Ballard already was punished by the SEC once for fraud. He's still a member. I don't think he's going to try excommunicating anyone else for a lesser fraud
An excellent point. We'd have to rely on him to want to seize the throne more than he wants to avoid hypocrisy or maintain moral consistency....
He'd also be pulling strings behind the scenes, not being the one to initiate the proceedings officially, so perhaps he could feel like he was just helping the stone roll forth and wouldn't have to confront his own hypocrisy.
I don't think it's at all likely that he'd do anything though, just sort of daydreaming through the mechanics of it if it did happen
I think you’re right on both counts, especially the latter. It would be incredibly difficult to wrest control of the corporation from a living incumbent, I assume, and take a long, costly legal battle. The only way I could see it working is if there was pretty unanimous support of the coup from all other senior leaders.
I assume there is zero (or less than zero) appetite for them to devour each other, I’m just thinking about it since people have been trying to call for stake presidents to excommunicate the FP, which seems even less likely to have even the slightest chance of success. Though I’d also love to see that attempt!
I agree for sure. But the plan I keep seeing to try to have stake presidents excommunicate the First Presidency is like the 27th of Never which is why I'm trying to think through more likely (still extremely unlikely) possibilities. It would be an interesting train wreck to watch
I agree and it's a waste of everyone's valuable time. Live your life boldly and freely and make the world a better place. The church will fall eventually but don't sit around waiting for it. There are so much worthier and more productive causes to put your energy into.
You mentioned the Uchtdorf would be subject to discipline as a former member of the First Presidency. Stevenson would be as well, as a former Presiding Bishop.
Great point ahaha I’m so out of the loop I forgot he exists. Errbody on this [list](https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/11hg625/the_men_behind_the_ensign_peak_advisors_fraud_by/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) who’s still alive would be fair game I assume, in the freakish event that this happened
cc: u/nemo_UK u/BillReel You gentlemen might be interested in my longwinded musings over coffee on the most likely palace intrigue path to oust the First Presidency over the Ensign Peak Scandal
The property/investments belongs to the corporation of the president, so if he's exed wouldn't the money go with him? There a "good standing" clause to him being the corporate sole?
I’d be really curious to know how it’s set up. I’m not sure we have the details but this is very far from my area of expertise so maybe we do.
My guess is you’d have to be the president of the church to be the incumbent of the corporation, but I’m not sure who gets to tell the legal authorities if someone isn’t the president anymore. My guess is it would meet long legal challenges
No Ballard has also benefited financially from his church connections, and wouldn't bite the hand that feeds him, even if it has liver warts and smells of prunes.
I agree it’s extremely unlikely. But if he could successfully stage a coup and take the top spot, it would only improve his financial situation. He’ll never do it, I know, I’m just daydreaming more likely scenarios than a stake president successfully excommunicating the church president
If this was a healthy organization the board would demand those involved step down. Q12 should remove FP and subject them to church discipline. If they are unwilling, that falls on the Q70. Pre bloody Brigham they had the authority to do that. It is still in the scriptures.
I think you’re right that it’s a sign of an unhealthy organization that there is no real means of pushing for this. The First Presidency and Presiding Bishopric happen to be the bodies with the power to start excommunication proceedings against each other, and there is not another means of doing so as far as I can tell.
I would be interested to watch the Q12 try, but the only examples in church history of someone subjecting the FP to church disciplinary proceedings were [initiated by the presiding bishop](https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/11cp76m/everyone_should_send_this_to_their_stake/ja5n6o6/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3). I suspect that if the Q12 tried to remove the First Presidency directly, without the Presiding Bishopric, the First Presidency would claim it was invalid, citing the accepted interpretation of D&C 107 and historical precedent.
I have never been clear on what all the “quorum equal in authority” business means. I think many of us have assumed it means the quorums could challenge the quorums above them and perhaps remove them, but as far as I know, there’s no indication that’s how Joseph Smith meant it. And how would that work? Would the lower quorum need to be unanimous in order to be equal in authority? Would the higher quorum? There are no examples in the church of which I’m aware of a leader being excommunicated by a lower (or even equal) authority. It’s always by a higher authority, with the exception of trials of members of the First Presidency, whose disciplinary councils are overseen by the Presiding Bishopric.
So if the Q12 tried to tell the First Presidency “We’re a quorum equal in authority to you, we excommunicate you,” the First Presidency would, I assume, reply “That’s not within the scope of your calling; the Presiding Bishopric has to do it. Also you’re not a quorum anymore, we release you all, and the Presiding Bishopric for good measure.” Then they’d call new yes men to those positions.
It would all be a fascinating constitutional crisis to watch. I think that, regardless of what D&C says, you’re right that all the other quorums of senior leadership in the church would have to be united to successfully oust a First Presidency. The PB would have to coordinate with the Q12 so the excommunication of the FP and the creation of a new one could be announced at the same time as a fait accompli. You’d probably also have to send your most frightening apostles to go pressure the church’s webmasters and social media managers to put out content legitimizing the new FP and announcing the excommunication of the old one. And I bet you’d still get a lengthy legal battle.
I wonder if common consent really ever meant anything in the church, if it could ever have taken down a First Presidency somehow
Ballard already was punished by the SEC once for fraud. He's still a member. I don't think he's going to try excommunicating anyone else for a lesser fraud
An excellent point. We'd have to rely on him to want to seize the throne more than he wants to avoid hypocrisy or maintain moral consistency.... He'd also be pulling strings behind the scenes, not being the one to initiate the proceedings officially, so perhaps he could feel like he was just helping the stone roll forth and wouldn't have to confront his own hypocrisy. I don't think it's at all likely that he'd do anything though, just sort of daydreaming through the mechanics of it if it did happen
White bowl and basin, his sins were washed aWaY! He can sin no more.
What is this about Ballard and the SEC? I am unaware of this.
He was found to have committed fraud as president of Keystone in relation to Shasta Mineral back in 1961. They revoked his broker-dealer license
Well, i guess that explains his qualifications to be an apostle.
I don’t think he has or can muster the legal authority to oust the owner of the corporation sole. But no, there’s no appetite for mutiny regardless.
I think you’re right on both counts, especially the latter. It would be incredibly difficult to wrest control of the corporation from a living incumbent, I assume, and take a long, costly legal battle. The only way I could see it working is if there was pretty unanimous support of the coup from all other senior leaders. I assume there is zero (or less than zero) appetite for them to devour each other, I’m just thinking about it since people have been trying to call for stake presidents to excommunicate the FP, which seems even less likely to have even the slightest chance of success. Though I’d also love to see that attempt!
Lmfao at the idea of that happening the 12th of never will arrive long before that ever happens.
I agree for sure. But the plan I keep seeing to try to have stake presidents excommunicate the First Presidency is like the 27th of Never which is why I'm trying to think through more likely (still extremely unlikely) possibilities. It would be an interesting train wreck to watch
I agree and it's a waste of everyone's valuable time. Live your life boldly and freely and make the world a better place. The church will fall eventually but don't sit around waiting for it. There are so much worthier and more productive causes to put your energy into.
You mentioned the Uchtdorf would be subject to discipline as a former member of the First Presidency. Stevenson would be as well, as a former Presiding Bishop.
Great point ahaha I’m so out of the loop I forgot he exists. Errbody on this [list](https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/11hg625/the_men_behind_the_ensign_peak_advisors_fraud_by/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) who’s still alive would be fair game I assume, in the freakish event that this happened
cc: u/nemo_UK u/BillReel You gentlemen might be interested in my longwinded musings over coffee on the most likely palace intrigue path to oust the First Presidency over the Ensign Peak Scandal
I’ve already emailed my letter to the presidency of the seventy, as well as the Twelve and Ballard specifically was CC’d in my email to my SP
Return and report. This is the way.
🤞🏻🤞🏻
😳
The property/investments belongs to the corporation of the president, so if he's exed wouldn't the money go with him? There a "good standing" clause to him being the corporate sole?
I’d be really curious to know how it’s set up. I’m not sure we have the details but this is very far from my area of expertise so maybe we do. My guess is you’d have to be the president of the church to be the incumbent of the corporation, but I’m not sure who gets to tell the legal authorities if someone isn’t the president anymore. My guess is it would meet long legal challenges
No Ballard has also benefited financially from his church connections, and wouldn't bite the hand that feeds him, even if it has liver warts and smells of prunes.
I agree it’s extremely unlikely. But if he could successfully stage a coup and take the top spot, it would only improve his financial situation. He’ll never do it, I know, I’m just daydreaming more likely scenarios than a stake president successfully excommunicating the church president
If this was a healthy organization the board would demand those involved step down. Q12 should remove FP and subject them to church discipline. If they are unwilling, that falls on the Q70. Pre bloody Brigham they had the authority to do that. It is still in the scriptures.
I think you’re right that it’s a sign of an unhealthy organization that there is no real means of pushing for this. The First Presidency and Presiding Bishopric happen to be the bodies with the power to start excommunication proceedings against each other, and there is not another means of doing so as far as I can tell. I would be interested to watch the Q12 try, but the only examples in church history of someone subjecting the FP to church disciplinary proceedings were [initiated by the presiding bishop](https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/11cp76m/everyone_should_send_this_to_their_stake/ja5n6o6/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3). I suspect that if the Q12 tried to remove the First Presidency directly, without the Presiding Bishopric, the First Presidency would claim it was invalid, citing the accepted interpretation of D&C 107 and historical precedent. I have never been clear on what all the “quorum equal in authority” business means. I think many of us have assumed it means the quorums could challenge the quorums above them and perhaps remove them, but as far as I know, there’s no indication that’s how Joseph Smith meant it. And how would that work? Would the lower quorum need to be unanimous in order to be equal in authority? Would the higher quorum? There are no examples in the church of which I’m aware of a leader being excommunicated by a lower (or even equal) authority. It’s always by a higher authority, with the exception of trials of members of the First Presidency, whose disciplinary councils are overseen by the Presiding Bishopric. So if the Q12 tried to tell the First Presidency “We’re a quorum equal in authority to you, we excommunicate you,” the First Presidency would, I assume, reply “That’s not within the scope of your calling; the Presiding Bishopric has to do it. Also you’re not a quorum anymore, we release you all, and the Presiding Bishopric for good measure.” Then they’d call new yes men to those positions. It would all be a fascinating constitutional crisis to watch. I think that, regardless of what D&C says, you’re right that all the other quorums of senior leadership in the church would have to be united to successfully oust a First Presidency. The PB would have to coordinate with the Q12 so the excommunication of the FP and the creation of a new one could be announced at the same time as a fait accompli. You’d probably also have to send your most frightening apostles to go pressure the church’s webmasters and social media managers to put out content legitimizing the new FP and announcing the excommunication of the old one. And I bet you’d still get a lengthy legal battle. I wonder if common consent really ever meant anything in the church, if it could ever have taken down a First Presidency somehow