In a February 2, 2008, cover story in New Scientist, Jim Giles asked whether political leanings were genetic:
“…Across the land, liberals and conservatives are slugging it out, trying to convince each other that their way of thinking is right. They may be wasting their breath.
“According to an emerging idea, political positions are substantially determined by biology and can be stubbornly resistant to reason. ‘These views are deep-seated and built into our brains. Trying to persuade someone not to be liberal is like trying to persuade someone not to have brown eyes. We have to rethink persuasion,’ says John Alford, a political scientist at Rice University in Houston, Texas.
one of his special additional counselors. When a vacancy occurred in the Twelve the following year, Elder Smith was sustained as a member of that quorum’ [1]. The date was Oct 8, 1867. This means Joseph F. Smith was an Apostle a year before he joined the Quorum of the twelve. Moreover, BY ordained Joseph F. Smith spontaneously without consultation of all members of the First presidency [2]. Lest we think this is just another aberration of the Brigham Young period, it has occurred a few times in the Church’s history. What does this tell us about what it means to be an Apostle, and what is the relationship between the quorum and the office? 
to ‘Winter Festival’ or some such other variant. A little research shows that this is unfounded, in most cases, and seems linked to a gentleman named Bill O’Reilly, but there has been some rumours bubbling in the 
at which point they voted for a new leader. Arrington notes that the response was almost unanimous, but the subsequent disaffection from the Church shows that not all was well in Zion[1]. This experience raises interesting questions for me about the role of Common Consent in the Church. Seeing this is General Conference weekend (and we have just had a sustaining vote), I ask: Have we moved from a democracy to prophetocracy, and is this a bad thing? 
Loading ...
