I was talking to a friend, and asked him if there was a current apostle like Spencer W. Kimball–that is someone who might come up with a groundbreaking revelation (concerning perhaps gays, women, or some other issue) among the current crop of apostles. I remind you all that when Pres Kimball assumed the role of the prophet, he said that there were no plans to change the priesthood restriction during his first press conference in 1974. He was the first prophet to issue a revelation since Wilford Woodruff in 1890 with the Manifesto. (Note Joseph F. Smith’s 1918 vision wasn’t published until 1978–along with Official Declaration 2–and was secret until then.) In order to keep the list fairly short, I have excluded Pres Monson and have listed just the top 6 in seniority. What do you think?
[poll id=”576″]
Wheat & Tares 
Yes
I think any of these men could be the messenger of the Lord.
The original poster seems to really be asking if any of these men will betray his God and do what avowed opponents of the Church want.
Ji seems to be making lots of ASSumptions. With that line of reasoning, Kimball betrayed his God. You seem to cut the brethren a lot of slack for their positions, but fail to cut fellow bloggers slack. Your hypocrisy reeks when it comes to righteous judgment and you should apologize for such an awful comment. Or do you think Kimball betrayed his God?
Seriously that was an awful comment.
President Kimball honestly and humbly received revelation.
I disagree with the presumption (or ASSumption) that the Church is wrong on matters raised in the original posting, and that God only needs an honest man at the head of the Church to correct the error. I’m willing to give any benefit of the doubt and say that all the leaders of the Church are honest men.
Where does it say the church is wrong? That’s your ASSumption and shows your misreading of the post.
You should be just as willing to give the benefit of the doubt to guy.
I guess it would depend on one’s mental model for what is meant by revelation. Looking at blacks and the Priesthood (or even OD 1) you are really asking about whether the brethren as a group can come to consensus on what they deam a major policy change given crushing outside pressure to do so.
SWK eventually drove consensus among the brethren and marginalized the last holdouts over years and years but it is unclear he would have been able to do that without the string shift in societal attitudes both within and without of the church which helped force the rest of the apostleship to abandon the it most stringent positions.
So in this respect, I think it is more about when external and internal forces conspire to make the status quo untenable that whoever happens to be in the chair when the institution is forced to examine current policy will be the more salient factor.
I do think whoever sits in the chair has the power to umilaterally block changes however. In this respect I think it really depends on the topic. Oaks, Nelson (hey the exclusion policy IS bold revelation, right?), Ballard, Hales and maybe the rest except Eyring would never start the process to reconsider doctrines around homosexuality. Maybe a younger Holland would but the Holland of the last 5 years has seemed to lose a lot of mental/attitudinal flexibility – something that happens pretty commonly as people age.
I could see Oaks, Holland, and Eyring be open on women though. Any of these also seem like they have the energy and clout to push the quorum the way SWK did as well.
This is kind of the wrong list though. Bednar and maybe Andersen should replace Hales and Ballard as they have much much higher probabilities of sitting in the chair. Eyring has virtually no chance barring some crazy number of unexpected deaths. Bednar is the most important to inccude because he has the highest probability of any individual because he is so young.
http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2015/07/05/church-president-probability-changes-with-president-packers-death/
Amending my first sentence:
“I guess it would depend on one’s mental model of *how revelation in the modern church is likely to work*.
rah, I agree with you about Eyring, and wish the probability of his presidency were much higher.
I expect many new building projects to be revealed.
Pres Lee was very young when he became Church pres and died unexpectedly, paving the way for pres Kimball who had survived several surgeriesand was sickly when he became pres.
Rah, I think you bring up some excellent points, and in many ways, mirrors the process Wilford Woodruff went though with the Manifesto (Official Declaration 1), although it appears that some apostles disagreed with the Manifesto and kept performing polygamist sealings, including John W. Taylor who resigned in 1905 from the Q12.
I guess the real question concerning both declarations is this. Was it the will of God that there was so much opposition to (1) polygamy and (2) the black ban?
As I read the footnote to Official Declaration 1, I wonder why the footnote isn’t the canonized revelation. It states it in terms of a vision:
D&C 88:51-68 might offer some insight as to when “big revelation” occurs.
Can you summarize ji? I May not have the same interpretation as you.
Rah has a point, I think, that most of those listed in the poll will not have an opportunity to be president of the church.
Another interesting possibility is that a document already in circulation could be canonized. I’m not sure who that revelation would be attributed to. Something like the proclamation on the family, for example. Personally, I hope this doesn’t happen, but I think the family proc is already treated as canon, and sometimes elevated above scripture. For example, I’m aware of a ward primary that is using the family proc as scripture for children to share each week, and, in a separate stake, a stake president challenged adults in the stake to memorize the family proc. I’m not aware of any local unit that has challenged members to memorize any scripture of comparable length.
Perhaps the first thing that is needed is a change in the succession methos (which is only tradition).
This will only happen if there is discussion of this possibility, leading to that expectation.
Perhaps a retirement age for Apostles?
We, the church, could then consider who would be the best leader for the future of the church. Many of us have considered how our future in the church would be affected with Oaks as Prophet v Uchtdorf.
Ji if you have a ptoblem with bottom up request for change, perhaps you could compare the times when God started a convesation, with a modern Prophet, v when the people encouraged the Prophet to ask the Lord
I agree that Bednar is likely to become prophet, but I wouldn’t put him in the same category as Kimball–I’d put Bednar in the category of Lee, and one to maintain, if not reinforce the status quo. Maybe next week we can do a poll of the next 6?
Geoff, great point. Some interesting things from the D&C
*The intro to D&C 4:7 says “The things of God must be sought after.”
*D&C 5: Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Harmony, Pennsylvania, March 1829, at the request of Martin Harris.
*D&C 8: Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet to Oliver Cowdery [because Oliver …] desired to be endowed with the gift of translation.
*D&C 9: Oliver is admonished to be patient and is urged to be content to write, for the time being, at the dictation of the translator, rather than to attempt to translate.
*D&C 89: Revelation given because Emma complained about tobacco.
I’m sure I could come up with more.
Apparently some think D&C 4:7 says “Don’t ask, and ye shall receive. Don’t knock, and it shall be opened to you anyway. Amen.”
Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. If we want revelation, we have to desire it. Apparently some don’t want revelation.
And some interpret D&C 4:7 to mean that the Lord will grant whatever we pester him long enough for. Sort of like my kids when they were little….
A Parent who answers asks, seeks, and knocks is more patient to explain than we pesterers think.
If the Priesthood ban was never doctrine, I do wonder why revelation from God was required to overturn it.
I also think it’s interesting that the Nov. 5 policy is apparently revelation, yet we haven’t heard one word about it from our current prophet – not in General Conference and not anywhere else that I’m aware.
I guess I don’t understand revelation as well as I thought I did.
I don’t know what makes you think that Joseph F. Smith’s revelation on salvation for the dead was “secret” before it was canonized and added to the Pearl of Great Price in 1976. I remember getting a mimeographed copy in a New Testament class I took from Richard L Anderson in 1973, and a Google search turns us a publication in the Ensign in 1971. An article by Mary Jane Woodger on the website of the BYU Religious Studies Center traces the history of the revelation, from its receipt in 1918:
“The text of the vision then appeared in the November 30 edition of the Deseret Evening News. It was also printed ‘in the December Improvement Era, and in the January 1919 editions of the Relief Society Magazine, the Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine, the Young Woman’s Journal, and the Millennial Star.'”
It’s true that the vision sort of dropped out of sight after that initial flurry, but to say that it was “secret” is not accurate.
Joseph F. Smith’s vision on the redemption of the dead was not “secret.” I was given a mimeographed copy in a religion class at BYU in Winter 1973, and, if I had been paying attention, I could have read it in the Ensign two years before that.
Mary Jane Woodger wrote a brief history of the revelation for the BYU Religious Studies Center, which describes the early publication history:
“The text of the vision then appeared in the November 30 edition of the Deseret Evening News. It was also printed ‘in the December Improvement Era, and in the January 1919 editions of the Relief Society Magazine, the Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine, the Young Woman’s Journal, and the Millennial Star.'”
It’s not clear why it seems to have been “lost” for nearly a half century, with just a few mentions in General Conference addresses, but to suggest that it was “secret”–intentionally hidden from the general membership of the church–is just plain not true.
You’re wrong on several counts regarding Joseph F. Smith’s vision on the redemption of the dead. It was published several times before 1978, including, of course, 1976, when it was canonized and added to the Pearl of Great Price. But, it was also published in the Ensign in 1971, and it was available elsewhere. Prof. Richard L. Anderson distributed a mimeographed copy in a New Testament class I took from him in early 1973.
And, as Mary Jane Woodger wrote in an online article for the BYU Religious Studies Center,
The text of the vision then appeared in the November 30 edition of the Deseret Evening News. It was also printed “in the December Improvement Era, and in the January 1919 editions of the Relief Society Magazine, the Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine, the Young Woman’s Journal, and the Millennial Star.”
Sorry. I guess my comments were stuck in the moderation queue. Feel free to delete two of them.
I suspect everyone here and everyone on that list has a different definition of revelation ranging somewhere between a burning bush on Mt. Sinai that singes your eyebrows and a vague feeling that something is “truthy” to quote Stephen Colbert. Like RAH, I’m not sure the priesthood ban being lifted was revelation so much as social pressure and finally taking the right stand. Likewise with many of the things on this list are in the realm of common sense and policy, not revelation. Unlike ji, I don’t consider God to be anti-progress. Stripping away human cultural prejudices allows the gospel to flourish. It’s the bathwater, not the baby.
I’ve been thinking about making missions service-oriented rather than proselyting as a possible revelation. That seems to be a shift that is underway that is an unintended byproduct of lowering the ages for service. Maybe “revelation” is implementing a preliminary change that suddenly shifts things in unexpected ways, paving the way for a new vision of how things can be.
Secret is probably the wrong choice of words, though it was certainly upgraded significantly with canonization status. I’m not sure how well known Joseph F. Smith’s vision was prior to 1978.
Thank you for that, Mark B. Good contextual info, and I’m glad you stuck with it!
I think policy decisions can be inspired based on contemporary circumstances, rather than on fundamental principles alone. I think most decisions made by church leaders fall in that category, and probably a good portion of the D&C as well.
I wonder how many visions are out there that aren’t canonized? I believe there was one by Woodruff where he saw God in the SL Temple, but he didn’t write it down. A relative recorded it. I wonder how many of these are around, waiting for canonization?
Let’s not canonize all of them — if they were private, that’s fine with me.
Yes ji, i get it. You don’t desire any new revelations.
Why do you go to a church that proclaims we get revelations from God if you dont actually want any new revelations? It’s just a cool thing to say, but you dont really believe in modern day revelations? You actually believe dont ask to receive, dont knock and its open anyway?
Going back to my post on vicarious ordinances, it’s strange to me that the vision of Elijah wasn’t canonized for40 years, yet now it is considered an essential doctrineof Temple work. Why was such an important vision kept under wraps for so long?
I don’t think it is a betrayal to assert that different Apostles have different spiritual gifts. That is the basic doctrine of spiritual gifts–we don’t get the same ones. I believe Elder Holland has a gift to empathize with pain of suffering of individual church members. I have not seen evidence that Elder Bednar demonstrates a strong manifestation of this gift. I’m sure there are others who have seen this in an inner circle. I live in outer circles.
Elder Holland delivered the conference address: “Behold Thy Mother”, in which he described a missionary that came home for issues coming from “same gender attraction.” Yet at the conclusion of his story he remarkably said the following: “I must say, this son’s sexual orientation did not somehow miraculously change.” Searching GC for the term “sexual orientation” only one other reference comes up. This was when Elder Oaks gave the talk “Loving Others and Living With Differences”. His quote is this: “we should be persons of goodwill toward all, rejecting persecution of any kind, including persecution based on race, ethnicity, religious belief or nonbelief, and differences in sexual orientation.”
Contrast that with the comments made by Elder Bednar when he gave his much publicized answer that we have no homosexuals in the church. His point could have been made without such a brash statement that was hurtful to many.
I would disagree with Hawkgrrl about the ban lifting. I think President Kimball was prepared through many experiences to be the one to receive that revelation. He also had a gift of empathy. His interactions with Helvechio Martins who later became a GA were taken in with deep empathy. I’m not saying there wasn’t any reaction to social pressure, but the communication spiritually that the ban was to be lifted was confirmed by revelation. Those who have described the experience document it with the same language of the spirit that a member in a small outlying branch with a ward calling would recognize.
I think the poll would have been more discussion-worthy had you left out the first option. Quoting President Kimball: “We need men and women who think of things that have never been thought of and who dream of things that have never been dreamed of, and who ask, ‘Why not?'”
Correction–I meant to the poll would have been more discussion-worth if you left out the LAST option. (The option of no expectation).
“If the Priesthood ban was never doctrine, I do wonder why revelation from God was required to overturn it.”
Greg Prince answered that question in a Mormon Stories interview, (here is a transcript.)
MH,
I’m all in favor of revelation from God. I’ve been the recipient of some myself — maybe you have, too. But I am opposed to creating our own texts and calling it revelation.
Part of the reason all revelation should not be canonized is because much revelation is personal. Our God might reveal something to me today that is precious and much-needed to me, tailored to my circumstances — to canonize that revelation as a commandment for all other children of God would be wrong. Similarly, a whispering of the spirit to you in your circumstances might be bad advice for me in my circumstances.
God still speaks to man. But he doesn’t give signs to satisfy the demands of men.
Ji, i frankly don’t understand why many of the personal revelations in the d&c are canonized. We routinely ignore them, especially when they were requested by Oliver or Martin or whoever. But to assert that personal revelation it’s somehow superior to canonized revelation strikes me as a bizarre notion, and certainly isn’t supported by the d&c.
I’m not asking the church to canonize my personal texts, so you are arguing straw man there. But, like Emma, i see nothing wrong with asking the Prophet to seek guidance on an issue. I mean if you think about it, Emma being pissed off because she had to Clean up tobacco spit seems much more trivial than seeking equality for women with regards to priesthood.
Yet Joseph asked anyway, over a trivial matter and got a groundbreaking revelation. And even when prompted, God didn’t always say yes to the request. As noted above, Oliver wanted to translate but was denied, and there was a lesson to us all in that.
Asking for guidance on female ordination might give a revelation similar to Oliver’s answer, and we shouldn’t be seen as unrighteous for making the request. Do you view Oliver as unrighteous in his request? Of not, why do you have a double standard for asking for revelation?
You sound suspiciously like the book of mormon. ‘a d&c! A d&c! We already have a d&c as need no more d&c!’
MH, I’m content with the revelation God has given, and will receive whatever else He chooses to give whenever He chooses to do it. I do not require a revelation to change the Church to suit my sensibilities. We differ in that regard.
You sound suspiciously like the Pharisee in Matt. 12:38-39. “Master, we would see a sign from thee.”
“I do not require a revelation to change the Church to suit my sensibilities. ”
I guess I don’t understand this way of thinking. Was Emma wrong to ask Joseph about the tobacco? If we have a contingent of our church deeply struggling with an issue why is it wrong as a church to ask for God’s wisdom?
Yes RT, thanks for asking the questions again. JI seems to keep ignoring them (probably because they’re too difficult to answer in light of her opinion.)
When was a revelation considered a sign? False equivalence there JI. I believe and sustain these guys as prophets. Am I as sinful as Oliver for asking for a revelation? (Seriously would like an answer to RT’s and my questions in 35 and 38 you keep avoiding.)
“God still speaks to man. But he doesn’t give signs to satisfy the demands of men.”
YES HE DOES! I’ve given examples of Emma, Oliver, and Martin (and could find more. This isn’t sign seeking, it is earnest faith. Unless you feel comfortable calling Oliver, Emma, and Martin sign-seekers. Please stop with the double-standard!
A bottom-up request for revelation will not always have a good outcome. Israelites were conforming to a social trend when requesting Samuel to give them a king. Joseph Smith was conforming to outside pressure when asking about the 116 pages. The gospel topics essay seeks to excuse the priesthood ban by suggesting 19th century leaders were influenced by social trends of the day. We cannot ignore these examples.
Similarly, we flippantly throw around those evil ones who would ask for signs (Sherem and Korihor included), without recognizing that God himself tells us that he wants us to ask him to prove himself (hello, Malachi). He specifically requests those readers in the last chapter of Moroni to ask for a sign. Everyone is aware of the situation between Isaiah and Ahaz in the OT where Isaiah tells Ahaz to ask for a sign as proof that God will deliver what he promised, and the anger Isaiah has when Ahaz refuses to do so (Isaiah 7).
Requesting revelation *can* be a good thing and it *can* be a bad thing. Context matters. Intent matters. The irony is we need to follow the Spirit, so essentially we have to respond to revelation in order to know if we should ask for revelation.
Yes Mary Ann you bring up assume good points, but remember that God told Martin No three times before he said yes. God doesn’t always say yes, so despite what I think, he could easily affirm the status quo. I view that as God having spoken on the issue and a good thing. I would welcome a no revelation as much as a yes revelation. At least the heavens aren’t closed.
With regards to kings, if they are so bad, why are we aspiring to became kings and queens, priests and priestesses? Seems like god is sending mixed messages about kings.
And with regards to excusing the black ban because of 19th century attitudes, who’s to say the female ban isn’t due to 21st century attitudes? I expect the gospel topics writers may well excuse the female ban the same way in 40 years after the revelation changing the status of women.
Kings when perfect are better than alternatives. When imperfect they are worse.
Clearly set out in the scriptures. 🙂
ji: I’m sure I’ll regret asking this, but here goes anyway. You said: “I am opposed to creating our own texts and calling it revelation.” Does that mean you oppose calling the Proclamation a revelation and that you disagree with E. Nelson calling the Nov 5 exclusion policy a revelation? Both of those have origin stories that involve lawyers writing them and then leaders signing them. If they are called revelation, you disagree? I certainly disagree that they are revelation, but I was curious about your position.
As far as the kings – God has always sought for us to consider ourselves part of His kingdom. Israel was supposed to have *Him* as their king – *He* would lead them into battles. His anger was not kindled because they came up with a desire for a king, his anger was kindled because they wanted a human king instead of depending on a divine one. Even in the BoM where Mosiah II dismantled the monarchy, he did so out of fear of wicked kings (including, possibly, his own son). Not necessarily because he felt a monarchy was inherently unrighteous (his father and grandfather clearly were counterexamples). Deity as King is consistent with the scriptures. If humans can become Gods, it’s entirely logical for a person to conclude humans will then become kings (and queens) in their own realms.
God could easily affirm the status quo, yes. The problem is that none of the leaders have come out and said, “We asked, He said no.” That does *not* mean they haven’t asked. They just argue that the status quo is satisfactory. They seem to be saying, “Stop asking us to ask” without letting us know if the main problem is they feel it inappropriate for members to make the request, or if they have already received an answer. Or, if like with the priesthood ban, leaders are privately divided so nothing’s going to change until years down the road they can get something unanimous.
Revelation influenced by social trends is a slippery slope. Social trends exerted a lot of influence in the creation of the Manifesto. Social trends today are moving towards an acceptance of polyamorous relationships. Does that mean the return of polygamy would be a positive thing?
Ji, the scriptures are full of man-made texts that were later deemed revelation (histories, poems, letters, etc.).
There needs to be 1 more option:
• I expect policy & the opinions of men to morph into revelation
#43 hawkgrrrl
“Both of those have origin stories that involve lawyers writing them and then leaders signing them … I certainly disagree that they are revelation, but I was curious about your position”.
A little late to the party on this one but I found your comment interesting. The following is the slt report of President Nelson’s talk that outlined how the “exclusion policy” was determined.
“After same-sex marriage became legal in several countries, including the United States, the LDS Church’s top 15 leaders wrestled with what to do, weighed all the ramifications, fasted, prayed, met in the temple and sought God’s guidance on the issue.
Balancing their understanding of Mormon doctrine about the “plan of salvation,” which is built on male-female marriage, with compassion for children of same-sex couples, Russell M. Nelson, head of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, said Sunday night, “we considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise.”
Then President Thomas S. Monson, considered a “prophet, seer and revelator” in the 15 million-member Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, declared “the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord.”
Thus, it appears that the prophets and apostles reviewed the issue, prayed and received a response from the Lord, which was termed by them to be the mind and will of the Lord.
Presumably they then had that response written (it may have been written by a lawyer although most likely a church employee) in a manner that was consistent with the tenor of the handbook. Not certain it would ever have been actually signed but the wording likely was signed-off on by the prophets/apostles.
I am curious about what part of that makes you feel it wasn’t a revelation. It sounds remarkably similar to what is reported to have transpired when President Kimball received the revelation on the priesthood. Does the fact it was reduced to writing by someone other than the leaders and the form was then approved by the leaders as opposed to the prophet writing it out himself really impact your thinking?
do you have a link?
Ah, I found it: http://www.sltrib.com/home/3391057-155/lds-gay-policy-came-from-god
If this really was a revelation as Nelson makes the case, why was it snuck into the Handbook instead of announced publicly like Joseph did when he announced the golden plates? I know many think Nelson is dressing this up as a revelation after the fact when in fact it wasn’t a revelation at all. It’s called CYA by stating this after the fact.
Certainly Kimball didn’t sneak the removal of the priesthood ban into the manual. It was announced publicly, not sneaky like happened with the gay ban.
Crickets from Ji. I guess she figured out that was a losing argument
There are lots of ways to win or lose an argument, but in my opinion having the last word is usually not one of them. At some point a person can choose to let an argument stand or fall on its merits. That doesn’t necessarily mean the person gave up.
MH,
I suppose I could say that gone are the days when every revelation by the brethren is announced publicly. Though some…like asking a brother that is not present at a temple dedication to be a speaker and then having him walk in the door just as his name is being announced…are.
hawkgrrrl,
No, I would not want to use the word “revelation” to describe the Family Proclamation. There might have been some revelation in the impetus and maybe some inspiration in the drafting, but the text (as I understand it and how it has been presented and by its own wording) is man-made. It is a product of those who signed it. They are good men, and holy men, and I am generally supportive of the Proclamation, but I don’t call it revelation or a revealed text. It doesn’t make that claim for itself.
the scriptures are full of man-made texts that were later deemed revelation (histories, poems, letters, etc.).
How about this as a re-write? the scriptures are full of man-made texts (histories, poems, letters, etc.) that were later canonized as scripture.
sure seems to contradict “I am opposed to creating our own texts and calling it revelation.”
so which is it? Are you now saying your earlier assertion was inconsistent with your position now?
Well, I’d certainly agree with ji that not all scripture is revelation.
ojiisan –
It’s not “revelation” in the sense that the policy was not originally intended for public consumption; it was quietly added to a restricted-access handbook with no prepared announcement or press release. It was not presented to the membership of the Church for ratification by common consent. It only received publicity after it was leaked to the public, and any statements issued by the Church thereafter were reactionary/damage control. It is just a policy, not doctrine, not proto-scripture. And policies change. Even this policy was adjusted slightly after it was introduced.
I wonder, in their sessions of fasting and prayer and discussion of this issue, if any of the 15 received revelation foretelling the extent of the blowback this would cause.
MH,
I’m consistent. You are confused. There is a difference between “I am opposed to creating our own texts and calling it revelation” and “I am opposed to creating our own texts and calling it scripture.” If you could see the difference, maybe you wouldn’t be confused — then, there would be no excuse for your obtuseness and misrepresentations, and maybe we could have a meaningful exchange.
Ji, if you want to know why this isn’t a more pleasant exchange, just look at your first comment. The obtuseness started with you out of the gate, and like Donald Trump, you keep digging in.
Of course I was confused. That’s why I asked the question. Surprisingly, you answered it. It would still be nice for you to answer my and others questions, but I’m not holding my breath.
Having said that, guy asked for a revelation to be canonized. I assume you don’t want to ask, but would welcome it if one came.