A friend from a Facebook group came up with this comparison, and I thought I’d expand it.
We are all familiar with Martin Harris begging to take the first 116 pages of the translated Book of Mormon to show his wife, and loosing them. What we sometimes forget is that the Lord said no twice before he relented and said yes. The first two times Harris asked, Joseph Smith said he inquired of the Lord, and the Lord said “No”. On the third time his asked, Joseph said he again inquired of the Lord, and the Lord finally caved in and said “Ok, you can let him take them, but only if he promises to only show them to four people!” Obviously that is my paraphrase, but here are Joseph’s own words on the matter
| and it came to pass that after we had translated 116 pages that he desired to carry them to read to his friends that peradventur he might convince them of the truth therefore I inquired of the Lord and the Lord said unto me that he must not take them and I spake unto him (Martin) the word of the Lord and he said inquire again and I inquired again and also the third time and the Lord said unto me let him go with them only he shall covenant with me that he will not shew them to only but four persons and he covenented withe Lord that he would do according to the word of the Lord therefore he took them and took his journey unto his friends to Palmire Wayne County & State of N York The Joseph Smith Papers, History, circa Summer 1832, pgs 5-6 |
Now, if the Lord is omniscient as we believe, He knew the pages would be lost, but relented to teach Joseph Smith and Martin Harris a lesson.
You can probably figure out where I’m going with this. In 2015, The Q15, according to Pres Nelson, prayed to know the mind and will of the Lord about what to do with children of same sex parents. I wonder if the Lord said ” ….Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. ” (Matt 19:14). But for whatever reason, the Q15 did not hear this. So they asked again and again until the Lord said “OK, make up your rule, but it won’t end well, but I’m doing this to teach you a lesson” Sound familiar? Then three years later they lost the 116 pages after much bad publicity, people leaving the church, children hurt, and possibly lives lost to suicide, the Q15 changed all the rules they had implemented.
One could make the argument that these are not even close. In one case all that was lost was 116 pages of paper. In the second case people were lost. Did the Lord really let the Q15 make such a mistake just to teach them a lesson at the expense of the children of gay parents?
On the other hand, does God really speak to prophets like that? Did he really say “OK, you have pestered me enough, give him the pages” Or did Joseph hear what he wanted to hear, so that Martin would stop bothering him? If this is the case, did the Q15, running scared from the nation wide legalization of gay marriage, hear what they wanted to hear “from the Lord” and put out this terrible policy?
(BTW, when I say Q15, I don’t pretend that all 15 agreed with this, but in the end they all voted for it.)
What are your thoughts on this comparison? Where does it hold up, and where does it break down?
Wheat & Tares 
I am not aware of anything to indicate the Lord has anything to do with our leaders opposition to gay marriage. Does anyone claim scripture or modern revelation, to explain the opposition?
Equally apart from Elder Nelson claims, not supported, is there any reason to believe it is not just the culture of 50 years ago still lived by our leaders?
I’ve seen this example used to make the opposite argument. IE the recent modification being the result of folks wearying the Lord.
Not saying I agree with it. The thing I like about the OT is the prophets arguing with the Lord. So… yeah.
I’ve wondered something like this myself. How does the Lord allow his leaders to make such a destructive mistake? I do believe they have probably learned things; I don’t think they expected the outcome they got, which shows how little they understood about LGBTQ people in the church, and now they probably understand a little more. But the price paid by the innocent people is enormous.
“in the end they all voted for it” Did they? Have any of them other than Elder Nelson said so? Even if they did, were they in fact all votes for the POX or could some have been votes for sustaining President Monson to whom the “revelation” was attributed? Was the POX even presented for a vote? or was it simply buried in a revised Handbook 1 requiring a vote on the package?
RMN claimed “each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation”. He left it wholly unexplained how he knew that.. Even if the others did, he didn’t actually state of what they felt a spiritual confirmation — the policy as written (that’s what was allegedly before them), or as shortly thereafter significantly changed by the so-called “clarification” letter, or that they should support President Monson in what was attributed to him (by whom other than RMN?) for whatever unrevealed and unexplained reason?
There is such a dearth of information on exactly who prepared the POX, who promoted the POX to the Q15, and what President Monson said about it, and whether he was in sound mind at the time he said whatever, that I wonder whether there’s any point in speculating whether it was the POX or its purported reversal (still not in Handbook 1, I think) that might represent the Lord giving in to nagging.
For a simpler explanation of RMN’s January 2016 comments, one could look to a combination of a hypothesized desire to quell member outrage by casting the POX in a description of the event of the 1978 revelation, and to get the troops lined up behind loyalty to the next president of the Church, and sloppy thinking akin to the sloppy reading, thinking, and writing of RMN’s 2003 Ensign article on no such thing as God’s unconditional love. I wonder how many other possible simpler explanations there might be.
Geoff. The revelation in opposition to gay marriage was in November 2015, which Nelson himself explicitly said was a revelation. Now, of course, that was only a policy decision, subject to later change.
President Gordon B. Hinckley taught: “How do we know the things of the Spirit? How do we know that it is from God? By the fruits of it. If it leads to growth and development, if it leads to faith and testimony, if it leads to a better way of doing things, if it leads to godliness, then it is of God. If it tears us down, if it brings us into darkness, if it confuses us and worries us, if it leads to faithlessness, then it is of the devil.”
Maybe this is how they decided the POX was wrong????
Today’s Q15 is still of the Bensonian mind-set. It is this mid-century ultra-conservatism that drives their policies. God does not seem to be involved.
Was it indeed attributed to President Monson? In that case I feel better about it. I may have sustained his years as prophet as best I could, but I never found him to be particularly inspired.
Kirton and McKonkie is the only law firm whose specialties include writing revelation.
Kay Gee, Monson was the president but for reasons beyond his control (senility) he was asleep at the switch. It was Nelson and Oaks behind the scenes, attributing it to him because he was the president.
Several of the comments to this opinion post, particularly from “Wondering,” raise the question of how the POX came to be in the first place. The opacity of the FP’s and the Q12’s decision-making processes make it hard to answer this question, but Gregory Prince’s recent book, “Gay Rights and the Mormon Church,” sheds a fair amount of light. Chapter 26, of the book, entitled “The Policy,” indicates that the POX was presented to the full Q12 in its 5 November 2015 meeting. The Q12 was asked to sustain the policy, without debate or discussion, and did so. However, Prince cites anonymous sources, speaking on background, that says that the majority of the Q12 were unhappy about the whole thing. There is a lot of detail in Ch. 26. I would recommend reading the chapter, to everyone who participates in W and T.
The matter was made more difficult by President Nelson’s BYU-Hawaii speech, which evidently no one else in the ruling councils of the Church either saw, or was aware of, in advance—it basically was sprung on the Church and the world, by the then-President of the Q12, which made it particularly hard to walk the POX back.
A caveat: I am not an uncritical fan of Prince’s writings. In my opinion, he often combines advocacy with scholarship, and there is a “tone” of self-assured assumption that he is of course right, and others are wrong, which I find personally irritating.
Having made that criticism, I have found Prince to be the single best source available for hard-to-get information about behind-the-scenes interactions of the Church leadership, and I find his writings about the POX to be plausible. It is unfortunate that his book could not be updated in time to deal with the recent walk-back of the POX.
I particularly like Bishop Bill’s quote from GBH, as an explanation of why the POX was walked back. I think that with the Church’s decision–making processes set up the way they are, three years would be about the minimum time needed to walk back a policy that had been manifestly proven to be counter-productive.
As a believing member of the Church, who tries to sustain his leaders despite their sometimes unfortunate decisions, I am just glad that the POX was walked back. I just wish our leaders would not box themselves into corners by claiming that everything is revelation. Sometimes, God’s will takes time to be known, and God will let Church leaders try out various approaches, and let them discard the ones that don’t work and keep the ones that do. But our belief in revelation—which was one of the things that attracted me to the Church in the first place—also means that it takes a LONG time for it to change course.
“President Gordon B. Hinckley taught: “How do we know the things of the Spirit? How do we know that it is from God? By the fruits of it. If it leads to growth and development, if it leads to faith and testimony, if it leads to a better way of doing things, if it leads to godliness, then it is of God. If it tears us down, if it brings us into darkness, if it confuses us and worries us, if it leads to faithlessness, then it is of the devil.”
If this is the method, then our leaders would be better served by focusing less on a primarily top-down orientation. I learned 5 families left my old ward (east coast) when the POX was introduced. Others left during the church’s Prop 8 campaign.
After reading Greg Prince’s book on the church and gay issues it’s my impression that the POX was presented to the 12 by the First Presidency without discussion for an up or down vote. Given that it made me wonder about then Elder Nelson’s declaration that it was a revelation received after extensive fasting and prayer. That being said my opinion is that God didn’t have anything to do with it and that the policy came about because some wards were getting too used to having faithful same sex couples in church giving the “wrong” example
It would be good if the 15 acted like powerfull individuals, instead of sycophants. Its not as though they can be kicked out, or loose their seniority. Why not stand up and say this is wrong In their private meetings? If they are still ignored why not stand up in conference and say I support the prophet, but believe this policy is wrong.
I am disapointed no one does this. Why not?
Would it not be healthier to model respectfull disagreement? And sustaining but disagreeing with the prophet. Would there be a downside?
Maybee at conference.
Getting back to the original post, I don’t think the 116 pages incident as used in the Church to say anything about the nature or limits of revelation as taught in the Church. The 116 pages incident, as described by Joseph Smith, is used primarily to excuse Joseph Smith from the blunder of losing the 116 pages by giving the only copy of the initial manuscript to Martin Harris (not a particularly reliable fellow) and not making a backup copy. I have simply never heard the 116 pages incident used to describe the limits or problematics of revelation as claimed by LDS leaders.
Maybe it should be, but in the Church the claims that are made about revelation are (1) that the leaders of the Church will never lead you astray, and (2) that even if they do, you will be blessed for following their flawed or incorrect counsel rather than following your own conscience. That’s a strange position to take in light of the Church’s ongoing endorsement of moral agency and our duty to Choose the Right, but there you go.
So maybe what we need is a General Conference talk that grapples in a meaningful way with the limitations and problematics of the LDS doctrine of continuous revelation to the Church through its leadership and the ecclesiastical governance paradigm of top-down leadership.
As a member of the community affected by the POX, I find it perplexing how in 2015 I was considered an ‘apostate’ when I was at the height of my spiritual conduct and commitment to the church and then three short years later I received a reprieve to the status of ‘ serious transgressor.’ I was probably more faithful and chaste during those three years than most mainstream members of the church. I remember my phone blowing up with LDS people thinking I should be excited and shout Hosanna! Ummm…NO!!! I was so angry when that ridiculous policy or whatever you call it was walked back, that I saw red flashes! And that’s because I always felt the POX was NOT FROM GOD!!! All I could think about was all the innocent victims/families who suffered and lost and I’m supposed to think that God had a hand in that? I think sometimes I must believe in a different God than Mormons do. Is it any wonder why most LGBT folks are so bitter against this religion? The church will continue to find new ways to suppress and marginalize this minority group. I appreciate the support I see on W and T but honestly, with the confusion surrounding what is revelation and what is policy and what are theories and what are the opinions of men, I think the church is creating an atmosphere of skepticism and mistrust rather than of faithful following.
Taiwan Missionary says, “our belief in revelation—which was one of the things that attracted me to the Church in the first place—also means that it takes a LONG time for it to change course.”
Isn’t it interesting that the very aspect that should allow for rapid change or progress as God sees fit to reveal his will instead becomes a barrier to change as prophets and apostles must instead drag their feet to alter any doctrine or policy that has previously been claimed to have been a revelation.
In regards to the POX, I was surprised to see it change as quickly as it did, given that RMN claimed it was a direct revelation. Now he seems to be saying it was more of an institutional policy decision rather than a direct command from God. Maybe he just thinks we’ll all forget what was previously stated in very strong language.
In regards to the question of the post, I don’t see much of a parallel to the 116 pages here. I don’t see prophets pleading to get an exception to what God wants. I see policy decisions being made and couched in revelatory language to assuage the concerns of the members, and then backtracking on that language once the policy turns out to be ill-conceived. I also believe RMN to be sincere when he says it was done in love – I just think he might out of touch with reality on what love looks like to the LGBTQ community.
““Its not as though they can be kicked out, or loose their seniority.””
Historically, some have been “kicked out” (some by “release”; some by excommunication) and some of those on readmission to the Q12 lost their previous seniority.
There was a time in my lifetime when disagreements among the 12 were voiced publicly. It could be confusing to some, but for some at least it was healthier. For them it fostered a more realistic understanding of how Church governance and how revelation works or doesn’t on every subject among those sustained as prophets, seers and revelators.
Dave B. “limitations and problematics of the LDS doctrine of continuous revelation to the Church through its leadership”
I was thinking of disagreeing with this characterization of “doctrine” on the basis of my memory of Dallin Oaks teaching “We believe in continuing revelation, not continuous revelation.” But it occurred to me to wonder where the formulations “continuous revelation” and the previously mentioned “constant revelation” came from. I found them in 1989 and 1996 from James E. Faust:
“This process of continuous revelation comes to the Church very frequently.” James E. Faust
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1989/10/continuous-revelation?lang=eng
“… all these [scriptures], without the living oracles and a constant stream of revelation from the Lord, would not lead any people into the Celestial Kingdom of God.”
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1996/08/continuing-revelation?lang=eng
I also looked again at DHO’s statement in its broader context. It is not entirely as broad as the single sentence I had remembered:
“Revelations from God—the teachings and directions of the Spirit—are not constant. We believe in continuing revelation, not continuous revelation. We are often left to work out problems without the dictation or specific direction of the Spirit. That is part of the experience we must have in mortality. Fortunately, we are never out of our Savior’s sight, and if our judgment leads us to actions beyond the limits of what is permissible and if we are listening to the still, small voice, the Lord will restrain us by the promptings of his Spirit….
“The Lord will speak to us in his own time and in his own way. This is usually by what the scriptures call the ‘still small voice’ of enlightenment. We are often obliged to act upon our best judgment, subject to the Spirit’s restraining impressions if we have strayed beyond permissible limits. Revelation is a reality. It comes in the Lord’s way and according to the Lord’s timetable.”
– Dallin H. Oaks, “Teaching and Learning by the Spirit,” Ensign, March 1997, p. 14
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1997/03/teaching-and-learning-by-the-spirit?lang=eng
I am reminded of the danger of generalizing what I sometimes think I know what the “doctrine” or teachings of the Church based on what happened to stick in my mind from my limited experience and reading.
So many thoughts on this. This idea of “accommodationism” (that God accommodates revelations to what the prophet or the Church can receive) has been influential in my thinking on prophets and revelation, but I’m not sure that I have come to any good conclusions. For me, the idea started when I learned about and studied why the Bible seems to tolerate slavery. The explanations that made the most sense to me were those who gave some variation of “God gave the ancients revelation that they could handle within their time, place, and culture. Does God really give “lesser” revelations when the people are not ready for “higher” or “more true” revelations? Do the prophets/people always know that they are receiving a “less true” revelation?
The case of the lost 116 pages seems similar to the case of ancient Israel demanding a king like all their neighbors, so God relents and gives the prophets/people what they want rather than what He wants. In those two scenarios, it is made clear in the revelation that God is conceding the issue and gives warnings about going against His higher wishes.
I noticed that this year’s Come Follow Me lesson discussing Peter’s revelation of the clean and unclean beasts talked about how revelation builds on previous revelations. The prior revelation (given by Christ himself) to only take the gospel to the Jews was considered a lesser revelation than the one received by Peter (which might really be a reiteration of the great commission given by Christ at his ascension) was a higher revelation. The interesting thing I see is that many in the early Church (including the apostles) seemed unaware that the prior revelation through Christ would later be preempted (or expanded, depending your POV) by a higher revelation. In hindsight, it is often easy to see how we misunderstood prior revelation. How does this impact how we see our current revelations and teachings? Is there anything in the current teachings and practices of the Church that we know for certain is the “highest” truth — not to be preempted by later teachings as the Church grows and progresses?
I am reminded of Duane Boyce’s essay for Interpreter earlier in the Summer about Pres. Kimball expressing his confidence that he and the rest of the brethren could accurately discern God’s will (https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/yes-its-true-but-i-dont-think-they-like-to-hear-it-quite-that-way-what-spencer-w-kimball-told-elaine-cannon/ ). I proposed a case study in the comments, and most responses to that scenario were some form of “God sometimes let’s prophets go with their own opinions — even if those opinions are not a “higher” truth. The question I posed at the end of that string of comments was whether prophets know when they are allowed to go with their own opinions or not, and I don’t know that I have found an answer I like for that question. Prophets are confident in their ability to receive and communicate revelation to the Church. Can they recognize the difference between God’s revelation and their own opinions? Can they recognize the difference between “lower” and “higher” revelations?
We are a church led by revelation (and I believe we are led by revelation). I find myself questioning how much of what we teach is revelation and how much is tradition and whether we can consistently and accurately see the difference. How to live in the Church with that tension (especially when Pres. Nelson is declaring to the young adults that “prophets ALWAYS teach truth.” (emphasis in original))?
The question “Can they discern God’s will?” is a very nice way to frame the inquiry. The 116 pages incident, though, shows the question is trickier than it appears. Did Joseph mistakenly think his own preference, which he was pressing, was God’s will? Or is the suggestion that God actually gave in to the continued pleas for a desired response, so that sometimes “God’s will” is flawed, directing us in the wrong direction due to the weakness or pride of humans receiving His messages. Either option presents difficulties for an orthodox defense of the 116 pages incident.
I’m fine with the idea that God speaks from heaven only once in a while (like once a generation) and the rest of the time leaders just do their best to make good decisions to further God’s work. That’s a Middle Way approach to dealing with the mixed bag of decisions that comes out of Salt Lake and avoids having to defend policy zig zags as God’s zig zags, as if God had to learn from experience. But that’s certainly not how LDS leadership talks about God’s communication with the Big 15 and the President of the Church. If you voiced that idea in Sunday School, you would get shouted down by the nearest high priest. Voice that view in Relief Society, you might get stoned.
Nevertheless, the data seem to show that they aren’t particularly good at discerning God’s will or (equivalently) in distinguishing God’s will from their own recommendations, views, opinions, and desires. That statement is not a criticism unless you view it in the context of exaggerated LDS expectations of leader infallibility. If, instead, the expectation is that they look through a glass darkly, just like the rest of us, that’s a perfectly reasonable claim.
“If you voiced that idea in Sunday School, you would get shouted down by the nearest high priest. Voice that view in Relief Society, you might get stoned.”
I enjoy the hyperbole.
Of course, decades ago LDS missionaries were required to preach with Amos 3:7 that “Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.” I’m not convinced Amos meant “prophets” the same way young Mormon missionaries and Correlation read it.
Dave B:
Great comment, especially your last sentence about leaders also looking through a glass darkly.
I am perfectly comfortable with Amos 3:7 and the Lord revealing His will through His servants the prophets, AND do not think that conflicts with letting His servants also look through the glass darkly.
Interesting anecdote about what is doctrine and what is policy. I have just finished reading “Thunder from the Right,” a collection of academic articles about Ezra Taft Benson’s forays into right-wing politics in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. In the late 1950s, a woman wrote a letter to Reuben J. Clark, who was then a Counselor in the F.P., complaining about ETB’s political statements, and asking if she as a Church member had to agree with them, as some of her neighbors and Church friends in Logan were telling her.
President Clark wrote back to the woman, saying she did NOT have to agree with ETB’s statements, that they were merely his private opinions, and anyway, different members of the FP and Q12 had different views on things, and couldn’t even agree of what is doctrine, anyway!
Gotta love it.
I think that part of the problem we have as a Church is that leaders now feel a need to make it look as though everything is totally smooth sailing and sweetness and light at the top, or members will have their testimonies weakened.
As for me, it STRENGTHENS my testimony to know that our leaders are human and have to struggle like the rest of us.
In the movie “Amadeus,” Mozart cracks in front of the Emporer that Italian operas are so dignified that the singers (defecate) marble. Everyone present is horrified but the Emporer laughs.
I long for the days when Church leaders didn’t worry about being dignified.
What are your thoughts on this comparison?”
This gnat has been strained so many times it has become puree.
Interesting ideas. I think some who entertain open ideas to how this all came about may be unaware of how I see some (maybe many) more othodox members intepret these events. The strictly orthodox cannot entertain any possibility of a leader at the top making a non-optimal decision, moreover a mistake, so they must reinterpret the events so that isn’t happening. An interesting one came from Millennial Star forum after the revelation / policy was recinded. It simply quoted:
³Behold, I, the Lord, command; and he that will not obey shall be cut off in mine own due time, after I have commanded and the commandment is broken. ⁴Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord. (D&C 56:3–4)
³⁰Who am I that made man, saith the Lord, that will hold him guiltless that obeys not my commandments? ³¹Who am I, saith the Lord, that have promised and have not fulfilled? ³² I command and men obey not; I revoke and they receive not the blessing. ³³Then they say in their hearts: This is not the work of the Lord, for his promises are not fulfilled. But wo unto such, for their reward lurketh beneath, and not from above. (D&C 58:30–33)
The apparent interpretation and application of the scripture to the POX is: the original policy was inspired. The liberals rejected it, so the Lord revoked it and with God’s displease it will be answered on their heads. I’ve thought about it and structurally this scripture fits the situation, though I don’t feel it applies here, but others do. Those that do are not going to normally voice it in progressive circles because they know of the deep afront and judgment it implies.
I don’t necessarily disagree with the OP’s logic here; in LDS terms it makes sense. It may even be true. It’s certainly a great effort to find a faithful way to contextualize President Nelson’s flip-flops on this issue and his continued insistence on “revelation” for both contradictory positions. (This is assuming that you believe they’ve revoked or lightened up on the PoX at all, which is still in question, I think.) However, I think it’s too facile by half. I see a couple of issues with it:
First, when this happened with the 116 pages, Joseph came right out and said it at the time; D&C 3 dates to 1828. There was none of this double-talk and obfuscation. Joseph was clear that the Lord was communicating exactly the message that the OP suggests might have been implied behind the scenes: “I warned you, but you went ahead anyhow.” If that’s really what the Lord said, can you imagine a better way for Pres. Nelson to look great and humble than by admitting it and telling the story in exactly that context? But if that’s really what the Lord said, then the way the story has actually unfolded, especially in the context of Greg Prince’s info about the context of the origins of the PoX, it says some pretty damaging things about Nelson. An egocentric, cocksure leader who views himself as channeling the Divine Will is a really dangerous thing.
Second, it simply fails the Occam’s Razor test. It demands a certain faith in prophetic semi-omniscience that the evidence simply doesn’t support. We’re always many years behind the science, despite our constant touting of scientific discovery as a means by which God gives knowledge to the world. The clearest reason for our leadership’s continual denial of scientific advances (in race, in gender, in homosexuality, etc., etc.) is plain old human bias. Occam can take his beard off neatly and cleanly with that; there’s no need to believe that leaders are dancing this weird waltz of balance between us and God.
As to the charming folks at Millennial Star who quote the scriptures about how we’re condemning ourselves for not sustaining our leaders in a blatantly un-Christlike and harmful policy, I’ll take my chances at the Judgment with those odds.
While I believe people can be inspired, I now find the best explanation that fits the available facts surrounding the lost 116 pages isn’t inspiration. It is desperation about being exposed. Seems obvious that Martin’s wife, who thought Joseph Smith was bamboozling her husband, took the pages in an attempt to have Joseph Smith recreate them. But Joseph wasn’t able to recreate the pages so he received D&C 10 instead to have the Lord explain: evil people “have altered these words… you [Joseph Smith] shall not translate again those words which have gone forth out of your hands… For, behold if you should bring forth the same words they will say that you have lied and that you have pretended to translate”
But the D&C 10 explanation doesn’t make sense upon examination. It would be easy to determine if someone altered the words because they would not be in Martin or Emma’s handwriting. Martin would know if the original was altered. But if Joseph Smith couldn’t recreate the words, Martin would know that as well. The better explanation is Joseph didn’t recreate the 116 pages because he couldn’t and Martin would expose him as well as withhold promised funding.
Since I don’t find the revelations about the 116 pages credible as inspiration, I don’t see their value as a type/guide for examining subsequent revelations.