The term “revelation” in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a word with multiple interpretations. As a general term in the Church, it means that the Godhead has communicated something to someone – i.e., the Holy Spirit has communicated an impression or thought, an angel has visited with a message, a vision has occurred, etc. Then there are what some scholars have called dialogic revelations – written documents in the voice of the Lord, such as those found in the Doctrine and Covenants. This latter definition has led to some expectation that major communications from God will be presented in the form of a written document with words attributed to the Lord, but that has rarely been the case outside of Joseph Smith and John Taylor’s times as prophets. For example, Official Declaration 2 is a press release stating that a revelation occurred that made the priesthood available to all worthy men in the Church, and it stands as the primary written record of the revelation. In a recent interview at the Latter-day Saint blog From the Desk, Matthew L. Harris discussed how the 1978 priesthood revelation came about and why it was a process rather than a sudden stroke of inspiration. What follows here is a copost to the full interview.
First, Matthew L. Harris offered a brief explanation of the 1978 revelation:
The priesthood revelation is one of the most significant events in the history of the Church. On June 9, 1978, President Spencer W. Kimball announced a revelation stating that Black Latter-day Saints could now enjoy the full privileges of the Church. This included priesthood ordination for Black men and temple ordinances for Black couples and families.
Between 1852 and 1978, the ban had barred most Black men from the priesthood and most Black people from the temple ordinances of initiatory, endowment, and sealings.
It’s helpful to know how revelation is approached in the Quorum of the Twelve and First Presidency in the 20th century Church to better understand the 1978 priesthood revelation:
Rarely have the Brethren described how institutional revelation works in such a clear and succinct manner as First Presidency counselor Hugh B. Brown. President Brown described it as a process, which nuances how the Church typically describes it. …
When a question arises today, we work over the details and come up with an idea. It is submitted to the First Presidency and Twelve, thrashed out, discussed and re-discussed 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.
Hugh B. BrownThis apt description describes beautifully how the Revelation occurred when the Brethren lifted the ban.
Over a period of many months, President Kimball “thrashed [it] out” with the apostles, prayed with them, then moved to overturn the ban as he felt directed by God. The culmination of this defining moment occurred on June 1, 1978, when the prophet reached a consensus with the Brethren.
This is the process of the leading quorums seeking revelation in the Church today.
Some may ask, “why was a revelation necessary to end the policy?” Harris offered this explanation:
With the exception of First Presidency counselor Hugh B. Brown, all of the Brethren believed that lifting the ban would require a Revelation.
Brown claimed it was a policy, which meant for him that it could be lifted at President McKay’s discretion. And while McKay himself also believed it was a policy, he claimed it would require consensus among the Brethren to overturn something so entrenched in church doctrine and culture.
The other Brethren—led by Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. Lee, Ezra Taft Benson, and others—all proclaimed the ban a doctrine. They shared President McKay’s belief that it would require a Revelation. This was both practical and moral for them, for a Revelation meant consensus, and consensus meant that the president couldn’t do it unilaterally. …
The Doctrine and Covenants states that the Brethren need to be unified when they produce new doctrine or announce new policy changes for the Church. Achieving this, of course, is not always easy because the Brethren bring their own personalities, biases, and experiences when they are called into the Twelve. But the scriptures ensure that they will be unified when they announce something significant like the end of the priesthood and temple ban.
In this case, the Quorum of the Twelve and First Presidency sought to find unity under the Spirit’s guidance as a form of revelation.
Reaching that type of consensus, however, was difficult. There were hard-liners in the Quorum of the Twelve like Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. Lee, Mark E. Peterson, and Ezra Taft Benson who viewed the teachings that were used to support the ban as unchangeable doctrine. An investigative report by Elder Adam S. Bennion of the Quorum of the Twelve in 1954 outlined in detail that the historical and scriptural basis of the ban were shaky at best, which may have convinced President David O. McKay that the ban was a policy (not a doctrine) and thus could (and probably should) end. McKay was never able to win over the hardliners and the ban was not lifted during his presidency. The Bennion report did, however, plant a seed with Spencer W. Kimball that led him to proactively work to end the ban:
He [Spencer W. Kimball] once said the ban “may have been a possible error,” and he supported President Brown’s attempt to ordain a Black man to the priesthood in 1969—about four years before he became the church president. He also asked several close friends and advisers about what they thought about lifting the ban.
Thus, it was on his mind and during the early stages of his presidency he began asking hard questions to his colleagues to help them see the wisdom of lifting it. …
One of the major claims of Second Class Saints: Black Mormons and the Struggle for Racial Equality is that President Kimball sought to overturn the ban the moment he became the prophet in 1973.
Spencer W. Kimball had long felt uneasy about the ban. The prophet witnessed the pain it caused Black Latter-day Saints in South America and elsewhere when they asked to serve church missions or marry in the temple, so he knew how the policy had affected them.
It took time and effort to win consensus among the Quorum of the Twelve and First Presidency that was necessary to end the ban. President Kimball put in the required effort:
When he realized he could not achieve a consensus to lift the ban he sent one of the biggest hold-outs, Elder Mark E. Petersen, to Ecuador on a church assignment. The other hold-out, Elder Delbert L. Stapley, was in the hospital gravely ill. (He would die two months after the Revelation.)
The only other hold-out on the day of the Revelation was Elder Ezra Taft Benson. He wanted to “table” the discussion, but President Kimball overrode him and insisted that the Brethren talk about it.
However, the president knew that he needed Elder Benson’s support, so he called on Elder McConkie and others for assistance. As I note in Second Class Saints, President Kimball “won over” Elder McConkie in the spring of 1977 and then enlisted his support to convince Elder Benson that it was time to lift the ban.
But it wasn’t just Elder McConkie that Kimball won over in the weeks and months leading up to the ban. He also met privately with each of the Brethren to seek their input about ordaining Black men to the priesthood. He listened patiently as they expressed their concerns, and he gently persuaded them that it was time.
President Kimball had worked with Elder McConkie for some time, since he saw him as one of the hard-liners that least inclined (but most important) to sway. This included sending him on repeated assignments to Brazil to observe the effects ban in a society with a lot of interracial mixing (and where they were building a temple). He followed that up with questions to guide Elder McConkie to the conclusion that they should end the ban. Elder Peterson and Elder Stapley were surprised that the rest of the quorums were united in their decision, but were willing to sustain them in that unity.
Saints 4 came up in the interview as well, with Matthew L. Harris responding to a question about how the story might be told in the official institutional history of the Church.
It will definitely be a challenge to address all of the nuance in a smaller word count, but I’m hopeful sources like Second Class Saints will prompt the authors to treat the revelation like the process that it was rather than an event.
For example, the “event” of the 1978 priesthood revelation follows the traditional account in which the Brethren showed up at the Temple on June 1, 1978, prayed, felt inspired to lift the ban, then triumphantly removed it.
But looking only at the event obscures what actually happened. The priesthood revelation was a decade-long process in which President Kimball felt inspired to lift the ban the moment he became the president. But he had to secure buy-in from the rest of the Brethren first. He wanted unity to enact the momentous policy and doctrinal change, rather than risk the fractures that occurred in the aftermath of the 1890 plural marriage manifesto. It took him five years to convince the Brethren to lift the ban. …
So, my hope would be that “Saints 4” will engage the new evidence rather than adhere to traditional narratives that don’t align with the historical record.
We’ll have to see how the history comes out in the end, whenever it is published.
For more on the 1978 priesthood revelation and the process that it entailed, head on over to read the full interview with Matthew L. Harris at the Latter-day Saint blog From the Desk.
I’m not convinced of all of the supposed machinations that were employed get around certain obstacles. Surely it was a delicate situation–and there was a lot of dialogue on the issue. But I think we sometimes conclude that the apostles have to play political hardball to get anything positive done–but that’s a misapprehension of their MO that comes of not being aware of everything that goes into their decision making process.
Clearly each president of the church runs it his way. Kimball always had a soft spot for minorities so it is natural that he would be the one to tackle the “ban” policy. He also, based on what is written above, cared what the other leaders thought instead of just playing his “prophet” card and telling them what he was doing. Both ways are allowed in the church so either way works. I would not call it revelation as clearly (at least in my mind) the Q12 did not take Kimball’s suggestion as revelation or they would not have questioned it in my mind and just sustained it. (kind of like orthodox members do) Nelson, IMO, did not/could not make all his changes as fast as he did if he did it the way Kimball did. No possible way. My guess is he (Nelson) just tells the Q12 what he is doing and goes for it. We are taught in the church that when the prophet speaks, end of discussion. How do we know when they are speaking as prophets or presidents? I dont think anyone really knows except the man himself. And yes, IMO, there is a big difference.
Early in the Church, Joseph Smith stopped using Seer Stones to receive revelations and relied directly on the Holy Spirit. (IMO, after that point the vast majority of revelations in D&C were received as promptings and ideas through the Spirit that Joseph did his best to capture in words.) That change deeply disturbed the Whitmer family, and I think that their angst had a lot to do with the very question raised by REC911 – how do you tell what is from the Lord and what is from the man if everything is being processed by the man’s mind? It’s very difficult to do, even for the man himself.
To me, that is the value of working as a council to receive revelation, as is described in Spencer W. Kimball’s case (and why stuff has generally been added to the Doctrine and Covenants with a vote by Church members). The more people involved in seeking consensus on inspiration, ideally, the more likely the things that they agree on are shared insights from the Lord rather than the thoughts of an individual.
It does get more complicated when more charismatic and/or strong-willed individuals like Joseph Smith and Russell M. Nelson take the wheel and steers the Church. Things are accomplished more efficiently, but at the risk of veering off course according to the ideologies and biases of an individual rather than inspiration from the Lord.
Both ways are allowed in the church so either way works.
The way I see it, Section 121 disallows playing the prophet card. That would be using the Priesthood to exert power or influence. Now church presidents have clearly played the prophet card–OD1 being the most conspicuous example. I give Woodruff a pass because he simply did not have time to follow Section 121. But the two most potentially dangerous church presidents (JFS and Benson) did not use their presidencies to implement their agendas by fiat. Maybe they were too old or maybe they understood that playing the prophet card was not legit.
As for Nelson, maybe he’s playing the prophet card or maybe not. I know the abolition of ward level HP groups and the switch from home teaching to ministering had been in the works for years. I think they just needed a lucid church president to stand behind them. The banishment of “Mormon” was clearly a rebuke of Hinckley and Monson, but the rest of the quorum might have been fully on board or relatively easy to win over. Recall that OD2 can be construed as a rebuke of JFS and Lee, since they had been responsible for thwarting McKay (who, you will note, also declined to play the prophet card). So overriding previous presidents is clearly allowed, but that’s not how I interpret “playing the prophet card”.
Chad- I appreciate your thoughts and comments. I think JS stopped using the stones because like you said he got it straight to his mind. Which IMO is how revelation works IF God doesn’t show up personally to speak face to face. Again as you said, this messed with members BUT the one thing JS continued to do was make it clear when it was revelation and if it was “to” or “through” Joseph the Prophet and spoke the words of Jesus/God. (meaning as if They were speaking and typically with a Thus Sayeth the Lord) We have not had that really since JS. Many times members would flat out ask JS if it was the Lord speaking or JS. A valid question. Today, we dont have a clue and we dont dare ask in public. We can all guess, but we really dont know. Most members just default to it must all be from God. I am not one of them, but I get why they think that way.
Kimball (and all the others) could have just made the call even if some (Q12) would have raised their hand against. I like that he seriously considered everyone on that decision but he certainly didn’t have to. Which one of the apostles is going to tell the sitting prophet he is wrong? Its been done before but probably not unless that particular pres is open to council. Not all have been as you pointed out. I dont see the “Council” suggestion you made working here since there was a prophet involved. I 100% agree if it is random councils.
What ever the case, God allows it so I am ok with it.
Last Lemming – Isn’t Nelson’s banning of the word mormon exerting power and influence? Do we know for sure he “won them over” or even asked? I am guessing he didn’t based on his history with the word. Do you think Nelson raised his hand for the Meet the Mormon and I am a mormon campaigns when/if the prophet pitched it to the Q12? He either did (which I would really not count as a sustaining vote) or he didn’t sustain the idea and they did it anyway. Would have loved to be in those meetings.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this.
The giving of full priesthood blessings and rights to black men of African ancestry was significant with deep impacts on church culture and understanding. It is hard to understand the meaning of the change.
Sure, it let black men become bishops. But it has had huge impacts on our doctrinal understandings of many topics. What is the meaning and significance, for example, of race? Of lineage? Of thevsumbolism if white or black. Although we all think of Joseph Smith as enlightened, even he could interpret the lone black figure seen in the POGP papyri only as a “slave.”
Not only do black men lead our congregations, but we have gladly lost the idea that marriages within a race are the practically and actually superior to those that blend races.
Trying to equate reducing the three hour block to two, or the loss of our relationship to the BSA, the loss of Monday night protections for FHE, and the making of a bishop as the YM’s president as revelatory is silly. They are all merely tweaks. I don’t think that we can compare SWK to RMN in terms of revelatory significance.
It’s all revelatory, Stephen Hardy. Or at least I’ve personally seen revelation play out in enough ways and in regard to enough things that I don’t see any reason to doubt the basis of any particular organizational change in inspiration.
I feel sorry for members that feel it all has to be revelation. There is nothing “doctrinal” about policies, procedures and traditions that presidents may or may not implement or change. Its just the current way of doing things. This has recently even crept into our temple ordinances. Everything has and will change because 90% of it is just fluff. This change is based on what the new guy in charge thinks he should do based on what he feels is important. (mingled with revelation or feel goods) I dont think JS would even recognize the church today. We saw huge changes with the first “change” meaning BY taking over. It has never stopped. Nothing wrong with this unless your testimony is in policies and not Jesus/gospel. Like Stephen says, it is just tweaks. Everyone knows that Nelson created a big wish list of changes while he was an apostle in case he got the chance to implement those changes. He certainly loves change.
I would add that the Church was constantly changing even in JS’s lifetime. Jann Shipps and Phil Barlow have both suggested that the Church had three major phases during its first 14 years (New Testament Restoration up to around 1831, Old Testament Restoration 1831 – 1839, and iconoclast starting around 1839, or something like that), with each representing a huge changeover for the Church.
For the Barlow approach, he likened the Church to Archemedes’ ship (i.e., if you replace the wood on a ship in a museum constantly, you will eventually change all the wood and have to ask if it’s the same ship or not) and suggested that there have been several changeovers in the Church’s history – the three in JS’s lifetime, one with the transition to the Q12 leading the Church, one during the 1890s and early 20th century with abandonment of plural marriage and Americanization, and one with the development of Correlation (shooting from the hip, so might not be spot on – maybe I’ll look that up again and do a post).
Why wouldn’t the current way of doing things be based on revelation? What a strange thing to believe. I and people I know contemplate and pray and struggle and seek and act on inspiration for things that won’t matter (in any obvious way) within a few years, maybe within a few weeks. I expect there are plenty of things that work more or less the same way at every organizational level. It doesn’t make the inspiration any less real. It’s the opposite view – that revelation is only when the finger of God inscribes words in stone – that I find sad.
Jonathan- First of all I appreciate you sharing your opposing views and helping me understand where others are coming from. Thank you. (and all who share here)
Does mans good/correct choices always equal Gods revelation? Can a man make a good choice without God? Can a man make a bad choice without the devil? If all good/correct choices are revelation then is all bad/wrong choices inspiration from the devil? Or does God let man make choices? In my life God has told me exactly what and how do do things that I asked Him about and they have been correct 100% of the time. I have also gotten crickets after asking and made decisions based on what I feel at the time is the best course of action. Sometimes I feel good about it and sometimes I feel nothing one way or the other but a choice has to be made. For me, if God does not step in and reveal the answer I specifically ask Him for, I am free to make a choice. I dont count that scenario as revelation from God, but Him kind of saying “figure it out” you got this. I think councils experience this a lot. I see where you would say that this is revelation. To your point about me wanting the “finger of God” be revelation, I actually do. For me there is a difference between God telling me the answer and me feeling good about a choice I make. Big difference. You are probably saying that the “feeling” is revelation! But I call that the spirit confirming a choice God allowed me to make. Sorry if this is not making sense.
I just dont think God is in the details as much as others seem to think. Especially in church policies, procedures and traditions. From the original post, it was not God that started the process of ending the ban but the man in charge that worked hard to get others on board. I think God stays out of the way 99% of the time and lets us use our agency to make things happen. You call that revelation, I call that man using his abilities to make decisions based on circumstances at the moment the decision is made. To me, revelation is receiving information and direction from God that I did not know and asked to know and typically it is a future event
Was it revelation that the last couple presidents and some before them decided to do the Meet the Mormons and I’m a Mormon campaigns? I am sure they felt real good about those decisions. Or was it revelation that the president after them decided that the word mormon is offensive and should not be uttered in describing the church? Again, I am sure he felt real good about that decision. Was it revelation that we were asked to sit in a circle in priesthood and relief society? Was it revelation we were asked not to say an opening prayer in those meetings? Was it revelation that we were asked to say an opening prayer again?
My mind cant equate all direction and changes the church (or I) make as revelations. And yes I can just be flat out wrong in my way of thinking about this.
Technically, Mormon did write that “Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God; and that which is evil cometh of the devil; for the devil is an enemy unto God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to sin, and to do that which is evil continually. But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God.” (Moroni 7:12-13.) So, it is defensible to claim that an individual can’t make a good choice without God or a bad choice without the devil, the choice is which one you’re going to rely on in the moment. That’s not necessarily how I see things (I have some similarities to your view, REC911), but it is relevant information here.
I guess for me, the question I would pose to REC911 is, where is the dividing line between something being a choice without divine guidance and being a choice that was based on revelation? I.e., for Spencer W. Kimball, could it be said that his decision to end the ban was a revelation to the prophet and the event in the temple was a feeling of confirmation that his revelation was correct? Also, if the feeling that confirms you made a good choice is a communication of approval, isn’t that a communication of information (and thus a form of revelation)?
It seems to me that leaders know when something is a revelation and indicate it as such. Some things come as a dream, others through personal appreciation, and others through feelings in the heart. They hold the keys and God establishes the ways in which he reveals his truth to his prophets. But to say that specifically through counsel is “the way” to receive revelation, the truth is that I don’t believe that is the case. I believe that because of the significance that the prophet had, he wanted the entire Q15 to have the experience that he had had of receiving spiritual confirmation since there were beliefs that were too deeply rooted in many members of the quorum of the Twelve and the First presidency. That’s why it was done that way…he was probably inspired to apply this model.
A couple of points:
1) The quote from Harris incorrectly contextualized the lift of the PH ban as a 5-10 year process. The conversation had been taking place for DECADES prior to Kimball’s admin. Kimball certainly actively pursued it during his presidency, but one could argue that the saints have been grappling with this issue from the time of BY.
2) I highly suspect that Hinckley, Monson, and Nelson have adjusted for the in-fighting and stubbornness of strong-willed, nepotistic, alpha-male apostles like Packer, Peterson, Benson, etc. Long gone are they days of a possible J Golden that would tell his fellow brethren to go to (bleep). The days of the old guard throwing their weight in meetings to block initiatives is quickly ending. The modern church needs to be more nimble. The Q15 isn’t’ going away, so the Q15 have to start aligning themselves. The new crop of apostles have all passed an important litmus test- they are all corporate company executive yes-men who are on-message and aligned with Prophet. (I’m not disparaging them by saying this- they are all highly accomplished and influential leaders.) They have distinguished themselves not by being BMOC or rogues, but as leaders who distinguish themselves for forwarding the corporation’s vision and mission.
Sometimes I look at my corporate bosses, past and present, and am stunned at how similar they are. I marvel at how interchangeable their personalities are in the board room, in private and in public. We talk about teenagers in their cliques, Mobots, Stepford wives, and suburban automatons, but IMHO the executive circle is the worst! Just like a teenager going through a Goth phase or a Stepford wife, everything executives do is completely predictable.They all drive the same cars, wear the same clothes (casually and professionally), play the same sports, jump on the same tech trends, use the same buzz-words, read the same books, travel to the same destinations, follow the same business leaders, quote the same TED talks, have the same trending decor, hair and personal style, participate in the same hobbies. It’s so bland! How does one walk that walk and not suffocate?
Our new GAs have demonstrated excellence in conforming to the executive world as well as Mormondom. They are professional conformers. They exemplify how to follow the “covenant path” which is essentially – how to stay on message. We’re grooming out the nay-sayers, the weirdos. (And, I’d argue, part of our life-blood. Keep Mormonism weird!)
Is this a good thing? Well, like the BOM says- having a king is typically a bad thing and kingdoms only thrive when the King is on track. So, if we had today’s yes-men under Kimball, and Kimball had been more of a “King”, we would have seen the ban lifted 10 years earlier. But, without Kimball, and with other Presidents acting as “kings” we might not have seen the PH ban lifted until after Benson’s death and Hinckley’s arrival 20 years later. And today- if the “King” is opposed to LGBT progress or women’s ordination in the church, all the yes-men agree and it’s a closed subject. No one is making waves, no one is evolving the conversation. And since homogeneity has been built into a perpetual system, we might never see change.
So- having a president with absolute power supported unflinchingly by the rest of the Q15 is a double-edged sword. It could be an agile tool for good, or it could paralyze us in our present sins.
First off, the ship that Chad referenced belongs to Theseus, not Archimedes.
If HBB’s description of how the Q15 receive revelation (discussion, more discussion, decision, prayer, good feeling) is all it takes for something to be “revelation” then I would expect essentially any significant decision from the Q15 to be revelation. The other option is for a decision to be so obvious or minor that it does not require discussion or prayer or good feelings. So the lunch order isn’t revelation, but by this standard the decision to change the number of sessions in GC is. And so is the decision to change it back. Letting missionaries call home probably is. Scrapping scouting. Scrapping Personal Progress. The POX. Repealing the POX. Every newly announced temple. Every change in the temple endowment. This also fits for most decisions made by groups of people throughout the church. Bishoprics follow the same process for calling primary teachers. And yet, we don’t generally describe that process as “revelation”. “The bishopric had a revelation and we want you to be the choir director.”
One of the things that frustrates me the most about the church is how often we can’t even figure out what we’re talking about. We don’t know the difference between policy and doctrine, and we don’t know the criteria for changing either, and we don’t even know how to describe the process after it has happened. And so we are left too often with the Q15 saying, “this is the way it is today, and it is perfect, until it changes, and then it will different, and still perfect.”
Good catch on Theseus, DaveW. Like I said, I was shooting from the hip on those comments. And I think you’ve scratched at some of the thoughts that I had while doing the OP writeup. While I have been told by bishoprics that they had revelation guide their calling Primary teachers, there is a lot that is messy when you’re trying to sort out what’s the human brain thinking and what’s the Spirit speaking in anything. That’s part of why I’m leery of the distinction of “policy” and “doctrine.” It feels like pointless hair splitting. The Church is run by humans, so anything we do, teach, believe, etc. is filtered through humans and is subject to change.
Mortimer offers an interesting comment.
It goes beyond the mechanics involved with receiving revelation–which are myriad. We have to remember that the apostles are endowed with special keys having to do with the establishment and maintenance of the Kingdom. And so even though the processes of revelation that they experience may be common for the most part we shouldn’t take that to mean that they don’t carry much weight. Much like Moses who led the children of Israel through the Red Sea by the spirit of revelation–the revelation itself may be nothing more than a quite assurance whereas the result of following it might produce miraculous results.
Re: The POX: While I don’t care for that acronym I’ll use it here because I think it has come to mean more than the singular event to which it points. A lot of folks use is it (nowadays) as proof positive that the revelatory process of the apostles is rather whimsical or even arbitrary. But to me that view bespeaks a naivete regarding how the Lord reveals his will to his servants. Often an acceptable course of action lies within a range of possibilities–as when the Lord gave Joseph Smith instructions on the gathering of Zion’s Camp. He told him that it was his will that he find 500 men to make the journey. But if he couldn’t find 500 to seek for 300–and if he couldn’t find 300 to seek for 100–with a commandment that he not make the journey with fewer than 100 men. The Lord allowed a range of acceptability.
And so — as it pertains to the “POX” — when the apostles announced that some of the decision-making would be handled by local leaders the policy was still within a range of acceptability with regard to dealing with the problems in question.
That said, I want to be clear–while the more common means of receiving revelation may be through the whisperings of the spirit that does not preclude the apostles from experiencing powerful manifestations as the Lord will. The apostles have reminded us on numerous occasions that the charismatic gifts are alive and well in the church.
What revelation means in our church is fraught and unstable. Our prototype of revelation is the work of Joseph Smith. For people who have absorbed the Doctrine and Covenants, the word “revelation” calls to mind Joseph’s continuous flow of divine pronouncements, usually phrased as the words of God himself. But we have not had that type of revelation since Joseph died. The charismatic model of his revelations has been replaced by a model of revelation through consensus among the church’s senior leaders.
It has turned out that these two models are hard to reconcile in practice. Of course, there is the logically impeccable argument that whether one receives revelation in the charismatic way or by consensus is not what matters; all that really counts is whether the revelation comes from God. The hitch is our persistent sense that charismatic revelation is the touchstone. Revelation by consensus does not easily map onto charismatic revelation. Conversations like the one in this thread usually come around to the question of what qualifies something as being produced by revelation, rather than merely by careful consideration, inspiration, policy needs, or a quick look at today’s menu. Our instinct is to answer this question by reference to Joseph’s charismatic revelation, but the processes of charismatic and consensus revelation are so different that, on these terms, the question is not answerable. Our instinct fails.
I don’t argue that we should have continuing charismatic revelation. I don’t think that’s sustainable. Charismatic revelation is too chaotic for a settled church. This is a powerful reason for our transition to revelation by consensus.
I do suggest that we have not yet successfully completed that transition. Our institutional concept of revelation is confused. We are stuck somewhere between the charismatic and the consensual. That hinders us in at least two ways. First, it makes it harder for church leaders to effectuate change. If no one has a clear picture of what revelation means in the contemporary church, then there is no clear process for establishing revelation when it is sorely needed. Second, it makes us more susceptible to the destabilizing influence of an especially charismatic leader. We haven’t had that happen yet, but it could.
One possibility is that the Q15 will eventually settle on an explicit procedural definition of revelation for the church (along with clarifications about the evolving nature of doctrine). The fact that they haven’t done so yet probably shows a wise hesitation. It’s a hard problem. Any workable procedure has to accommodate both the politics of church leadership and the need for the Spirit’s influence. It seems reasonable for Latter-day Saints to believe that if and when our leaders manage to crack this problem, it will be be partly because of revelation.
REC911: I actually agree with much of what you write, although not all of it. But to clarify, when I talk about revelation, I’m not referring to any good decision I’ve made. Certainly there are lots of things, both minor and of great significance, that we’re left to figure out as best we can. But when I talk about revelation, I mean the influences (ranging from gentle nudges to getting clubbed over the head) that point me in a different direction than I had planned. Those influences then have to deal with my humanness and mundane facts and organizational considerations, so it’s often not easy to draw a clear dividing line, but I really do mean something outside myself.
And while those influences haven’t been daily occurrences, they’ve been frequent and persistent enough, and in response to situations both big and small, that I can’t fully agree that we’re just left to figure out things to ourselves.
Sometimes, the answer is right in front of our eyes, and yet we cannot see it. I think perhaps the parable in D&C 88:51-61 applies — it is revelation straight from the Lord himself, and it has to have a purpose.
I appreciate the earlier comment about a shift from charismatic revelation to consensus inspiration — the D&C 88 parable supports this shift. The church has been established and given to mankind — men are in charge, and they do the best they can as they individually and in consensus feel moved upon by the Holy Ghost.
I think what’s happening today is the solidifying of revelation by council — as opposed to one person carrying the full weight of inspired leadership — which is a reflection of the heavenly pattern of divine governance.
I like how Loursat frames things. Revelation just doesn’t mean the same thing today that it meant in the time of JS. That doesn’t have to be a bad thing. Joseph Smith’s leadership was charismatic, therefore his revelation was charismatic. Leadership today is bureaucratic and revelation looks more like consensus in the boardroom. Again, doesn’t have to be a bad thing. I just wish leadership could be open about that. I feel like President Nelson draws upon the cultural cache of Joseph’s charismatic revelation, when that isn’t actually how it is happening.
Also, I do think we overuse revelation, as a term. We used to hear about inspiration – how our leaders were inspired and how we receive inspiration. But now this is all reframed as personal revelation. Inspiration is dead, as it is rarely invoked. We are no longer encouraged to seek inspiration, but to seek personal revelation. It’s a reframing that places greater weight on the result, and makes it less open to criticism. President Nelson uses “revelation” to buttress any doubt and criticism of decisions that would have previously been framed as inspiration. But it also makes it more difficult to walk back decisions that end up being temporary, or are reversed or withdrawn. Part of the problem is that membership has a particular thing in mind when we think of revelation, and that thing is no longer relevant. The other part of the problem is that leadership allows that misconception to persist and deliberately invokes it, even when it’s not appropriate. Let’s bring back the idea of inspiration. Begin inspired isn’t a bad thing, or a lesser thing.
I think the revelation to extend priesthood and temple blessings regardless of race is a perfect example of the pattern described in D&C 9. There was a lot of study (including discussion). My understanding is that Elder McConkie and Elder Packer were both tasked with researching what the scriptures had to say on the subject and report to the the rest of them. Then it was taken to the Lord for confirmation of the decision.
In the discussion of the place of revelation in the changing of doctrine vs. policy, I always like President Monson’s approach. One of his mantra’s was “Good information leads to good inspiration”. I like the idea of approaching the Father in prayer possessing a good understanding of what exactly it is you want to achieve. Sometimes members lessen the role played by revelation by pointing out that a certain change has been years in the making or that the Church has sent out questioners to inquire about members feelings on a particular subject. I, personally, like all of the examination, evaluation, pondering, and prayer that goes into changes in the Church. If anything, I feel that maybe not enough of that takes place in some changes, like the implementing and 3 years later revoking of restricting baptism for children of LGBT’s (which I believe was doctrine and not a policy because it involves one’s eternal salvation). As to the question of what constitutes “revelation”, in Helaman we learn that the righteous of that time received “many revelations daily”, implying that they had an open conduit to Deity to guide all of their decision-making. That’s very cool to me.
I think the facts of the matter point to the importance of unity — when people are united in prayer, the Holy Spirit finds it easier to confirm the petitions of the united — when people are not united, the confirmation is elusive (because they are not united). President Kimball worked to achieve unity, and brought the matter before the brethren and before the Lord in prayer in the temple on a day when two persons who were known to be not in unity were absent — I think maybe their absence allowed the confirmation of the Holy Spirit to be received. Thankfully, when they were told afterwards, both of them acquiesced.
Before that day, there never was unity on the matter — and, as far as I know, there also never was a petition in prayer on the matter.
“But we have not had that type of revelation since Joseph died. The charismatic model of his revelations has been replaced by a model of revelation through consensus among the church’s senior leaders” – Loursat
I could discuss this for hours but I will try not too. It has been replaced because we went from having a prophet called by God Himself in the flesh to not having a clear understanding of how to replace JS that turned into what we have today. If there was a clear succession plan, it died with JS. (the Smiths were clear about the succession plan but BY was not) I would think most here are aware that BY over the pulpit in GC told the members that he was NOT a prophet and that he does not receive revelations but he is the 1st president of the church. BY was not sustained as a prophet seer and revelator but as the 1st President of the church. This went on for I believe about 5 to 6 years. Then they sustained BY in conference as prophet and seer but only BY. Not the 1st presidency and not the Q12. Then BY dies with no apparent succession plan. He had almost 30 years as a “prophet” to ask God about the succession plan. He either didn’t ask or God didn’t reply. (I guess you have to throw in the possibility that God did reply and that reply was “dont really care what you do”) The brethren took about 3 years to finally decide what to do. (again I am guessing prayers went un answered?) Hence we have created (by default) IMO the “consensus way” of running the church that members seem to think is all revelation just like when we had JS saying “here are the words of Jesus.” There have been no new revelations since JS. There has been maybe 2 times that a “prophet” has said something like “the mind and the will of the Lord”. Now when the president changes ANYTHING it must be revelation! What? Would you all lose your testimonies if Nelson stood up in conference and said I have not gotten any revelations? Past presidents have done this very thing. And they made many changes while being presidents. When does a prophet become a prophet? Is it at the time of ordination? Is it the time when he receives his first prophecy from God but until such event he is just ordained to be one? I am splitting hairs but is an acting president only making decisions when God tells him as some believe here? Is the fact that they hold 2 titles not proof that they sometimes act as presidents and sometimes prophets? Would you not follow the president but only the prophet? I believe BY when he said I am not a prophet. I believe Hinkley when he says I am not prophesying in GC. When the church makes an official statement to tell me when they are acting as prophet or president (like JS did) then I will be on board. Until then, I am not going to believe its all revelations.
To Mortimer’s comments (which I really enjoyed) on CEO’s – As a current CEO I agree on your assessment regarding typical CEO’s but will add this…Some CEO’s for sure want only “yes men” at the table and that may be the majority. I hate “yes men” and want to have apposing or different views at the table. One of the many reasons I like reading this forum and comments is to learn from those who appose my views. Presidents of the church are just the same IMO. Some want and call only “yes men” and some purposely call those with opposing views or are not aware of their views until after the call has been made. I think most new apostles are clamoring to fit in and just repeat what the president has already said to “fit in” or comply. They cant wait to say the latest catch phrase in there conference talks that the president used at the previous conference. Typically with the words “the prophet said” causing members to think that what was said in fact was prophetic and not just presidential.
You are all welcome to throw stones at me. ;)
The church has been given to men, and men — good men — do the best they can. Yes, the period of charismatic revelation is over — I don’t know if anyone here has read the parable in D&C 88:51-61, but to me it tells the story. The president of the church’s authority to act comes from his role as president of the church, not as prophet, seer, and revelatory — those latter roles are honorary or aspirational.
Elder Stephen L.. Richards, before he was first counselor in the first presidency, said in General Conference in 1932, “the Church believes in new and continuous revelation, and ever holds itself in readiness to receive messages from the Lord. To that end the people sustain the President in particular, and others of the General Authorities, as the media through which God’s word may be delivered. A revelation to our living president would be as readily accepted and become as much a part of our scripture as the revelations given to the Prophet Joseph.
In the absence of direct communication from heaven, however, the Church and its people must be guided by the revelations already given and the wisdom and inspiration of its leadership. I have great confidence in the wisdom of the presiding authorities in all departments of church service, first, because they hold the Holy Priesthood, and second, because I know them to be good men.”
I recall hearing President Hinckley say, very soon after he became president of the church, that we overuse the title of prophet with regard to him, and he would prefer less use of prophet and more use of president of the church. But that wasn’t in a conference setting, and no one paid attention to him.
To the statement that “we have not had that type of revelation since Joseph died. The charismatic model of his revelations has been replaced by a model of revelation through consensus among the church’s senior leaders” I have a post in the works to discuss that. But the key thing I’ll mention is that all of the first four presidents of the Church recorded revelations in the voice of the Lord, with John Taylor recording then relatively frequently while he was leading the Church.
Chad, thank you.
I’ll add something to explain what I had in mind when I wrote my earlier comment. As you point out, “dialogic” revelation continued after Joseph Smith’s death, at least until the presidency of Wilford Woodruff. When I think of “charismatic” revelation, dialogic phrasing is only part of what I mean—and probably the lesser part. I also mean the frequency and fluency with which Joseph Smith produced his revelations, and I mean the way his revelations informed his style of leading the church.
One way of looking at dialogic phrasing is as a linguistic convention. The practice of dialogic phrasing continued in part because that is how people had come to “hear” the language of revelation under Joseph Smith.
I suggest that the reason dialogic phrasing died out in our tradition is that presidents of the church could replicate the linguistic form of charismatic revelation, but they could not match the personal charismatic power of Joseph Smith. Dialogic revelation felt not quite authentic when it came from someone else. I don’t mean that revelation worded in this way was fake, but rather that it did not fully match its circumstances in the context of the whole church. The transition between Joseph Smith and Brigham Young is meaningful here. They were two enormously gifted and capable people whose gifts were also enormously different. Brigham Young, the great organizer of pioneer conquest, became the model for his successors right up to our day. With Brigham as our primary model of leadership, it is easier to give up the charismatic forms of Joseph Smith.
John Taylor’s mode of receiving revelation was, apparently, quite similar to Joseph Smith’s. He dictated revelations in the dialogic manner, and he did this nearly to the end of his life. Wilford Woodruff was receiving dialogic revelation even before he became the president of the church. However, many (most?) of these revelations to Taylor and Woodruff were not published to the church as a whole, and those that were published did not remain for long as part of the Doctrine and Covenants. So, maybe it’s fair to qualify my statement that we have not had charismatic revelation since Joseph Smith. But I’d only qualify it somewhat. What charismatic revelation we’ve had did not really stick, even in its own time.
(Dialogic revelation continued much longer in the Community of Christ than it did in the Utah church. Dialogic revelations in the Community of Christ’s Doctrine and Covenants were given until nearly the end of the 20th century. People who are better informed than I can explain more about how this practice developed in the Community of Christ.)
Chad, I look forward to further information and, possibly, a different point of view in your upcoming post.
That’s a fair way of putting things, Loursat. I don’t think I’m going to be arguing against that way of viewing things.