’ll notice that in the fourth paragraph, he specifically states “All of the prophets”.
JM, that leaves me with these questions:
Do you agree with Elder McConkie’s conclusion that since Ezekiel and Isaiah had their calling and election made sure, “obviously” all Presidents of the Church have experienced the same thing?
Do you, JM, believe that any statement made by Bruce R. McConkie in a book of doctrinal commentary constitutes Church doctrine?
See ltbugaf, you are doing it again. Even if it’s not official doctrine that the prophet is guaranteed the Celestial Kingdom, it’s really beside the point. I think it is assumed by most members that the prophet would be worthy of the CF if he died right now, so we are able to understand what Rick means by his question. Just point out that you know of no official doctrine then move on. Perhaps you could point out that maybe, since nobody is perfect, the Prophet would like more time to improve himself during mortality, just like everybody else. Perhaps you could point out that the prophet may have a desire to accomplish more things before he dies. Just try to stick with the subject. As Rick said, you are sidestepping the spirit of the question(again). Why?
I don’t see how my questions or comments are any more peripheral to the main “spirit of the question” than are you incessant criticisms of me. You’re using up far more time and space to talk about what you think of me and my methods of discussion than to talk about the main topic.
But I think it’s all right for you to discuss that topic, because the course of the discussion raises it. Just like it’s all right for me to talk about whether there is actually any doctrine that says once you’re a Prophet, you have an express lane to exaltation—it’s OK to talk about that because rick raised it.
But if you really think the discussion will go better if I limit myself only to the obvious or already stated, then here:
The President of the Church has a security detail because he, and many others, would prefer that he not be murdered or hurt.
Yes, Jesus did have bodyguards.
Is that better?
re: 31
Personally, I do. I agree with this because nowhere is it said that perfection is a condition to have ones C.A.A.M.S. I would also tend to think that someone (like yourself) who is such a strong proponent of following and believing the apostles and prophets would share their beliefs as well. I’m surprised that this isn’t the case.
Yes, I do. I also believe church doctrine is subject to change. I am not aware of any statement by a more modern apostle that makes BRM’s explanation of the C.A.A.M.S. null.
But, we have on record not just BRM, but other apostles and prophets who have taught the same thing. Our church teaches it as doctrine.
Again, I’m really surprised that you don’t agree! I guess that’s the problem with being so absolute in your arguments to support the bretheren. It means you can never disagree with any of them.
Is there a passage in the Bible that explains/verifies this? I’m no Bible scholar, but I didn’t find one.
I think he is referring to peter, a sword, and someone’s ear…
Delete this please.
I don’t know. Do you?
Really? Where and when does this happen? I’m not aware of any promise ever made to me—inside the temple or out—that I was more protected from physical harm than before or after my mission.
I don’t know. Do you?
The one that indicates this most strongly, in my opinion, is John 18:10. However, there’s a much bigger question to ask: Why does Jesus having or not having a bodyguard matter, in regard to the question of whether the Prophet should have one?
Should President Hinckley forgo indoor plumbing because Jesus didn’t have it? Should he eschew computers and the postal system because Jesus didn’t have them? Should he make sure that he suffers death by crucifixion because Jesus did?
Aren’t you playing a little fast and loose with your pronouns when you say “their” beliefs? Whom are you referring to?
No, it quite obviously doesn’t mean that.
I disagree with Bruce R. McConkie’s comment. I don’t think it’s “obvious” that because one or two Prophets had the experience of having their calling and election made sure in mortal life, then all prophets have. That’s an unwarranted conclusion.
I also disagree with you that everthing ever published by Elder McConkie immediately became Church doctrine. In fact, it seems almost impossible to take this position when you review his experience in publishing Mormon Doctrine. He was immediately rebuked for publishing the book under that title, precisely because it contained numerous comments that were not Church doctrine.
Then I invite you to provide me with a genuinely authoritative source—an official Church publication at the very least—that tells us that every man who has ever become President of the Church has, by virtue of that fact, been assured Celestial exaltation.
There’s another principle that I think is important to consider here, and it’s the one voiced by Jesus in Matthew 4:5-7 and Luke 4:9-12. Even if the Prophet does have some special entitlement to physical protection, why should he tempt the Lord by being reckless of his own safety?
Ltbugaf re: #33, you do have a point. I’ll lay off the criticisms (although I wouldn’t quite call it “incessant” thus far.)
Ltbugaff, thanks for those scripture references. You’ll notice I referred to this in #12 although I had forgotten it was actually a pinnacle of a temple, not a cliff that Satan suggested Jesus jump off of. It’s been a couple of years since I last read the NT so I mixed it up a bit. Anyhow, that is exactly right, and I think it addresses Rick’s question quite well.
“Then I invite you to provide me with a genuinely authoritative source…”
Not necessary. If I can sit in a Sunday School class and hear it, our church teaches it. That’s one of the casualties of having lay members lead and teach in church.
If it’s taught to our congregations in our meetings, our church teaches it.
If our missionaries teach it, our church teaches it.
If some General Authority mentions it in passing in a talk he’s giving to new missionaries at the MTC, our church teaches it.
It doesn’t have to be cannonized to be a teaching of our church. It just needs to be taught in a setting where any reasonable person would assume that church teaching are being taught.
Now, you can argue if it should be taught or not. But you can’t say we don’t teach it.
Regarding this whole missionary protection teaching thing, I remember hearing this many times in the MTC from visiting general authorities and from my mission presidents. I remember being taught this in Primary. I remember being told this by bishops and stake presidents before leaving on my full time mission. I remember missionaries all telling the LDS urban legends of special protections granted to missionaries in the field (i.e. walking through a group of gang members unseen on a dark night, getting in a car and driving home and discovering next morning that there was no engine in the car, eating a poisoned meal and not feeling the effects, being bitten by deadly spiders and snakes and not dying, stripling warrior spirits protecting the MTC from a demonic attack, etc…).
Regardless of it being an official doctrine or not, our church teaches that special protections are given to those who are on the Lord’s errand.
Are you saying that you have never heard any such teaching at any time in any church meeting or from anyone in any position of teaching authority in the church?
And for you spelling nazi’s out there, I should have typed “canonized” not “cannonized”. I humbly beg for you forgiveness.
and for you grammer nazis, I humbly beg your forgiveness for not typing the correct plural of nazi in the preceding post.
That’s “grammar.” :)
This whole,”It’s not in the canon” nonsense is just a dodge.
Like JM says, if it’s told to members in church or at a church activity, it’s taught by the church.
I still think my argument stands.
Also, as long as we’re splitting hairs – having a single bodyguard (Peter) does not mean he had bodyguards … :P
I can’t win… I am a child of the spellchecker generation…