We like to claim that we are a church led by revelation. In light of the last two posts (part 1 and part 2) by Guy Templeton, asking who among the current crop of apostles might give us a revelation, I thought it might be interesting to show a few graphs.
It’s interesting to compare the number of revelations in Joseph’s lifetime vs after his death. The high-water mark appears to be 1831, in which we have 37 revelations recorded in the Doctrine & Covenants. Then I thought it would be interesting to compare the number of revelations by prophet.
I wanted to include John Taylor because of section 135, (the announcement of Joseph and Hyrum’s death) but he is no longer listed as the author of that section, and has been removed as of 2013. To my surprise, the Joseph Smith Papers website says
Section 135
The revised heading in the 2013 edition removes the statement that John Taylor authored this section. Although he has been identified as its author since the early twentieth century, those later attributions were only given as tentative. When the section was first published in the 1844 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, it did not include an attribution, and no one involved in its publication ever identified the author. Evidence of who wrote the declaration is inconclusive. While it is clear that both Willard Richards and John Taylor, the only two surviving Latter-day Saint eyewitnesses to the murders of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, shared information that is part of this document, others may have contributed to its construction as well.
So section 135 is included as having been written in Joseph’s lifetime, but if you want to move it out of that category, you are welcome to do so. It’s really going to have nearly zero impact on the graphs. (Note I updated the graph to include John Taylor/Committee for section 135 after the post was originally published.)
I thought it would be interesting to look at the Community of Christ. Due to the lineal succession, and the fact that they started 30 years after our church, they seem to have taken the lead in revelations. All 8 presidents of the Community of Christ have issued revelations, though they don’t recognize most of the revelations out of the Nauvoo period, and have removed the sections on Baptism for the Dead. In spite of this, their graph is quite impressive.
Joseph Smith still has an impressive lead in the revelation count, but even the current prophet Stephen Veazey who has been serving since 2005, has 2 revelations under his tenure, dealing both with how to handle gays, as well as recognizing baptisms from other churches (so long as they weren’t infant baptisms). Judging from this graph, it seems God is talking to them more often than to us! (I’d also like to point out that Wallace Smith and Grant McMurray are still alive, both having retired as prophet-president.)
But God seems to be talking to the FLDS too! You can purchase Warren Jeffs’ revelations for as little as 14 cents (plus $3.99 shipping) on Amazon! This will bring you up through 2012. According to this article, Warren even has a prophecy that has been fulfilled! He prophecied of Moammar Qaddafi’s death!
Section Revelation 81 was written on May 7, 2011, concerning the country of Libya. Verse 1 says, “Thus saith the Lord Jesus Christ, the Great I AM, who dwells in the heavens and rules over all nations of the earth, to the leader of Libya, even Muammar Qaddafi.” Gaddafi, who originally took control of the African nation via a coup in 1969, is told in verses 3 and 4 to “cease your aggression against thine own peoples” and “Repent ye! Repent ye! is the word of the God who made you, for you shall stand before Him in the day of judgement and receive according to the deeds done in the flesh, for thou art a corrupt and murderous and immoral man, and I, the Lord God, declare it to thee.” Verse 9 adds, “I, the Lord, have declared it—that though you remain in power a short time, I, the Lord God, shall cause thee to be removed from power.”
Gaddafi was killed on October 20, 2011, just five months after this was written. Could this be a fulfilled prophecy? Anyone who kept up with the news in May 2011—as Jeffs obviously did in prison—could have predicted Gaddafi’s eventual demise, as this leader was under intense siege for the final year of his reign. For example, a NATO airstrike killed one of Gaddafi’s sons and three grandsons in Tripoli on April 30, 2011. Just two weeks before this attack, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called for Gaddafi to be captured or killed. Thus, it wasn’t a surprise to most observers when Gaddafi was finally captured in September 2011 and killed a month later.
If you want to see the reveletory process, check out the video on my post from 2011 where Jeffs dictates a revelation to one of his followers. Before you get so smug to dismiss other church’s revelations, remember that non-LDS often malign the 1978 and 1890 revelations as untrue revelations due to pressure from civil rights groups and the government. Please comment kindly.
Given Jeffs’ voluminous revelations, as well as the more modest revelations in the Community of Christ, can the LDS Church really claim that God is talking to us in these latter-days?
Wheat & Tares 
As someone who is not a latter-day saint, this is one of the most troubling aspects of the LDS church for me. I hear saints frequently cite that their church is lead by living prophets but what use is a prophet who never prophesies?
Good post. The use of the visuals is helpful. I think part of the problem is terminology. We Mormons use phrases like “inspired teachings”, “continuing revelation”, and “proclamation to the world” among others and the use and ambiguity of those various phrases is purposeful, IMO. In other words, I think church leaders are trying to be ambiguous enough so that they can both maintain that they are at least continually inspired and avoid being so direct and concrete that they create new doctrine/revelations without intending to. A lot of the people I talk to use the phrase “continuing revelation” quite liberally. To them, a conference talk, a policy change, a proclamation etc. is all “continuing revelation” even if it’s not an officially declared and canonized revelation.
The other aspect here is what I would call the church’s transparency issue. This manifests itself in two ways: 1) The church itself doesn’t seem to be able to clearly explain the difference between things like doctrines and policies. I think, again, this is a deliberate strategy designed to give leaders an “out”, but that means that it’s confusing for the rank and file members. 2) One would assume, given our rather strong belief in our leaders being able to receive revelations, that we’d hear more about them. It was only when the November policy change was noticed, for example, that they then made an announcement about the fact that it was a revelation. Elder Nelson, in particular, came out strongly on the revelation side of the change: “Each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation,” he says. One wonders why these great and glorious announcements only come after the fact and often seem presented in such a way as to try to defend what some people view as the church’s bigotry. Why not proclaim these revelations from the highest mountain continually so that the members can, indeed, feel that continuing revelation is happening?
Of course, your last question implies that perhaps God isn’t talking to us nearly as much as the church claims he is. I suppose that’s a legitimate view. For me, the way around this is the subjective nature of revelation. When it comes to believing in what my conscience and my own prayers are telling me vs. what the church says, I choose my conscience every time, and so I don’t feel as much tension about this stuff as others might, though I’m still troubled by the way the church, quite deliberately in my opinion, seems to gravitate away from clarity and towards ambiguity.
Oh, and to Jacob, I don’t really know if the church has ever addressed head on why we don’t continue the tradition of female prophetesses (Deborah, anyone?) or disciples except to go to the default “only men can have the priesthood” thing. Can anyone provide a citation?
Jacob, as a member of the LDS church going through a faith crisis, this is one of the top issues I have. I am approaching the half-century mark and I have been a member all my life and checked all the boxes (seminary, mission, temple marriage, almost always serving in a “significant” calling). I have looked back during my life and can’t say there have been any “revelations” given during my lifetime*. I hear us over and over say we are grateful for a prophet on the earth to lead and guide us, but I have to honestly say I can’t point to something they did outside of what was going on in parallel with society.
* I subscribe that the reason 1978 “revelation” was framed as a revelation to overcome the prevailing racism within the church. I find it odd that at the time I heard many say that all the REASONS for the ban still were true, but God was just easing up on them and showing love. And now that the essays knock the legs out from under that argument, it just feels like an admittance that racism was rampant and strong within the church (and still is to a slightly lesser degree)
Revelation as it has declined into far more illusion than substance has also morphed into a (false) rationalization for (blind) obedience and following.
Whether the answer be yes or no, it is odd that a church that claims to be led by revelation can’t get a revelation on whether women can be ordained to priesthood. I’m not saying what the answer should be, (I think the answer is probably no), but there should be a real revelation, since this issue is so vexing for so many people.
Joseph would’ve asked about it, and gotten an answer.
I see a religion full of revelation. The church has persued a different method of delivering its revelations than to install them in the standard works.
Most of our received revelations are on a voluntary delivery method. Eg. If you can feel the words spoken from the mouths of the Apostles as so inspired then the manner of lifestyle they are recommending me live is one of revelation.
Revelation is given from one to another by transmission through the spirit.
I wrote this essay on what prophets do a long time ago:
http://www.adrr.com/living/ss_8.htm
The question then comes up how often do they go beyond that –especially when those first things are not being listened to.
TLDR:
“In conclusion, we know that when prophets speak, we can expect to hear them tell five messages.
Those five are:
1. The testimony of Christ, that he is, that he is the path to salvation, and that we should be like him.
2. The love of Christ, both that God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son, and that we should love one another.
3. That we must repent and return to Christ and his love.
4. Specific warnings for our time, and
5. Revelations regarding changes for our times.
These are the things we should remember from past prophets as we read their messages in the scriptures. These are the things we should look to hear and learn from when we listen to modern prophets. And these are the things we should retain when we come away from hearing the voice of God, for these are the message of the gospel that God gives us through his prophets.”
Doesn’t bother me… I just think HF has nothing to say to the church and yet the prophet is there to listen anyway and lead via prior revelations…. Doesn’t mean God likes dischord in the world, just that he’s already spoken enough about it or that he sees the world as a process, not a prize.
I think they are waiting on a clear revelation from HF. I prefer they wait for clarity, even if it makes people uncomfortable. I’ve had revelations in my own life many times and used them to great advantage.
Love what you said Ron…
I think there is a convolution between revelation received to operate the Church and canonized revelation delivered to the whole Church and published in our scriptures. I would admit to being somewhat mystified by the lack of canonized revelation over the last 100 years.
Some examples I have seen that to me represent revelation received by the President of the Church over the past 100 years that are not canonized:
– Family Home Evening
– Small Temples and massive Temple building
– Lower Missionary Age for YM and YW
– Various Temple changes and Temple policy changes regarding re-marriage, divorce, garments, ceremonies, etc
– Nauvoo Temple re-building in particular
– Organization of the Seventy
– Three-hour block
Those are a few from the top of my head, there are many others. If we followed the CoC/RLDS model, many of those would be canonized and our D&C would be around 200 sections (Theirs is 164, soon to be 165, with quite a few deleted over the years)
So, it is a matter of style that more have not been canonized, especially as you read through the D&C and see sections that were specific to individuals…
BTW, I had a similar post a while ago. http://www.wheatandtares.org/304/where-have-all-the-revelations-gone/
We are so hungry for anything of substance to come out of Salt Lake that we call a policy change for missionary age a “revelation!”. The age has changed in the past and will probably do so in the future. It’s just a change in policy.
I am with Brother Sky’s articulate comments: our leadership is purposely vague and ambiguous.
Further, irrespective of whether “full-blown” revelations are actually occurring, the more important issue: Is God actively leading the church? The evidence of all the many, many changes in policy and positions over the years–especially since science and human rights became prevalent forces in society in the 20th Century–indicates to me that old, very traditional men (regardless of their good intentions) are making all the decisions with little to no input from God (assuming all the positive things about His intelligence, unconditional love, etc.)
“It’s just a change in policy.”
Why would a change in policy, not be revelatory?
@13 Jeff
I guess I am framing revelation as something that is important to me gaining salvation. Most of your list doesn’t feel like it is even close to that. Rebuilding the Nauvoo temple? I probably will never go there. Three hour block? Oh how I wish it were 2 hours! FHE is a “meh” maybe (but didn’t that start at a lower level then was moved to be church-wide).
Jeff–I see it as you do.
Especially since the spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Christ.
Thanks for doing this. I have been talking about such an undertaking for a while now.
I think this clearly shows how much Mormonism was the result of the work of Joseph Smith as founder and prophet. Much of what followed were edits or expansion to what he instituted.
The one thing I would have added is another timeline showing societal events against these changes to show the interplay of what was going on and the canonized responses— for example the US Government’s campaign against plural marriage and then Official Declaration 1 in response. Similarly the Civil Rights movement and then the 1978 end of the Priesthood Ban. Interesting stuff
People joined the church because Joseph Smith produced scripture (Book of Mormon) as well as modern revelation (D&C.)
We don’t produce revelations like Joseph Smith. There is no disputing this fact. To call a mission age change revelation is not what Joseph did. Clearly FLDS and CoC have continuing revelations. To argue otherwise is to change the definition of revelation to soothe your soul. You simply can’t argue the graphs above. It’s plain as day.
Frankly, the lack of revelation in the LDS Church makes me think we’re no different than the protestants: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
We have a form of godliness, but deny the power of revelation. We are far from Joseph Smith.
Does not the D&C state that revelations received on behalf of the church be recorded, published, and voted on by the church? If the Lord is going to issue a commandment for the salvation of mankind then it needs to be canonized.
Even SWK’s 1978 “revelation” was not published. The declaration (not revelation) states that a revelation was received. If that is the case then where is it? Should not God’s words be available to all members and not just a board of directors? Equating things like FHE and the 3 hour block to what is found in the BoM and D&C is laughable. Where are the revelations authorizing the changes to the ordinances from baptism all the way to the temple? Did the Lord really want these changes or did they come from men or devils?
If you want to see what a real prophet looks like then read your scriptures. Start with 1 Nephi: 1. Lehi’s example is primal and all “prophets” should be held to his standard.
Ask yourself these questions: Has this man stood in the presence of the Lord? Has he received a call to minister from the Lord? Has he plainly and boldly testified of such even at the potential cost of his life or reputation? Has he delivered a message given to him by the Lord? Did he plainly state the origin of the message as having come from the Lord? Has he boldly proclaimed repentance and declared with clarity the specific sins of the people? Has he declared the future with surety and did those declarations come to pass? Has he produced scripture?
Thomas Monson has never claimed to be a prophet. He has never claimed to stand in the presence of the Lord. He has never plainly claimed to deliver a message received from the Lord. As per 3 Nephi 14:15 he has shown no fruits. A prophet that does not produce any fruit is a false prophet. The Q15 draw close to the Lord with their lips but I believe their hearts are far from Him. Brigham Young never claimed to have stood in the presence of the Lord. How can a prophet know the Master whom he claims to serve if he’d never met him? Joseph Smith knew the Lord.
The BoM and to an extent the D&C contain real actual revelation as received by men who have stood in the presence of the Lord. Anything else is the philosophies of men mingled with scripture; the very thing LDS members are taught to avoid.
The problems with those that want to cast a really broad policy net to be included in “revelation” is that you also catch lots of other things. Congrats you just made the following things revelation:
1) The priesthood ban
2) The new exclusion policy
3) Women not being allowed to pray in sacrament/general conference
4) Forbidding oral sex (for like three weeks when God reversed himself)
5) Bankrupting the church multiple times
6) Women not being allowed to be auditors
and the list goes on and on.
Oh but wait – those policies and actions weren’t revelations…just the good ones. The others were just errors of men. So some policy changes are and some aren’t apparently.
When you then start talking about revelation that reveals doctrine – there is almost nothing and definitely nothing canonized. So many of the severe policy and practice issues we have – women and the priesthood, LBGT etc. etc. are crying out for greater doctrinal understanding on which to base policy. So I think the OP is pointing out a severe issue. We don’t have any real modern history of doctrinal revelation. That seems to have died pretty much with Joseph.
There is probably a place for members to distinguish between little r revelation/inspiration and big R Revelation. It is very fair to say we are not and have not been a big R revelation church in my lifetime. Even the repealing of the racial priesthood and temple ban, as super important and significant as it is really was a little r, policy revelation as opposed to one with real doctrine – which is why in that vacuum the so-called “folk doctrine” continues to persist. Most members seem content with little r revelation or to make little r revelation into big R Revelation. In the meantime, gay Mormon kids are killing themselves based on our interpretation of a couple of old testament verses and Paul (women don’t speak in church!) one liners, many women suffer and our non-white brothers and sisters still have to wonder whether God really did want to deny them priesthood and temple blessings due to the color of their skin. Only big R Revelation can address these matters, but for the moment it appears the heavens have been and will continue to be silent in our church.
I think we also have to think about the contexts of certain revelations. When Joseph Smith was Prophet he was, in many ways, Bishop, Stake President, etc., all rolled up into one. Many of those revelations were directed to certain people for the benefit of everyone. When it came to church-wide revelation, we got much of what we needed in Joseph’s lifetime. While I would never say the need for such revelations has ceased, I think the Church itself largely has what it needs to carry out the Lord’s work. I do think the Holy Ghost is working with our leaders with constant promptings.
With revelation, I think a lot of it has purposely been taken down to the local level. I have sat in Bishopric meetings where I’ve seen the Bishop take on a near glow similar to the description Parley P. Pratt described with Joseph’s revelation process. I’ve often wondered what would happen if each month we took the most significant thing every Bishop, branch president, Relief Society President, or Stake President has said when moved upon by the Spirit–something about the size of a BoM scripture– and assembled it into a volume published. I imagine there would be shelves full of some fairly unique and life-changing words directed by the Lord.
I enjoy conference and stay open to the possibility of new and exciting revelation taking place, but I also get excited about their words, through the Holy Ghost, inspiring future Bishops, Relief Society presidents, and other leaders. They all in turn inspire all of us to seek revelation on our own. It truly is a church of self-sufficiency, and I think it’s personal revelation that will largely move the work forward.
These graphs far to account for the revelations several 19th century prophets (ie. presidents of the Church) received. MOst were presented as such for a sustaining vote to the Church, but were not added to the D&C.
The most recent example is JFSmiths vision of the dead (now section 138) which was accepted as revelation in 1918, but not added to the standard works until 1976. (Also, note that the chapter heading states that “he had received SEVERAL divine communications during the previous months.” These other communications are still unpublished.)
Earlier examples include WWoodruff’s 1894 revelation on sealing ordinances, John Taylor’s 1882 revelation on Polygamy, and possibly another in 1886. It’s not uncommon for revelations to be more than 50 years old before finally being canonized (Sec 132: 1842-1876, the entire PoGP: 1831-1880
IMHO, the modern LDS is a corporation and a business, pure and simple. It’s led by a board of directors and managed by lawyers and PR committees. Nothing spiritual about the LDS church, and even less so the men who lead it. These puffed up old men deal in recycled platitudes, nothing more, nothing less. They swank around calling themselves “prophets, revelatory, and seers” when, in reality, they are paralyzed by fear. Every time they say *anything* it ranges from tone deaf to downright offensive, and they get ripped apart by news media and even the LDS rank and file membership. In short, don’t expect any revelations from them. You can’t squeeze blood from a turnip.
I decided to update one of the graphs to include “John Taylor/Cmte” to give as proper view as possible.
The Other Clark, while you are correct in saying “It’s not uncommon for revelations to be more than 50 years old before finally being canonized…” I believe you are incorrect to state “MOst were presented as such for a sustaining vote to the Church.”
Section 138 was never voted upon by the church. I am told that there were some publications in the Ensign prior to 1978 (as well as a few other publications), but the revelation was never submitted for Common Consent. The 1979 edition added Official Declaration 2, which was sustained by Common Consent, and 138 was added along with OD2, but I don’t recall 138 ever being voted on by Common Consent. (If I’m wrong, please provide a reference.)
I think some of your dates are either wrong, or refer to things I am unfamiliar with. Woodruff’s vision on vicarious work for the dead occurred in 1870 in the St. George Temple. (I discussed it a few weeks ago, and gave more details in 2011.) Yes it hasn’t been canonized, but was the impetus for endowments and sealings done for the dead. I’m not familiar with an 1894 revelation. Are you referring to something else?
I’ve heard about John Taylor’s 1886 revelation, but not 1882. Those are revered by the FLDS, and the LDS question the authenticity of these revelations. If they are genuine, they flatly contradict the 1890 Manifesto, and would cause serious theological repercussions if they are indeed legitimate.
But remember that these graphs are of PUBLISHED revelations. FLDS and CoC have published dozens. If we charitably count OD1 and 2, we’ve got 4 in the past 126 years (5 in the last 172 years if you count Taylor’s section 135 as post-Joseph Smith.) God is publicly silent to us in contrast to the FLDS and CoC. Let’s compare apples to apples here. To talk about unpublished revelations is to argue a different point than the graphs.
The real question is this. If we sustain the FP and Q12 as “prophets, seers, and revelators”, shouldn’t they revelate more often than 4 times in 126 years?
And frankly, as much as Nelson wants to call the policy on children of gays “revelation”, it contradicts so many gospel principles, I frankly am beginning to wonder if Nelson is a false revelator. I would vote NO if that ever came up for a vote by Common Consent. The spirit tells me it is an ungodly policy and against the doctrine of Christ, as well as the 2nd Article of Faith.
God is not the author of confusion, and that policy is flatly confusing and contradicts doctrine.
I think that for an item to be listed as a “revelation” it needs to pass what I’ll call the “this that test” and it needs to have been accepted by common consent. I’d call a revelation that hasn’t been accepted by common consent a “provisional revelation”. To pass the “this that test” there must be a definite record where, through the church president, the Lord specifically said *this* about *that*. So, I’d be interested in seeing a graph of all revelations that can pass those two provisions.
Using those provisions, the item regarding married gay couples is neither a revelation nor a provisional revelation. Reading Nelson’s account on LDS.org, I see a lot of jibber jabber about the “process” followed by how the prophets felt a “confirmation” of what was revealed to President Monson. Use of the word “revealed” sort of *implies* there was a revelation of the sort Joseph Smith experienced, but nowhere do we hear “the Lord said *this* about *that*”. It should be obvious that unless this test passes, voting by common consent makes no sense. What, exactly, would the membership be voting on?
I personally think the LDS church has taken pains to *imply* this is revelation, because otherwise people would ignore it or not take it seriously. This in response to debates about whether the Handbook changes were merely policy. In the future, if this policy needs to change, the leadership can backpedal and say it wasn’t revelation.
@#27- The 1894 Woodruff revelation is not that of the founding fathers, but the one that ended the Law of Adoption and specified that sealings would then be done to direct line ancestors (which launched the geoleology program we’re familiar with)and allowed posthumous sealings of those that were not Church members in life. More info here: https://www.lds.org/manual/presidents-of-the-church-teacher-manual-religion-345/wilford-woodruff-fourth-president-of-the-church?lang=eng (it’s near the bottom of the page; search for “adoption”).
It is true Taylor’s 1886 revelation is spurned by the mainline Church but revered by the LDS. However, I refer to revelations Taylor received in 1882, 83, and 84; at least half of these were voted on as binding during the priesthood sessions of General Conference. (See BYU article here: https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/champion-liberty-john-taylor/john-revelator-written-revelations-john-taylor.) The 1882 revelation was reportedly printed in several European editions of the D&C.
As contradictory revelation, I see no “serious theological repercussions.” The newest revelation supercedes the old ones. Thus WW had no problem contradicting Sec 132, or any of the Taylor revelations. OD1 contradicts WW own revelations on plural marriage.
MH: Your graph of revelations from RLDS Presidents has a mistake. W. Wallace Smith led the church from 1958-1978; and there are eight and one-half sections attributed to him. His son, Wallace B. Smith, produced eight inspired documents from 1978-1996. It was during his presidency that the church stopped calling them “revelations”.
While the LDS regard messages,conference talks, etc. from the Prophet to be authoritative, the RLDS/CoC do not. Bluntly, if it wasn’t presented to the conference body and voted to be included in the D&C, it wasn’t revelation. A least two of their prophet-presidents, whose suggestions were rejected by conference votes, got them affirmed by later presenting them as revelations. This is part of the reason they have more D&C sections. Joseph Smith Jr. soon realized that for every idea proposed in organizing the Church, there were those who asked “But is it a revelation?”
This was a very interesting piece. As a data analyst, the first set of graphics is, I think, unintentionally misleading because it the first show time in one year intervals, and the second in severely unequal intervals. What would be a better representation is a single graphic using one year intervals with a vertical line showing the year of the death of Joseph Smith. hat would get across better the difference before and after Joseph Smith.
MH,
You’re wrong.
The reference:
In the Saturday afternoon session of conference on April 3, 1976, President N. Eldon Tanner made the following announcement:
“President Kimball has asked me to read a very important resolution for your sustaining vote.
“At a meeting of the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve held in the Salt Lake Temple on March 25, 1976, approval was given to add to the Pearl of Great Price the two following revelations:
“First, a vision of the celestial kingdom given to Joseph Smith the Prophet in the Kirtland Temple, on January 21, 1836, which deals with the salvation of those who die without a knowledge of the Gospel; second, a vision given to President Joseph F. Smith in Salt Lake City, Utah, on October 3, 1918, showing the visit of the Lord Jesus Christ in the spirit world, and setting forth the doctrine of the redemption of the dead.
“It is proposed that we sustain and approve this action and adopt these revelations as part of the standard works of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
“All those in favor manifest it. Those opposed, if any, by the same sign.
“Thank you. President Kimball, the voting seems to be unanimous in the affirmative.”
Later, in 1979, they were moved to the D&C as an administrative matter as part of the scripture update process.
Markag, you’re right. It looks like Wallace B Smith and W Wallace Smith are 2 different people! Ooops. I fixed the graph.
For all you naysayers, the church leaders, using the brand new Doctrinal Mastery curriculum, give us an example of a modern revelation received by modern prophets: Russell Nelson’s comments about The Policy Change. Yes, that’s right chumps, we have a genuine revelation being taught to our Seminary and Institute students, and soon to be integrated further into curriculum.
/sarcasm
To obtain God’s will you need:
1) Authority (“keys”) passed down from one man to another
2) Priesthood
3) A council of key holders who determine God’s will by vote using wisdom, burning bosoms, and emotion
4) Requirements for members to submit to this authority to obtain salvation
Oh, did you think I was referring to the LDS Church? I could have been referring to the Catholic Church or first century Jews.
Yesterday’s ingredients for apostasy are today’s ingredients for prophetic revelation.
Other Clark, those were some FASCINATING links. Thank you so much for providing them. I was aware of the end of the Law of Adoption, but had never heard of a specific revelation (the link you provided hints at one, but doesn’t actually provide the language.) I knew that the Geneological Society of Utah was in 1894 and it’s interesting to see talk of the revelation. Still this begs teh question, why wasn’t such an important revelation canonized? Could it be that it wasn’t because the Law of Adoption is not really talked about in other sections? Could it be that Woodruff just wasn’t confident in his prophetic abilities to canonize it? I’d really like to know the answers to these questions, because in my mind, it lends power and authority behind Woodruff’s words and actions, and is a testimony to his prophetic gifts. It’s a shame that this light is hidden under a bushel.
“I refer to revelations Taylor received in 1882, 83, and 84; at least half of these were voted on as binding during the priesthood sessions of General Conference.”
I’m going to dispute this claim. There are several revelations in 1882, so I’m not quite sure which one(s) you’re referring to. Several were unpublished. One example, “This [June 27, 1882] revelation was not published by President Taylor, most likely because, as George Reynold noted, it was a revelation to a specific body of men—the Council of Fifty.” These did not go before, as you said, the “priesthood sessions of General Conference.”
This June 27, 1882 Revelation was published in response to the position of “Joseph Smith III, [who] challenged John Taylor’s right to lead the Church.”
Now according to people like JI, they don’t want outside pressure to dictate revelations, and this non-published revelation “declared President Taylor’s rightful place as Joseph Smith’s and Brigham Young’s successor, both as the prophetic leader in the Church and as the head of the Kingdom of God.[33]”
Is that self-serving for John Taylor? Absolutely. Should it have been published? I’m sure that many church members felt it was testimony building (perhaps me too if I could have read it before today), but once again, this type of revelations rebuts JI’s claim that people (in this case RLDS pres JS3) shouldn’t be able to request revelations. Taylor got an answer to rebut JS 3’s claim.
The Oct 13, 1882 revelation was published (but uncanonized–is this the one you speak of?) filled some q12 vacancies, reorganized the Q70, and admonished Seymour Young to “conform to [God’s] law.” It was published
While I’m sure the q12 vacancies were voted on in General Conference, I don’t think the revelation was “voted on as binding during the priesthood sessions of General Conference.” Certainly it wasn’t added to the canon.
I only saw 1 revelation in 1883–unpublished, and sought to reconvene the School of the Prophets, among other things. I found no evidence that it was voted in general conference.
Neither 1884 revelation was published. In the first, God accepts the Logan Temple. In the second, God warned of coming trouble. Once again, it wasn’t voted on in Conference.
Thanks once again for posting the links. It was fascinating to read them!
MH,
It is probably too much to ask, but I will anyway — when you refer to me, please do so honestly. Honesty is such a great policy.
I did a little post about the history of the term “prophet” and that “apostle” is actually considered a higher office because “prophet” refers to the gift of prophecy which requires no special office. As a gift of the spirit, many people have it. Only a few have the authority that comes with the top level of leadership. Here’s the post: http://www.wheatandtares.org/19824/prophets-apostles/
Now the real question behind that is what we mean when we call them “prophets, seers and revelators.” Honestly, I don’t know that we know what we mean by that. What we really mean is that they are in charge, they set both policy & doctrine, and that they are charged to “warn this generation” through addresses to the church. That’s pretty much what it means. They aren’t translating ancient records or bringing stone tablets down from the mountain. But they are the ones who interpret church doctrine and interpret scriptures for the church. Joseph Smith had a different role because there was nothing in place, so of course he was prolific. The D&C is basically the earliest version of the CHI.
Being a church of revelation to me means that we participate in revealing God’s will through personal revelation (mostly) and through inspiration as we consider the gospel messages. But I know that to most lay members it means that the Prophet is dispensing the will of God every time he opens his mouth, and that the brethren can never lead this church astray. I tend to think they can’t lead us astray not because they are always right (demonstrably they are not), but because we are only led astray when we fail to seek personal revelation and instead follow earthly guides blindly, putting them in the place of Jesus.
Joseph, I debated about those graphs, but due to space limitations, that’s why I made the 2nd graph by combining years. It still gets the message across, especially in reference to the first graph. If I had used 1 year increments, the 2nd graph scale would have been unreadable. I have limited space on the blog.
JI, thank you for pointing out that section 138 was voted on in General Conference. I was not aware of that, so I appreciate you correcting me on that point. My memory of 1978 was that it was added to the D&C in 1979, and there was no vote on 1978. I didn’t realize it had been voted into the PoGP in 1976 so that was new information. To my knowledge, there is no 1976 edition of the Pearl of Great Price, so it technically was never printed there, and the internet didn’t exist so they couldn’t have posted it on the web as they do now.
Now, you and I have had a little tussle going on lately. You seem to be frustrated that I am not portraying you “honestly.” I am frustrated that you seem to evade uncomfortable questions. So it isn’t so much a matter of honesty, it is that you refuse to clarify your positions. If you want me to paint your positions accurately, you have to tell me what they are. Otherwise, I am going to misunderstand them. This isn’t an honesty issue, it is a misunderstanding issue. I’ve given you countless opportunities to clarify your position, and you pick and choose which questions you will respond to. You also seem to like to imply that I and others you disagree with are “dishonest” in our motivations. Those kind of accusations don’t build goodwill.
If you want me to play nicer, then you have to (1) stop the personal attacks (implying that others are asking dishonest questions), and (2) clarify your positions. Quit playing the Boyd K Packer game of “Answer the question they should have asked.” That game leads only to misunderstanding of your position, and is frankly evasive.
So if you want me to refer to you honestly, I ask you to honestly answer my questions. I promise to give you a direct answer to your questions. Me not understanding you is because you refuse to clarify your position, and only leave glimpses of what you really mean. These misunderstandings are a result of your own evasive tactics, and misunderstanding is going to be the likely result. Will you better clarify your positions so I don’t misunderstand you? Would you be willing to tell me how I portrayed your most recent opinion incorrectly?
The rate of revelations during Joseph Smith’s time was due to the restoration process and the production of the Book of Mormon. Once the core doctrines had been established, the need for continued doctrinal revelations was pretty much past. For the most part, revelations since have been policy related.
I actually believe that you have erected a strawman here, as the church does not claim to be a “Church of Revelation” but the “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.” We do believe in continued revelations, although there those who mock when a policy is instituted as a result of a revelation or new emphasis is placed upon an old commandment.
In each dispensation, revelations are made to the prophets for their dispensation. We really have very little recorded of all the revelations that have ever been received, probably because so much of it not applicable to our time.
Christ, during His ministry, produced very few recorded revelations proportionately. He revealed His identity and His Mission, but so much of His time and efforts were expended on teaching and trying to get His disciples to understand the things they were being taught.
We will and do receive revelations as we need them, as a church. I just hope that I will be in Church and believing when the call comes for us to gather at Adam-ondi-Ahman.
Glenn
Glenn, you can make a better argument than that. Strawman? Please. The criteria is laid out well and easily verified.
You expecting a revelation to Adam-ondi-Ahman soon? Yeah, I thought not given the less than sterling revelation count by the current q12.
But the Community of Christ received a revelation that women SHOULD be ordained. Which revelation is true?
What is now sections 137-138 were originally printed on an insert for the Pearl of Great Price. The insert was available separately quite soon after the revelations were canonized. Copies of the Pearl of Great Price that were published during that time generally came with the inert already bound into the back of the book, just in front of the Articles of Faith.
I have a paperback D&C/PofGP dated 1978 that has the insert bound into the book on slightly smaller paper, but none of the other text is changed, and the new sections are not listed in the table of contents.
But I also have a leather-bound quadruple combination dated 1977 in which the newly-canonized revelations were included as an integral part of the Pearl of Great Price. The title page reads, “The Pearl of Great Price. A selection from the revelations, translations, and narrations of Joseph Smith First Prophet, Seer, and Revelator to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Joseph F. Smith, Sixth President of the Church.” The table of contents lists three numbered “Writings of Joseph Smith”, the third being the Vision of the Celestial Kingdom, followed by Joseph F. Smith’s Vision of the Redemption of the Dead, and the Articles of Faith. As far as I can tell, nothing was changed in the index. The Pearl of Great Price had a separate index, which used page numbers in those days. The Articles of Faith had a different page number than previous editions, but I can’t find anything in the index that references either the Articles of Faith or the new sections.
Joseph Smith:
“Yea, thus saith the still small voice, which whispereth through and pierceth all things, and often times it maketh my bones to quake while it maketh manifest, saying:”
Hugh B. Brown:
“(An idea) is submitted to the First Presidency and Twelve, thrashed out, discussed and rediscussed until it seems right. Then, kneeling together in a circle in the temple, they seek divine guidance and the president says, ‘I feel to say this is the will of the Lord.’ That becomes a revelation. It is usually not thought necessary to publish or proclaim it as such, but this is the way it happens.”
Left Field, I’m sure those are collectors items. That’s cool you have them! I’ll bet they are worth quite a bit to collectors.
Glenn in #41- I think I understand the basic premise you’re advocating here. If we took the rules of a sport–baseball, basketball, football–there would be a rush of rules in the early days as the game was being established, then just minor corrections as the basics had been established.
Still, I must disagree. Two rule changes in 100 years is unheard of in any sport. Plus, to say that “the need for continued doctrinal revelations [is] pretty much past” is the position of the protestant sects who claim all the revelation needed is already in the Bible. It’s a position I cannot accept
Reading these very detailed analyses, the thought that pops into my head is: What is the author of the post asking? He’s asking “Are we really a church of revelation?”
It seems to me that all the quibbling over exact numbers in this or that year and even quibbling over what a revelation is (i.e. the “rules”) misses the larger question.
Stepping back and taking a broader view, I do *not* see the LDS church as being led by revelation. It may *rest* on revelations that were previously received, recorded, and ratified, but that is all one can say.
It seems to me that the modern LDS leadership are loathe to fulfill their roles as general authorities, prophets, seers, and revelators. At present, they are mere figureheads. They get trotted out to preside over ceremonies or to be seen sitting on their red velvet thrones, but they rarely offer any speech that’s authoritative, prophetic or revelatory.
I’d love to hear them man up and say something authoritative! I’d love to hear a specific, clear revelation or prophecy relayed from the Lord! I’d love to see them stand up and lead with a stiff spine and some fire! But, folks, it just ain’t gonna happen. These guys aren’t listening to the Lord. They have no special connection to the Lord. They are empty shells and cardboard cutouts.
To bypass all the nitpicking and quibbles and focus on the question at hand: “Are we a church of revelation?”, I can only answer, “the preponderance of the evidence says we are not.”
Of course, the typical naysayers are on here arguing about what is and is not a revelation.
I would say that anything, from the Church or personal that is received by the spirit of revelation.
“Revelation is communication from God to His children. This guidance comes through various channels according to the needs and circumstances of individuals, families, and the Church as a whole.”
So whether it is personal or for the whole Church, whether we should move to Rexburg or Afton, Wy: Whether the missionary age is 19, 18 or 140, to build a temple or not build a temple. Whether to extend the Priesthood to all worthy males, if is received by revelation, it is revelation.
Even if you don’t like it.
I remember listening to the Priesthood Session in April 2001 and having the feeling that I was witnessing the description of revelation by the Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley.
In speaking of the reasons for which the Perpetual Education Fund was created, he said:
“We propose a plan—a plan which we believe is inspired by the Lord.”
So the “WE”, President Hinckley and whoever else is included in that “we” received confirmation individually by personal revelation that the plan was the will of the Lord.
President Hinckley explained the details of the plan. He then described that this plan was in line with canon that had previously been revealed in the D&C:
It is our solemn obligation, it is our certain responsibility, my brethren, to “succor the weak, lift up the hands which hang down, and strengthen the feeble knees” (D&C 81:5).
Then he invites the membership of the church to, likewise, accept this endeavor in faith:
For the success of this undertaking I humbly pray, while soliciting your interest, your faith, your prayers, your concerns in its behalf.
He spoke of ‘vision’ in this endeavor:
May the Lord grant us vision and understanding to do those things which will help our members not only spiritually but also temporally.
I’m not saying that we don’t need MORE canon—but in some cases, we don’t. The D&C could have further finishing touches–beyond removing “Shinehah” and other code names. Do we really need section 47, that says John Whitmer is designated to keep a history of the church and write for the prophet? With those kind of revelations being included in the count, it really inflates unrealistically the revelation disparity.
Being in the audience of conferences, especially April 2001, I am inspired that we are a church of revelation–if not a church of ever-growing canon.
MH, You are setting up a strawman by accepting only published revelations as bona fide. That is an argument that the church has never made, i.e. that a revelation must be published, canonized etc. to be a revelation. The leaders of the church do claim continuing revelation. You may disagree with them. That is your choice.
No, I am not expecting revelation about Adam-Ondi-Ahman anytime soon. I was merely saying that I need to keep myself in a position where I can hear and heed such a revelation. It was merely an example. I did not think I would have to spell that out for you. I am a bit bemused by your level of snark, but it is your blog.
@TheOtherClark: Rule changes, policy changes, etc. are different from doctrine. There have been many of the former, but I am not aware of any doctrinal changes.
I agree with Rigel Hawthorne in post #50. We are a church of continuing revelation, but not one with a growing canon.
Glenn
@ Glenn. If they are not published it sure seems like it is hard to figure out what the church actually believes. It seems to me that is where we are. We seem to often have 2 dogs chasing one another’s tails. One are those critical of the church saying “the church believes xyz” and then apologists saying “that was the prophets opinion as a man, not as a prophet”. It sounds like you are saying it has to feel right (by the spirit) for each individual. I kind of get that. But taken too far (what it feels like to me right now) leads to a feeling of “what good is a prophet? Why can’t Gos just talk to me directly? Why do I even need a church?”
Happy (no. 52),
Why can’t God just talk to me directly? Why do I even need a church?”
I wonder if your answer is in D&C 112:80 (see also D&C 84:36, Matt. 10:40, Luke 10:16, and John 13:20). These verses show me a pattern.
Oops! D&C 112:20…
Glenn, this is hilarious. I make some graphs, showing the number of canonized revelations in the LDS, RLDS, and FLDS churches. These facts are indisputable.
Now you come along with a new definition of revelation (that I have never argued), and ACCUSE ME of a strawman. Look I made the argument. You’re the one doing the STRAWMAN by trying to change the definition of the argument. Let’s look again at the definition.
It is you, my friend, that has created the strawman by responding to my argument.
Wow, I’ve never seen the originator of an argument accused of a strawman. That takes a lot of nerve there Glenn.
You simply can’t refute the graphs without creating a new definition of revelation. It’s pretty simple. Please get the strawman argument right. It is YOU that have created the strawman argument, not me.
I think Happy Hubby explains why these revelations aren’t canonized. It gives plausible deniability, so that the brethren never have to be held accountable for coming up with a false revelation. It is simply the errors of men, if they end up being wrong.
God can and does talk to you directly and if/when you can hear him you don’t need a church (or even The Church) in fact a church just gets in the way.
What’s the pattern JI? Once again, you provide a so-called answer using evasive techniques. This is not honest dialogue JI. I know it’s not addressed to me, but you seem to enjoy evasion. If Happy Hubby doesn’t understand what you’re getting at, are you going to call him dishonest?
Make your position clear. Don’t make me (or anyone) guess and then call me dishonest. Because I’m probably going to guess wrong again! It is your dishonest tactics here. You’re the dishonest one who won’t clearly state your position. Be honest and clearly state what you mean.
Other Clark,
Let me get back to the theological problem with the 1886 revelation of John Taylor. If he really did ordain 5 men to carry on polygamy, and did it outside of the church hierarchy, such that if a future president (such as Woodruff) stopped polygamy, how is not this a major theological problem? I mean if the revelation is indeed accurate, the FLDS and other polygamist groups are correct in claiming that they have authority from God, through his mouthpiece John Taylor, that they can practice polygamy. This is exactly why the LDS church has a MAJOR problem with that revelation. It gives other churches authority that only we claim to have.
MH,
My last comment(s) were directed to A Happy Hubby.
@MH You only used published claimed revelations by the Community of Christ et al in your examples, and only canonized revelations by LDS prophets in your graphs. That was your implicit definition of revelations. That was all I had to go by, and you did not bother to actually give your definition of a revelation.
So as to clear up any misunderstanding, would you please give us your own definition of revelation?
Did you parse all of the talks in the Journal of Discourses and all of the talks from the general conferences over the past decades to find any revelations that could be included in the LDS charts?
Did you include any references to revelation of policies in recent days?
However, any references to revelations from Community of Christ or the FLDS are irrelevant because they are not from God but are made of man. If you accept those as equal to a revelation through an apostle called of God, as exemplified by the Prophet at the head of the LDS church, if you do not believe that the LDS Church is the restored Church of Jesus Christ, then we really have no common ground for a debate.
Glenn,
Yes that is exactly right. Here’s the definition I gave in the post.
Clearly I was talking about canonized revelations in the D&C. Not sure why you’re so confused. Everyone else knew what I was talking about.
No I wasn’t talking about JoD, GC, or the gay policy. Back in comment 27 I thought I made it pretty clear that I didn’t think the gay policy was revelation.
Glenn, you said “However, any references to revelations from Community of Christ or the FLDS are irrelevant because they are not from God but are made of man.
Clearly you didn’t read, or completely ignored what I wrote at the end of the OP.
So Glenn, stop the strawman, and quit maligning either the CoC or FLDS. I don’t view that as a kind comment. And No, I don’t have to accept them as equal to our D&C, but I did ask you to be respectful. That comment wasn’t respectful of them. Canonized revelations in CoC, FLDS, and LDS are VERY relevant to the discussion and were the focus of the post, not some tangent.
Really I’m done with you on this post Glenn. Have your say, but I’m tired of you trying to change the topic from what I wrote.
@MH I was not disrespecting any of the other sects, unless one has to agree with something that a person says or claims to be considered respectful. If LDS theology is correct, which is my belief, and supposedly yours, then the claimed revelations by any of the other sects is not a revelation from God.
Then you say, “Given Jeffs’ voluminous revelations, as well as the more modest revelations in the Community of Christ, can the LDS Church really claim that God is talking to us in these latter-days?”
A false metric. Unless you subscribe to the FLDS religion and that Jeffs is actually a prophet of God. Then the LDS Church is not Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
Or the Community of Christ.
Which one do you subscribe to?
Your whole premise is flawed. If you subscribe to the Community of Christ, no LDS (Salt Lake) after Joseph Smith can be considered a valid revelation from God. If you subscribe to the FLDS, no claimed revelation from the Community of Christ can be considered as a valid revelation from God and no revelation from the LDS (Salt Lake) since probably John Taylor can be considered as a valid revelation from God. It is senseless to even make such comparisons to try to ascertain if the LDS (Salt Lake) is a church of continuing revelations.
No wonder you are tired.
Glenn, I think you’re being a bit pedantic. MH is simply comparing claimed, published, canonized revelations. Arguing whether they are, in fact, genuinely from God isn’t germane to the discussion (it would be important to other discussions, but not this one).
We claim to be a church of revelation but have two published and canonized revelations in the past 120+ years (I’m not counting the 1890 Manifesto or the 1978 policy change as revelations since they were policy changes supposedly precipitated by a revelation, but we don’t have the actual revelation). The CoC and others actually publish claimed revelations and vote on them within their bodies. We don’t. That fact is indisputable and has nothing to do with whether the revelations are or are not of God (like I said, that’s a different matter entirely).
In an effort to be clear, perhaps I’ll put it another way. According to the scriptures a prophet is to be judged by his/her fruits, whether they be true or false. Our prophets appear to be barren while the CoC produces fruit. You judge their fruit to be false, which is your choice, but MH is comparing the actual number of fruit, not the quality of said fruit.
I hope that helps clear up any confusion.
“Our prophets appear to be barren while the CoC produces fruit.”
It depends on what you consider fruit.
@57– Current LDS teaching is that current Church policy trumps older church policy, so the 1890 (or 1904) edict banning plural marriage countermands Taylor’s 1886 revelation (and Smith’s Sec. 132). So for me, it’s not a serious theological difficulty, any more than having Joseph Smith (and St. Peter) countermand the “everlasting covenant” of circumcision.
However, I recognize that not everyone sees it this way, and the mainstream Church has gone to great lengths to cast as much doubt as possibly on the validity of the 1886 revelation. Elder Widtsoe wrote his book “Priesthood and Church Government” specifically to argue the case that when members were excommunicated, they also lost their priesthood and authority. Prior to this publication (in the 1930s), my understanding is that priesthood was seen as somewhat independent of membership.
Sorry for the threadjack.
@Jeff, the OP already defined what he considered, for the sake of this discussion, fruit: a published, ratified revelation. He used the D&C equivalent for each religious body. Why is this difficult for you and several others to understand? To step outside of that definition is to step into a gray area of policies, conflicting pronouncements, essays, etc. The LDS body cannot agree on whether those things are revelation, so MH used the baseline on which all should be able to agree. You may think there are more to add, and you are free to your opinion, but the fact that they aren’t added to D&C is irrefutable.
Are these dates when they were given or when they were canonized? I’m guessing it’s different for both. Why is canonization, or even a vote of the membership, the benchmark for being counted as a revelation?
When the D&C was fist compiled, was there a vote taken on each individual section? Do we have any that were voted down?
What of those revelations that were voted down before being changed and later accepted, were they not revelations before?
This post just seems to set up the CoC as the gold standard and wonders why the LDS put up with such a substandard system. -That- is the strawman you’ve set up and continue to defend as if no credible attack had been made.
D&C 30, with many others, is a chastening of a single person and a couple of mission calls. We have thousands of mission calls a year now; should we be filling our scriptures with thousands of new sections, voting on each individually? Should we add every time a church leader has made a mistake and been chastened by the Lord? You thought General Conference was long now.
Should it take canonization for us to listen when the Prophets speak? Should it take a vote before we decide that yes, we really have been doing things poorly? How many more sections should we be adding every year while finding some way to make people actually read and apply them? People hardly read the D&C now.
Just because you have not been consulted or notified when Revelations have come does not mean that they have not and do not come. Canonization did not make the Old Testament absolutely true and all that was ever needed. Canonization is not and can not be the only arbiter for words from God.
@orangganjil I do not think that I am being overly concerned with minute details in this matter. I understand MH’s graphs. However, MH is not just comparing the revealed and canonized output from the, he is using this as a metric to question whether the LDS Church is actually a church of continuing revelation.
What is the basis for using the volume of revelations as an indicator that God is the author and not the man?
On what basis would you expect that the absence of a growing canon to be an indicator that the leadership is not receiving continuing revelation, especially when the prophets are affirming that they are indeed receiving revelations?
The answer is that there is no basis. There is no empirical way to tell from sheer volume the provenance of a revelation. There is no empirical way to determine if a mostly static canon indicates that there is little or no continuing communications.
All the graphs do is show that the LDS canon has been pretty static for a long time and that the Community of Christ prophets and the FLDS prophet are claiming to be receiving revelations.
Nothing further can be rationally inferred.
As I noted, our prophets indeed are claiming revelation. The recent re-emphasis on keeping the Sabbath Day holy was prompted by a revelation. Also the policy on children married SSM couples was declared to be prompted by a revelation. MH rejects that last. He doesn’t like it. But that is not a basis for declaring it not to be a revelation.
I’d answer that if MH writes the post and does the analysis, then he’s the one that defines the assumptions and ground rules. That you happen to disagree with MH’s criteria doesn’t invalidate his analysis. If you feel strongly enough about it, then do your own analysis and go write your own post.
@Glenn and @Frank,
I cannot speak to MH’s intentions because I do not know him at all. However, I believe there is much mischief in getting squishy about what we consider a revelation. If we as a church are going to consider some sort of doctrine to be binding upon our faith, it should be doctrine that has been expounded, explained, published, and ratified by the church. A good example of this process is that followed by Joseph Smith in seeking the church’s ratification of the Book of Mormon, Book of Commandments, and the 1835 edition of D&C. In each case he sought the consent of the church (the people) in accepting those documents as scripture. Especially interesting is the comment, in the preface of the 1835 D&C, stating the following:
“We deem it to be unnecessary to entertain you with a lengthy preface to the following volume, but merely to say, that it contains in short, the leading items of the religion which we have professed to believe…
There may be an aversion in the minds of some against receiving any thing purporting to be articles of religious faith, in consequence of there being so many now extant; but if men believe a system, and profess that it was given by inspiration, certainly, the more intelligibly they can present it, the better. It does not make a principle untrue to print it, neither does it make it true not to print it…
We have, therefore, endeavored to present, though in few words, our belief, and when we say this, humbly trust, the faith and principles of this society as a body.”
You can find this introduction at the Joseph Smith Papers 1835 edition, here:
http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/doctrine-and-covenants-1835#!/paperSummary/doctrine-and-covenants-1835&p=11
If you then read through the associated Historical Introduction, finding paragraph 11, beginning with “On 17 August 1835…”, you’ll find how the church handled the approval process of these revelations – by common consent.
You will note that at no point did Joseph Smith describe the Times and Seasons, his personal letters, his sermons, etc. in the same language. He may have been inspired with those things, and they may have even been given by revelation, but unless it was published to the body of the church, allowing that body their agency to sustain or reject said revelation, it cannot be binding or viewed as authoritative for that church. A leader, or even a group of leaders can say whatever they want but – and this is critical – they are not the church. Their personal opinions, visions, inspirations, revelations, are not binding upon the church unless those things are presented to the church and voted upon by that same body.
Joseph Smith went to great extent to do this throughout his life. Its requirement is enshrined within our D&C. Do we think we know better today? It’s crazy to me that I should be defending a practice instituted by the Prophet and subsequently ignored by future generations. If anything, those future generations should be answering to how they have justified deviating from his example and scriptural requirements.
Sticking to this definition of revelation avoids the gray areas of one-person’s-revelation-is another-person’s-policy type of mischief. It makes us look silly to the outside world. We claim things as revelation that, when it doesn’t reflect positively upon us, we relegate to simple policy, and I think that squishy definition of authoritative revelation is exactly what is desired by today’s leadership. The moment we put something forth as a bona fide revelation and vote upon it, we are held accountable to it. It’s tougher to repudiate it in the future.
A great example of this is the Proclamation on the Family. Many people disagree with some of the content. Most agree with it. Boyd Packer called it a revelation and had that statement struck from his GC address at printing, yet we treat it as if it is God’s word. Which is it? Why the squishiness? Is it a revelation or a position paper?
Nobody has a right to compel anyone else to believe creeds, etc. We, as a body, can seek to define our beliefs, as the saints did in 1835, but the beliefs must be ratified by the church. Joseph Smith showed great respect for the church and viewed them as partners in the building of Zion. He set the standard for us, a standard which we have neglected to our shame (e.g., Adam-God, blood atonement, racial ban).
I was just about to unsubscribe as this seemed like a groundhog day set of comments (over and over). Not saying I didn’t find some of the comments thought provoking.
I would have to fully agree with most all of what orangganjil (even though “orangganjil” is quite odd 🙂
It seems MH wants to talk about THIS metric. It is OK to comment you don’t agree with that metric, but to keep pounding on it when MH keeps saying, “I want to focus on THIS measurable metric” just isn’t a fruitful discussion. IMHO
I would add that despite whatever metric you pick, I personally am really struggling with the fact that I don’t feel any revelation coming from above in my lifetime to help guide me. I agree with the comment of not even having much of any real fruit to judge.
orangganjil, wonderful comments. Thanks! and please keep commenting.
Yes Happy Hubby, this is a bit groundhog day. I’m going to ignore the ones that keep repeating.
Other Clark. Don’t worry about the threadjack. I think this is an important piece of revelation to consider. The problem (as I see it) is if the 1886 John Taylor revelation is indeed legitimate, then God has essentially abandoned the LDS Church and given his authority outside of the church. This is the reason why we don’t have revelation in our church. Essentially Woodruff has erred (or apostatized), which is why he stated
Indeed if that 1886 revelation is true, this is why God has abandoned the LDS Church. (I realize I am stating a Fundamentalist perspective, but it is an important perspective, and germaine to this discussion.) John Taylor granting authority outside the church absolutely gives FLDS, AUB, etc the authority they need to continue the practice of polygamy. In essence the 1886 revelation prophecied of a coming apostasy, and made provisions to keep polygamy alive. This has massive theological implications for the LDS Church if the revelation is indeed legitimate. It’s also why the LDS Church disputes the authenticity of the revelation.
Now, lest anyone think I think polygamy is an eternal doctrine, I do not. Even if Taylor was proven to have written the 1886 revelation, I do not believe it to be a true revelation. I gave my perspective on polygamy in 2009, and I believe D&C 132 conflicts with doctrines of the BIble, Book of Mormon, and JS didn’t even follow 132 in practice. But, if 1886 is indeed legit, I can completely understand (though not accept) fundamentalist arguments supporting their authority to perform polygamist sealings.
The authenticity of that revelation has HUGE theological implications.
Frank, you ask some interesting questions.
Are these dates when they were given or when they were canonized? I’m guessing it’s different for both.
The dates from the graph are when the revelations were given to Joseph, not when they were canonized. However, the Book of Commandments (precursor to the D&C) was first commissioned in 1831 to begin collecting Joseph’s revelations. Most revelations in the Book of Commandments were previously published by Phelps in the Millennial Star. Many of these early revelations were canonized within a year or two from receipt. These revelations generally include about the first 60-65 revelations in our current D&C.
In 1835, the D&C was first published. Some revelations were added, some dropped, and some modified. Another edition in 1844 added many revelations from the Nauvoo period. In 1853, D&C 132 was announced, making polygamy a public doctrine. In 1851, we got the first issue of the Pearl of Great Price. In 1878 the PoGP was updated again.
Why is canonization, or even a vote of the membership, the benchmark for being counted as a revelation?
As seen from the previous paragraph, we have a pretty good history of canonizing things right away, and there was new scriptures in the decades of 1830, 1840, 1850, 1870. That pace has slowed down to a crawl. We haven’t had a significant revelation added to the D&C since 1979. Why the drought, when it happened several times in teh first 3 decades? Even after Joseph’s death, Brigham Young and others were pouring over his revelations and adding new scriptures. I suppose I could add a graph by canonization date and I’m sure you’ll notice once again that the trend of canonization is declining significantly.
When the D&C was fist compiled, was there a vote taken on each individual section?
I believe that the Book of Commandments was probably voted on a whole, not by individual revelation. However, these had previously been published in the church newspaper, so people weren’t blind to the Common Consent process as so often happens today.
Do we have any that were voted down?
The preface for the Manifesto previously said the voting was unanimous, but this has been removed. Many people vocally opposed the Manifesto. Lectures on Faith were originally published in the 1835 D&C. I don’t believe these were voted out, but they were removed from the 1921 D&C and are no longer considered canonical. Much of the PoGP has been moved to the D&C. Interesting link here concerning contents of 1851 edition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_of_Great_Price_(Mormonism)
What of those revelations that were voted down before being changed and later accepted, were they not revelations before?
Good question! I don’t know the answer. I believe Lectures on Faith was authored by Sidney Rigdon. They certainly were of a different style than ones authored by Joseph Smith. Certainly there weren’t written as “thus saith the Lord” though I’m sure many here would consider them under the broader revelation terms than I have given. Since they are not currently canonized, I did not include them in my graphs above. It might be interesting to do some research to see how many have been decanonized and why?
This post just seems to set up the CoC as the gold standard and wonders why the LDS put up with such a substandard system. -That- is the strawman you’ve set up and continue to defend as if no credible attack had been made.
No Frank. I did not set up CoC as a gold standard, or say the LDS system was substandard. That’s a strawman you’ve created. For comparison purposes, I just showed that other churches based on the BoM have a higher rate of canonized revelation than the LDS do. I did not elevate one church above another. I just compared, and asked why the LDS canonization process is slower than molasses in winter?
D&C 30, with many others, is a chastening of a single person and a couple of mission calls. We have thousands of mission calls a year now; should we be filling our scriptures with thousands of new sections, voting on each individually? Should we add every time a church leader has made a mistake and been chastened by the Lord? You thought General Conference was long now.
I’ve long wondered why mission calls are in the D&C. I’d be fine to remove some of them. We ignore them anyway.
But why don’t we look at some visions for canonization? Woodruff’s vision of the Founding Fathers? I’d vote for canonization. Snow’s vision of Jesus in the SL Temple? I’d vote for canonization. Family Proc? Not sure on that one. Woodruffs actual vision to replace OD1? I’d vote canonization. Kimball’s revelation in 1978 to replace OD2? I’d vote for canonization, but I think it was a non-verbal revelation, so I’m not sure what we’d read. (Hope I’m wrong.) Many here have alluded to other revelations. I’d like to consider them for canonization. Mission calls? No, and we should remove some that we ignore now anyway. The Gay Policy? HELL NO. That’s not revelation.
Should it take canonization for us to listen when the Prophets speak? Should it take a vote before we decide that yes, we really have been doing things poorly? How many more sections should we be adding every year while finding some way to make people actually read and apply them? People hardly read the D&C now.
These seem like rhetorical questions, and I believe I’ve already answered them. If I’m mistaken, let me know and I’ll answer them. But yes, please take out the mission calls that we ignore now. As you said, they are theologically unimportant anyway and nobody reads them. On the other hand, some of these visions we’ve been told about might generate A TON of new interest and get people to read the D&C. I view that as a win-win. Frankly, I think it would absolutely energize the church, and lead to new converts (unless they canonize the Gay Policy. That might have the opposite effect.)
(JI, that’s how you HONESTLY answer questions directly to make sure you are not misunderstood.)
This might be a hair splitting distinction, but here goes.
1. Anybody can have a revelation in the sense of an epiphany. “Wow! If I save money and invest it while I’m young, I’ll have plenty when I retire.”
2. Anybody can have a revelation from the Lord. “I prayed about quitting my corporate job and volunteering to teach in Kenya, and the Lord said that’s what I should do.”
3. The president of the LDS church can have a revelation from the Lord affecting the church and its members. “I prayed about whether women should hold the priesthood, and the Lord said that’s what the church should do.”
Now, examples 1 and 2 affect individuals, mostly. In some cases, there’s no need to communicate these revelations. In some cases, close family members and friends are affected and need informing.
Example 3 is different. The president can’t just have a revelation like this and keep it private. The Lord wants the church run a certain way, and it’s the president’s job to relay the Lord’s intent to the membership. The Lord is the boss. The president is the administrative assistant taking dictation.
Right now, the LDS church just clicks along with lawyers and managers calling the shots, updating the handbook, issuing letters, giving speeches, etc. Some folks assume that *whatever* the church is doing, it’s somehow based on “revelation”. Somehow, those in charge must be having some sort of private after-the-fact “revelations” to back up the status quo. It’s all very murky.
The whole married-gay-people-are-apostates thing falls in this category. Somebody made changes to the handbook. Somebody says there was a “revelation” backing up the changes. Nobody is prepared to relay what the Lord said about it. Did the Lord command the policy changes? Were the changes made first and the Lord said He was OK with it?
It seems to me that whenever the president has a class 3 revelation, he needs to pay attention, take dictation from the Lord, and relay the Lord’s words to the church membership. Supposedly, that’s the president’s job. He’s the *only one on Earth* who can do it.
Apparently, the president is a total slacker.
@kat on #68 I read MH’s articles and noted where I felt he was incorrect. I explained my reasons and reasoning. He disagrees. That is the nature of a debate.
@orangganjil on #69
Your description of how a revelation becomes canonized is correct.
If you declare that for a revelation to be a revelation it has to be approved by the total body of the church, that is incorrect. Frank Pellet in post #66 notes the impossibility of voting on every revelation that comes down the pike.
Of course you have your agency to believe that a prophet has received a revelation when he says that he has.
There is a talk by Elder Rasband on the LDS.org site right now that addresses this very topic. I will quote a couple of excerpts.
“We have sustained leaders today who, by divine inspiration, have been called to teach and guide us and who are calling out to us to beware of the dangers we face each day—from casual Sabbath-day observance, to threats to the family, to assaults on religious freedom, and even to disputing latter-day revelation. Brothers and sisters, are we listening to their counsel?”
Then, just a bit later he says “I have had my own learning moments from our dear prophet, President Monson. There is no question in my mind or in my heart that he is the Lord’s prophet on the earth; I have been a humbled recipient as he has received revelation and acted upon it.”
Are you saying that Elder Rasband does not know what he is talking about?
But this is an ongoing debate and has been for maybe as long as the church has been restored. For a bit of perspective, check out http://www.mormonmatters.org/2008/02/17/the-prophetic-accomplishments-of-president-gordon-b-hinckley/
Glenn
@glenn. Nobody was talking to you.
There’s no debate. The OP made his case with clarity and finality. Your battleship has been sunk. Now you are only treading water.
@Glenn #74 Glenn, I’m not disputing that someone can receive a revelation and not have it be canonized. I’m asserting that a revelation cannot be binding upon the church and thus be accepted as a revelation *for* the church unless it has been presented to the body of the church and accepted as such through common consent.
Your seem to assert that numerous things are to be considered revelation; things such as the decision to build the Conference Center, the PEF, missionary calls, decisions to build a temple, changes to temple ordinances, etc. Those things may very well be inspired by God and be revelation, but the revelation received is not presented to the body for ratification. Indeed, to consider those things as prophetic revelation is to place our prophetic direction on the same level as any other decision made by any other organization or religion. No doubt the Catholic leadership prays to God to direct their efforts and feels likewise inspired. The same could be said for Joel Osteen, governmental leadership, business leadership, or the author of “Chicken Soup for the Soul”. What is it that separates the routine organizational decisions of our church from those of other organizations? Why are our decisions considered by you to be evidence of prophetic revelation while those of others are not?
Another consequence of elevating the routine to the status of prophetic revelation is clearly laid out by rah #23. We catch some awfully ugly fish with that net. Of course, the argument is made that those were just policies, but that argument loses all credibility when only those decisions we now find embarrassing are relegated to the status of mere policy, while decisions with which we are happy are elevated to prophetic utterance. We look foolish when doing so. We have so many examples in our history of personal opinion or cultural bias being peddled as God’s will only to later be repudiated as simple “policy”.
Look, it’s fine if you want to trivialize and redefine revelation, prophets, etc. You are free to do so and I am happy to let you hold those views. I’m happy to consider you a brother and fellowship with you. Maybe I can persuade you to see things from my perspective, but if not, it’s okay. In the end we’re brothers in Christ.
The problem we have in our church is that the opposite of that statement is not true. I do not sustain our leaders as prophets in the same way that you do. I do not sustain the anti-gay policy of November. I sustain and support our leaders as they seek the gift of prophecy, but maintain a more narrow definition of that term and its requirements than do our leaders. However my perspective is not tolerated. I am unable to hold a temple recommend because of my perspective. Were I not a member, I would be unable to be baptized, kept from a saving ordinance because I do not consider a man a prophet. I am unable to attend to the saving ordinances of the temple because I do not consider a man a prophet. I am unable to perform Melchizedek Priesthood ordinances (e.g., confirmation, grave dedication), serve in many callings, and even ordain my son to the MP because of my perspective on prophets.
That is really the rub: We claim certain men are prophets yet they have not prophesied, so we redefine “prophet” and “prophecy”, and then when members don’t agree with that redefinition, we push them out. In doing so we sacrifice them at the altar of our idol: men we call prophets.
Thanks for engaging but I’ve said enough and will bow out. Best wishes to you.
Hmmm. I had a different thought about this. I don’t think it’s really a matter of opinion that the CoC prefers canon and common consent whereas we’ve gone away from that in the LDS branch of the church. Maybe that’s a good thing, though.
While there’s certainly a downside, it takes a whole lot for something to qualify for the canon. I’ve read a few of the CoC additions, and they aren’t all of equal caliber. You can present it to the church as a revelation and ask for common consent from the members, or you can do as we’ve done and mostly not present things to the church as revelation.
I think a lot of the apostles recognize that whenever they start putting things in stone the flaws in human understanding become evident. While some of us dislike the anti-progress entailed in a gerontocracy, not all progress is good. Some is very poorly executed and ill-conceived. The CoC is very small compared to the LDS church. That wasn’t the case at the time of the secession. It wasn’t polygamy that made the difference in membership.
Hawk–that is very perceptive.
Clearly we get administrative revelation, no so sure about doctrinal/theological revelation in our era.
What’s the most recently doctrinal/theological revelation anyone’s aware of?
@hawkgrrl, you make an interesting point I’m going to need to contemplate for a bit. Thank you for sharing.
I would push back just a bit about your assertion that we don’t put forth noncanonized ideas as revelation. I think we may not always explicitly state that they are, but the idea is most certainly implicit and they are expected to be treated as such.
Also, a lot of our D&C material is fairly trivial in nature, similar to some of the modern CoC material, but I think that strengthens the case for consent. I think Joseph did that because it is a method of obtaining feedback and buy-in as a community. It is egalitarian in nature. We are all equal before God and should be equal amongst ourselves. Common consent strengthens that idea and the bonds associated with it, I believe. It explicitly shows that our buy-in is critical to the community.
Hawk, what do you mean “It wasn’t polygamy that made the difference in membership.”? Many of the people opposed to polygamy (William Law, etc) started the RLDS Church. It’s pretty well documented that RLDS hated polygamy, while LDS people embraced polygamy. LDS left with Brigham, while RLDS generally stayed behind in Nauvoo. I’d say polygamy was the main difference in membership at the schism (Joseph’s death in 1844.) (Sure others joined with Strang, but in reality all 3 movements were similar in size after Joseph’s death.
Mormon Heretic: I just meant that our membership numbers are not higher as a result of extra children from polygamous marriages since mathematically, that’s not the cause. Perhaps there was less attrition due to living in the isolated west? What’s your theory?
Oh, I see. I thought you were saying the polygamy doctrine was inconsequential to the split, and that definitely isn’t the case.
In terms of membership numbers, John Hamer said that the reason LDS is bigger than RLDS is because all the good missionaries (apostles) went to the LDS. RLDS missionaries were terrible missionaries, primarily because they kept poking potential LDS members in the eye over polygamy. So the LDS had much higher conversion rates than RLDS, so that’s a huge reason the LDS church is larger. Add to that the better central authority of Brigham Young, as well as an earlier head start (1844 vs 1860), and you can see why LDS, with its continuing focus on missionary work is so much larger today.
I know that there has been some talk that polygamist women didn’t necessarily have more children than non-polygamist children, and that is probably true. However, LDS families have always been larger than non-LDS families, so 2 wives with 4 children is going to trump 1 wife with 4 children.
I do think that while the female birth rate may be similar, the size of families was not, and I do think LDS have larger families and in turn this led to LDS growth as well.
I don’t have numbers on attrition rates. It’s hard to know if the isolation led to less attrition or not.
@oranggangil in #77 you said “Your seem to assert that numerous things are to be considered revelation; things such as the decision to build the Conference Center, the PEF, missionary calls, decisions to build a temple, changes to temple ordinances, etc. Those things may very well be inspired by God and be revelation, but the revelation received is not presented to the body for ratification. Indeed, to consider those things as prophetic revelation is to place our prophetic direction on the same level as any other decision made by any other organization or religion. No doubt the Catholic leadership prays to God to direct their efforts and feels likewise inspired. The same could be said for Joel Osteen, governmental leadership, business leadership, or the author of “Chicken Soup for the Soul”. What is it that separates the routine organizational decisions of our church from those of other organizations? Why are our decisions considered by you to be evidence of prophetic revelation while those of others are not?”
I am not advocating that we elevate the mundane to the level of revelation. What I have been saying is that there is no reason to infer that a mostly static canon, i.e. doctrinal material means that revelation to the prophets has dried up.
I am not advocating that every word spoken from the pulpit at General Conference by a prophet or every published article by a prophet be considered revelation.
The link I provided provided a couple of examples where the prophet at the time indicated that he had received a revelation.
I cited a couple of recent instances where it was stated that a policy etc. had been received by revelation.
This is what I said in #74, “Of course you have your agency to believe that a prophet has received a revelation when he says that he has.”
That is the metric I use.
The prophets that we have, the general authorities aver that they do receive revelation (which was the question asked), thus we are a church of continuing revelation, unless the prophets, the General Authorities are lying, as MH believes.
Glenn
@glenn
“The prophets that we have, the general authorities aver that they do receive revelation (which was the question asked), thus we are a church of continuing revelation, unless the prophets, the General Authorities are lying, as MH believes.”
So you think that church leaders are incapable of error? Do you think that just because they *say* the LDS church is led by revelation, that makes it a fact? Church leaders have emphasized (at least lately) that they can be wrong and can believe something to be true when it’s not. Do you claim these leaders are lying when they say they are just fallible human beings?
“Church leaders have emphasized (at least lately) that they can be wrong and can believe something to be true when it’s not.”
Only leadership from the past can be wrong. The current crop is always right.
@rockwell
The current crop says they, themselves, are fallible and make mistakes like everybody else.
That may be true. I certainly think they are fallible (my previous comment was intended tongue-in-cheek) but my impression has been that while current leaders have not claimed infallibility, they continue to allow things like the “14 fundamentals” to be taught in gencon and correlated manuals, which is the basis of my somewhat sarcastic comment above.
@rockwell
I figured it was sarcastic, but I wasn’t 100%.
And, getting back on point, it follows that any LDS prophet’s claim their church is led by revelation might be in error.
The premise of the author’s original article seems to me to be thus: “The LDS church claims to be a church of continuing revelation, yet has hardly published any new canonized revelation since Joseph Smith.” The “canonized” part is clearly true, but is that what the LDS church means when it says “continuing revelation?”
I’m not sure what would constitute as “official revelation” for the church, whether it must include common consent or not (as suggested by “orangganjil” in comment #69, where it is mentioned that Joseph Smith set such a precedent — however, I’m not convinced that this necessarily implies that such actions are requisite for “official revelations”), but this is my take on revelation as a regular ol’ member of the LDS church:
LDS Church Revelation: anything already canonized and anything said in General Conference or in other “official” statements by the church.
As brought up by “rah” in comment #23, this opens up a large net. Let me address some of those rah claims that would be regarded, in consequence, as revelation:
1. “The priesthood ban.” I don’t know if this was ever actually stated in General Conference, but even if it was, it doesn’t seem to me to be contrary to God’s actions in the past. I believe there’s an essay on lds.org that talks about how God has been partial about who holds His priesthood. Wasn’t there a long time in the past that only Levites could hold the priesthood? That seems like something a bunch of people today would call racist. God is apparently racist, according to such people, or at least He was in the past; then why couldn’t He be now?
2. “The new exclusion policy.” I’m not sure what this is referring to, but if it means the policy regarding children of same-sex couples, I certainly could believe it to be revelation. It wouldn’t surprise me, considering how many times church leaders have condemned same-sex marriage in the past. Personally, I’m not against it, but I can see why many people would be. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t received by revelation, however.
3. “Women not being allowed to pray in sacrament/general conference.” Was this ever actually mentioned in Conference? I’m guessing not, and that it was simply a non-issue for much of the church’s existence until someone brought it up a few years ago. Apparently church leaders considered it and decided after all that it was fine for a woman to pray in General Conference, since obviously there have been some in recent General Conferences.
But let’s suppose that somebody in a past General Conference said that women ought not to pray in General Conference. Well, the church is led by a perfect master (Christ) through imperfect people. It took a few years, but eventually the mistake was discovered, and now it’s been corrected. Now we know what the proper stance is, and the issue is closed. That particular comment in the General Conference archives may as well be scratched, since it has been discovered to be incorrect. Does this mean the church is not true? No, it just means what I said before: the church is led by a perfect master through imperfect people.
As for some of the others: I don’t know what 4. “Forbidding oral sex” refers to, and I can’t imagine that somebody in Conference said that the church must needs be bankrupt multiple times, or that women should not be allowed to be auditors, but they, and undoubtedly multiple other problems, can likely be handled in the same way #3 was.
So this offers a natural question: how am I supposed to know whether something said in General Conference is revelation?
This is what I do, and what I would suggest: if I agree with it, of course I sustain it and I believe it to be revelation. On the other hand, if I don’t agree with it, I can still sustain it (as there are many things that God does that I don’t understand, seeing as I have limited understanding), but I’ll “put it on the shelf,” so to speak, and after long periods (often years) of studying, praying, etc., I’m able to understand how it fits into God’s plan. You might say that I’ve found my answer through the Holy Spirit, since that usually is how it happens.
If there is something that doesn’t sit well with me to the point that it keeps me from holding certain church callings, the priesthood, etc., then I might meet with the Bishop about it. Possibly if he doesn’t give me a satisfactory answer, we can go up the line of authority until the explanation is found. If no explanation is found, the church leaders can address it and decide what to do about it. Perhaps this was what happened with the issue of women praying in General Conference. Obviously church leaders have been approached with the question of women holding the priesthood, and perhaps that’s what prompted their response, which has simply been, “God has not revealed that women should be given the priesthood at this time,” or something to that effect.
So how does this make the LDS church different from other institutions and organizations that may receive revelation in being guided? I see no reason why others can’t receive revelation; God loves us all and wants to guide us to happiness. The difference may be similar to what we see in the bestowal of the Holy Ghost: those outside the church may feel the Spirit, and He may light their way from time to time as lightning does someone traveling through the dark, but those inside the church have the gift of the Holy Ghost, Who lights their way continually as a flashlight does (if the person is living worthy, of course), which is certainly more convenient, reliable, and helpful than lightning is.
My intent with this comment has been to attempt to clear things up, and not to be in any way condescending. I hope that I have been clear and not condescending, and if otherwise, I apologize.
@bfh529
“My intent with this comment has been an attempt to clear things up…”
Your comment makes it clear what *you* think about the issues and how *you* approach things. Your personal opinions and approaches don’t really clarify much for those who believe differently and do things differently from you.
For example, saying “I certainly could believe it to be a revelation” and explaining your opinion does nothing to help those who believe the exact opposite. Others just as easily say “I firmly believe it’s *not* a revelation” and provide their reasons.
Similarly, saying you “put it on the shelf” and “pray about it” is the same old thing people have been told for years. Not helpful at all. That might be *your* approach when the church is wrong, but plenty of other people don’t accept that. They want the LDS church to own up to its mistakes and fix them.
Your post, while heartfelt, doesn’t really clarify much or provide new information.
@Kat:
True, my post reflects my opinions, as it seems most posts reflect their respective authors’. My understanding is that this is a discussion forum, wherein people state their opinions, preferably with some justification (and some justifications follow logically better than others). Hopefully, these will be new ideas people have not considered, or even “old” ideas that may warrant reconsideration. My opinions and approaches may fall mostly in the latter category, but can still be valuable to someone who may do things differently, if only to give them something to reconsider. Nevertheless, I do feel that I added some information that, if not new, was not mentioned earlier, insofar as I could see, and I felt could use some clarification.
Summarizing my previous comment, it essentially addresses three questions which arose from the original article and comments posted in response (even if not explicitly mentioned):
1. Are we really a church guided by revelation?
2. How can I know whether something said in General Conference is a revelation?
3. How is the church different from others in being guided by revelation?
For #1, I claimed, as a kind of “thesis” for my entire comment, revelation for the church to be: “anything already canonized and anything said in General Conference or in other “official” statements by the church.” (I don’t know what the official statement for the church is on this, or even if there is one at all, but this is my approximation of what the policy would be.)
Commenter “rah” in #23 seemed to have already given a rebuttal to this “thesis,” that it opens a wide net with which we catch a bunch of “ugly fish” (to quote “orangganjil” in #77). My response to these two comments in particular is that these “fish” are either not necessarily that ugly — which of course is my opinion, but I also hoped to point out that it’s consistent not only with church policy in the past, but, in some cases, also with the Lord’s dealings throughout the history of the world — or that what rah claimed would be implied as revelation doesn’t necessarily follow (for instance, “women not being allowed to pray in sacrament/general conference” wasn’t, as far as I know, ever a revelation; it simply had never been addressed before), unless it was specifically stated thus in General Conference. For all possibilities of this last type, I offered the solution of what I gave for that “women praying in church” issue. This all was in support of the “thesis” I mentioned above, to justify my position against the idea that only canonized revelation “counts” as revelation, which seemed to me a prevailing theme in the article and comments. My post would have been significantly weaker had I stated only my position without justification; basically, I’m trying to show why my position should not be dismissed, as it seemed to me to have been, almost as if by default.
If my “thesis” is considered as possibly true, then #2 follows as a natural question, for the which I provided an answer that perhaps people have heard many times, but also may include something that makes my thesis more plausible as an answer to question #1. Question #3 is also a natural follow-up to my thesis, and I believe it was even asked by an earlier commenter (I can’t remember who it was; perhaps there were multiple). This one I answer with an analogy that, while usually used to explain the difference between feeling the Spirit and having the Gift of the Holy Ghost, I feel works here as well.
For those who don’t accept the “tried and true” method of praying, studying, and “putting it on the shelf” to wait for the witness of the Spirit, may I remind them that it’s the only reliable way to discern eternal truth. Science can’t, and the world in general is very limited in its understanding and explanation of eternal truth. This in itself requires justification that is left for another discussion (if you’d like more, feel free to email me at bfh529@hotmail.com; consider also some articles at this site). I think the world’s explanation is best summarized as Pres. Uchtdorf does it; that is, as “somebody’s best guess” (from the April ’09 Conference). Those who claim that the church is indisputably wrong can therefore only noteworthily do so with revelation (else it can be categorized as “somebody’s best guess”) from God, which contradicts His order of revelation as prescribed in D&C 28. Those who don’t accept D&C 28 are consequently saying that the church is not led by God at all. If this is truly the case, then what does it matter what the church says on anything? Why bother with association of the church in any fashion? Correction of the church in that case results in an institution led by people, which makes us no different from anyone else, and therefore may as well not exist except as a humanitarian organization, far less than what the church claims to be. In essence, then, these questions are equivalent to the question of whether or not the church is in actuality led by God through revelation. However, this fact can only be spiritually discerned, as mentioned many times in the scriptures, e.g., Moroni 10:3-5 or 1 Cor. 2:14.
I apologize for the length of this comment, but I felt it was necessary in order to thoroughly and most clearly respond to yours. I apologize for my inability to state things more succinctly.
Sorry, I misreferenced a site in the previous post. It should go here instead.
@bfh529
I don’t know about all that. Just that your final statement was that you intended to “clarify” things. Well, you didn’t.
@Kat:
Well, I suppose it depends on the reader. My profession is a teacher, and my job is to make my message clear. Sometimes I’m successful, sometimes I’m not. If you’d like me to be more clear about some things, specify which things and perhaps I can pitch them in a different way.