I mentioned in some comments in previous posts about having a different view of church leadership that I called a “caretaker model,” or seeing the leaders more as caretakers of Joseph Smith’s program and revelations. There’s a lot to this, so I thought I’d give a little overview of bullet points, and perhaps I’ll blog more about some of these if the conversation heads in any of these directions.
1) I do see Joseph Smith as inspired and as having put together quite a religion that I practice even if I’m a bit unorthodox. There’s a few thorny issues with his teachings, like polygamy, which seems best to have been done away with. But as I posted a few times over the years, I do think JS had a communal aspect to the whole thing and makes me wonder about the afterlife. [Fn 1] That is, I don’t see JS as bad for having practiced polygamy, but I also understand the need for later leaders to make changes to that big practice along with tinkering with other various administrative policies along the way.
2) As REC911 noted in a previous post, I’ve heard that Brigham Young often claimed not to be a prophet, while still claiming authority. I think the quote that ji put up from Elder Stephen L Richards is also interesting and also seems in line with what I’m proposing.
3) Michael Quinn traces how leaders were referred to the in the Church News up to David O. McKay and notes, “By the late-1960s LDS publications and speakers routinely identified McKay as ‘the Prophet,’ ‘our Prophet,’ and ‘beloved Prophet.’ These terms have previously applied to the martyred prophet, Joseph Smith, while the living LDS president has simply been ‘the President.’” “No headline referred to the living LDS president as ‘prophet,’” before 1955, notes Quinn (Mormon Hierarchy, 2:363).
4) Reading Matthew Harris’s book Second Class Saints really highlighted for me instances of mid-twentieth century Mormons like Lowell Bennion teaching our current church’s teaching on race—all are equal before God and we shouldn’t promote notions of premortal curses—and church leaders pushing back against such claims with doctrines the church now disavows. That is, Harris gives clear examples of people like Bennion teaching ideas we now call doctrine in opposition to ideas our leaders taught at the time but that our leaders now disavow.
5) Serving as bishop from 2019 to 2023, I felt like I got to observe a lot of policy tinkering during those years, which looked to me a lot more like administrative changes organizations try in an attempt to improve things rather than blow by blow instructions from God. With my “caretaker” belief, I’m fine with being in an organization whose leaders make prayerful adjustments to policies in an attempt to improve things. But I don’t see every or even very many policy changes our leaders make as being continuing revelation. I do believe in revelation, but think we often over-attribute such claims to our leaders’ decisions.
6) To me it seems that implementing the “exclusion policy” of children of gay parents not being allowed to be baptized and then the leaders reversing the policy fits the caretaker model. I’m glad our leaders changed that policy.
I appreciate being in an organization the preserves Joseph Smith’s teachings and revelations and believe we have a very good church. I appreciate our leaders commitment to their roles and do very much want to sustain them in their efforts.
I don’t believe, however, that individual righteousness is primarily defined by how closely we follow our leaders’ instructions (ie “follow the prophet”). I do think that righteousness can generally be defined by following our leaders since our leaders tell us to do good things. But again, I define Mormon practice more along the lines of Joseph Smith’s teachings than strict adherence to current instructions. I do recognize our leaders’ authority to lead our organization, and, again, I see that Elder Richards’s quote linked to above as a model that makes sense to me. Thus I want to sustain our leaders’ efforts to lead our church, while at the same time noting that Joseph Smith was fine with the word Mormon, etc.
[1] I argue that “shared marriage” (see here, here, and here) was Smith’s original extra-monogamous plan, or the ability for both men AND women to have multiple spouses (done in a regulated way). I argue that Smith changed the policy to polygyny in the spring of 1843 and that DC 132 reflects this policy change. Thus I agree that polygyny has patriarchal problems (among others), but would argue that, HYPOTHETICALLY, shared marriage could have less of that. Shared marriage, however, seems even harder to implement than polygyny, and thus isn’t practical at all. Yes, shared marriage has Platonic antecedents along with other forms of utopianism, so no I don’t see JS as wicked for trying it.
Comments
36 responses to “A Differing View of Church Leadership: A “Caretaker” Model”
There are pros and cons to having a Steward of Gondor.
One of the pros is that authority is not given them to deny the return of the king, steward.
D&C 88, which the Prophet Joseph Smith designated as the “‘olive leaf’ … plucked from the Tree of Paradise, the Lord’s message of peace to us,” contains a parable in verses 51-61 that support a caretaker model. Indeed, I am unable to discern any other reason for the parable.
Joseph F. Smith testified before congress during the Smoot-Hawley hearings that apostles are selected by committee and NOT by revelation. This fits with your caretaker model.
***Senator McComas.** When vacancies occurred thereafter, by what body were the vacancies in the twelve apostles filled?
* **Mr. Smith.** Perhaps I may say in this way: Chosen by the body, the twelve themselves, by and with the consent and approval of the first presidency.
* **Senator Hoar.** Was there a revelation in regard to each of them?
* **Mr. Smith.** No, sir; not in regard to each of them. Do you mean in the beginning?
* **Senator Hoar.** I understand you to say that the original twelve apostles were selected by revelation?
* **Mr. Smith.** Yes, sir.
* **Senator Hoar.** Through Joseph Smith?
* **Mr. Smith.** Yes, sir; that is right.
* **Senator Hoar.** Is there any revelation in regard to the subsequent ones?
* **Mr. Smith.** No, sir; it has been the choice of the body.
* **Senator McComas.** Then the apostles are perpetuated in succession by their own act and the approval of the first presidency?
* **Mr. Smith.** That is right.
ji, I don’t understand the meaning of the parable in D&C 88 but I’m not sure I see support for the caretaker model in it. Could you elaborate a little?
MoPo and tubes, I guess the question of the steward LOTR metaphor would be how much instruction does the steward get from the higher up leader. In the LOTR, not much (though if you read the appendices, Aragon does show up to Gondor once in a while prior to the LOTR). In that sense, I would see that metaphor of “trusted people people to run things the best they can” more than “God directs all the policy decisions” that we seem to promote in the church.
ji, yes further clarification like gomez asks for would be helpful to me too.
That’s a heck of a quote, Davek.
I applaud the care, contributions and courage of you all.
There’s a lot to like about a caretaker model, and it may be what most church callings involve most of the time. I don’t think there’s a contradiction between leadership-by-revelation and caretaking, though – sometimes we need revelation on how to be good caretakers. Based on what other people say and what I have personally experienced, I would say that guidance through revelation is quite real.
There are also paradoxical situations in which being only a caretaker would be poor caretaking, where more directly prophetic leadership is required. It seems to be that Joseph Smith worked to create structures in which prophetic leadership is possible, and sometimes that potential needs to be (and has been) put to use.
It’s an interesting model, although it makes for a very easy out for anyone that doesn’t want to “follow the prophet” on any particular issue. “Eh, he’s just a caretaker…”
If Peter was interviewed and asked if Mattias was chosen by revelation, I think his response would be “No, we literally just drew straws.” Did they pray when coming up with the list? Yes, and I’m sure the quorum did in JFS’s day as well (and still does). But the actual selection wasn’t by revelation. So, assuming they still use the same model today, their selection doesn’t seem any less valid than Peter’s.
D&C 88
51 Behold, I will liken these kingdoms unto a man having a field, and he sent forth his servants into the field to dig in the field.
52 And he said unto the first: Go ye and labor in the field, and in the first hour I will come unto you, and ye shall behold the joy of my countenance.
53 And he said unto the second: Go ye also into the field, and in the second hour I will visit you with the joy of my countenance.
54 And also unto the third, saying: I will visit you;
55 And unto the fourth, and so on unto the twelfth.
56 And the lord of the field went unto the first in the first hour, and tarried with him all that hour, and he was made glad with the light of the countenance of his lord.
57 And then he withdrew from the first that he might visit the second also, and the third, and the fourth, and so on unto the twelfth.
58 And thus they all received the light of the countenance of their lord, every man in his hour, and in his time, and in his season—
59 Beginning at the first, and so on unto the last, and from the last unto the first, and from the first unto the last;
60 Every man in his own order, until his hour was finished, even according as his lord had commanded him, that his lord might be glorified in him, and he in his lord, that they all might be glorified.
61 Therefore, unto this parable I will liken all these kingdoms, and the inhabitants thereof—every kingdom in its hour, and in its time, and in its season, even according to the decree which God hath made.
In D&C 88, the Lord talks about many creations, many kingdoms, filling the entire universe. I’m this parable, the Lord explains a little. Imagine Joseph Smith and the early church receive the Lord during the first hour, and the Lord visits and reveals during that hour. Then, the Lord leaves and visits others. While the Lord is away visiting others for eleven hours, life continues and the work continues. One day, the Lord will come back and more revelation will ensue, but until then, life continues under a caretaker model (to use O.P.’s words).
Thanks, Doug.
Since I do very much believe in revelation, I know that such a belief creates some ambiguity for what I’m proposing here. I also believe in local leaders and individuals receiving that revelation for their callings and themselves. To me it seems like we tend to use pretty strong language around equating the church leaders’ word with God’s that feels like an overstatement to me. Again, the Richards quote seems more in line with my observations.
SB, good point about methods, and as I suggested in a previous post, I see it being possible that many feelings of answered prayers could be intuition and God boing okay with that. I often felt as bishop God instructing me that it was something of a “steward” role in that I was to use my judgment about calling people and making decisions. That was a big part of the growth process for me. We would all learn together as we tried to do our best.
I do get the sense that both Brigham and JF Smith saw there as being a difference between their spiritual experiences and Joseph Smith’s.
That helps me understand, ji. I certainly would not attempt to put any conclusive statements on when God is directly our leaders and when He is not. We do get good experienced leaders whom I’m sure do a good job. But as I listed in the OP, my sense is that we tend to over-equate our leaders’ policies and decisions with God’s in ways that I think can be inaccurate.
I personally can no longer (even conceive) of a God who would his daughters to live a life in polygamy. I think it was (and is) a remarkably evil, cancerous and destructive doctrine. While JS should be lauded for many things; the concept and practice of polygamy is not one of them. This practice will be an ugly stain on “the Church” for all time.
As I note in the footnote, shared marriage is a different practice than polygyny.
Stephen, your approach resonates with me. A related approach I’ve found helpful is to carefully consider the bounds of authority for any given church leader.
I view the prophet in the same high regard as my local deacons quorum president. When acting in the scope of their limited authority, I accept their decisions and support them inasmuch as doing so doesn’t conflict with my own conscience.
For example, I may think a different routing of deacons is preferred for passing the sacrament, or may feel the new temple in my area would be better placed in a different spot, but those are clearly decisions in the preview of that leader. For issues outside their preview – eg, when/whether to have FHE, how many children a couple should have, vasectomies, who presides in the home, etc – I will seriously consider the church leaders’ guidance but feel no obligation to follow. The revelation is simply outside their stewardship.
A good example of co-dependent stewardships and authority is callings. My bishop has the authority to receive revelation as to whether I should serve in calling X. I have the authority to receive revelation for whether calling X is in the best interest of me and my family. Only if our combined revelations agree is the calling inspired. FWIW, that has been the case for nearly all callings extended to me.
As with most things, Quinn is prevaricating about #3.
Latter-day Saints were calling Church presidents “our prophet” well before David O. McKay. For Brigham Young alone, a quick search yields: Millennial Star 16, no. 35 (1854): 547; Journal of Discourses 5:161 (1858); Millennial Star 29, no. 46 (1867): 736; Waite, The Mormon Prophet (1868), 154; Juvenile Instructor 5, no. 15 (1870): 119; Elders’ Journal 3, no. 20 (1906): 379.
Quinn could perhaps get away with such claims in the 1980s and 90s before resources like Google Books were available. Simply repeating them now, however, is bound to disappoint.
Quinn didn’t say the term was NEVER used. He simply cited the trend in the CHURCH NEWS up to 1955. Was he wrong about that? If he was correct, I’d still say that’s a useful trend he pointed out.
The citations you give are an indication that such naming was not the norm.
Quinn writes: “By the late-1960s LDS publications and speakers routinely identified McKay as ‘the Prophet,’ ‘our Prophet,’ and ‘beloved Prophet.’ Those terms had previously applied to the martyred prophet, Joseph Smith, while the living LDS president had simply been ‘the President.’”
He claims “LDS publications and speakers”—not just the Church News. This is demonstrably false. We can easily and abundantly document the use of “our prophet” and similar titles for Brigham Young and his successors throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries in publications like the Millennial Star, Juvenile Instructor, and others.
In footnote 281, Quinn cites a 1980 Sunstone article in which the author asserts this supposed shift based on “personal observations.” He also leans on a secondhand computerized search of the Journal of Discourses and Conference Reports—information “described” to him by Warren C. Jaycox in 1995. That’s shaky scholarship to say the least.
Even more absurd is Quinn’s characterization of “unprecedented adoration” for David O. McKay beginning in the 1950s. Was he unaware of the folk songs 19th-century Utah Saints wrote about Brigham Young? Here’s one of my favorites, published in the Millennial Star:
POETRY
HAIL TO BRIGHAM YOUNG
Written for the Logan choir by C. C. Goodwin.
Tune: Old Potomac Shore
There’s a song that all are singing,
In this merry land of ours,
On the mountains, in the meadows, all around;
It sings on the hills and echoes in the vales,
While angels catch the sound,
And bearing it on high re-echo back the cry,
By myriad voices sung,
God bless our Prophet, priest and king—
Our leader, Brigham Young!
CHORUS:
Hail to Brigham Young!
Hail to Brigham Young!
God bless our Prophet, priest and king,
Our leader, Brigham Young!
There’s not a man on earth’s domain
So much beloved as he;
There is no people on the earth
So richly blessed as we;
And while we give that praise to God,
That to him does belong,
We’ll thank him for, and pray that he
Will bless our Brigham Young.
CHORUS
We do not worship Brigham,
Nor any man on earth,
But homage we do gladly pay
To mind and honest worth.
We will not lightly pass it by,
But praise it, every tongue,
And sing, God bless our priest and king,
Our leader, Brigham Young!
Quinn’s narrative here isn’t just inaccurate, it’s laughably so, and all in service of the post-excommunication axe he seemed determined to grind against Church leadership.
Quinn notes that the CHURCH NEWS did not refer to the leader of the church as “the prophet” from the time it began running in 1931 until 1955. That’s pretty significant and I don’t see you addressing that issue.
I talk about BY in point #2. Point #3 where I cite Quinn is part of a larger trend I note, and I don’t see where you give evidence that Quinn was wrong about the CHURCH NEWS trend from 1931 to 1955 or that such a trend isn’t significant.
And that sounds like some useful rules of thumb, Dave K, and I’m happy to hear that your impressions have aligned with your bishops’. As I’ve posted about a number of times around here, I do think that our lay ministry and high commitment to our church are very good things. But we also all know that getting overwhelmed can happen and that such is good to avoid.
Anyway, like I said at the top, this post was meant as an overview, and I certainly understand there all these topics are big ones that can (as Stephen S. has demonstrated) be debated at length. If readers want, future posts can go more in depth into how the CHURCH NEWS referred to the president of the Church between 1931 and 1955, or a more full examinations of the many times BY said he was not a prophet. Could get a little tedious, but let me know.
Joseph F. Smith also testified that he doesn’t know if he’s ever received a revelation. But if he has, it is no different than good church men in other faiths. No special revelation given to the president of the LDS church. This also fits with the caretaker model.
Senator Dubois: Have you received any revelation from God, which has been submitted by you and the apostles to the body of the church in their semiannual conference, which revelation has been sustained by that conference through the upholding of their hands?
Joseph F Smith: Since when?
Senator Dubois: Since you became president of the church.
Joseph F Smith: No, sir; none whatever.
Senator Dubois: Individual members of the church can receive individual revelations, can they not?
Joseph F Smith: If I may be permitted, the word “revelation” is used very vaguely here all the time. No man can get revelations at his will. If a man is prayerful and earnest in his desire and lives a righteous life and he desires information and intelligence, he will inquire of the Lord, and the Lord will manifest to him through the presence and influence of his Spirit, his mind, and his will. That would be a revelation to that individual.
The Chairman: What is the answer to the question?
Senator McComas: Is not that an answer?
Senator Foraker: I think it is an intelligent answer, and a very satisfactory one.
Senator McComas: It seems to me it is full.
The Chairman: I want to hear what the question was. Mr. Reporter, will you please read it? (the question is read).
Joseph F Smith: I think I have answered that.
The Chairman: Very well; if you think that is an answer.
Senator Dubois: Have you received any individual revelations yourself, since you became president of the church under your own definition, even, of a revelation?
Joseph F Smith: I cannot say that I have.
Senator Dubois: Can you say that you have not?
Joseph F Smith: No; I cannot say that I have not.
Senator Dubois: Then you do not know whether you have received any such revelation as you have described, or whether you have not?
Joseph F Smith: Well, I can say this: That if I live as I should in the line of my duties, I am susceptible, I think, of the impressions of the spirit of the Lord upon my mind at any time, just as any good Methodist or any other good church member might be. And so far as that is concerned, I say yes; I have had impressions of the Spirit upon my mind very frequently, but they are not in the sense revelations.
In the Reed Smoot Hearings, Joseph F.Smith was very coy and elusive when describing his role as a prophet. He described Prophet, Seer, and Revelator as a title that all apostles carry and it isn’t special or different for the President of the church. He seems quite uncomfortable with the title of Prophet.
Mr. TAYLER. What official position do you now hold in the church?
Mr. SMITH. I am now the president of the church.
Mr. TAYLER. Is there any other description of your title than mere president?
Mr. SMITH. No, sir; not that I know of.
Mr. TAYLER. Are you prophet, seer, and revelator?
Mr. SMITH. I am so sustained and upheld by my people.
Mr. TAYLER. Do you get that title by reason of being president or by reason of having been an apostle?
Mr. SMITH. By reason of being president.
Mr. TAYLER. Are not all the apostles also prophets, seers, and revelators ?
Mr. SMITH. They are sustained as such at our conferences.
Mr. TAYLER. They all have that title now, have they not?
Mr. SMITH. Well, they are so sustained at the conferences.
Mr. TAYLER. I want to know if they do not have that title now.
Mr. SMITH. I suppose if they are sustained they must have that title.
Joseph F. Smith received what is now known as Section 138 — the vision of the spirit world. Maybe the interviews quoted above took place before he received the revelation–?? But however that may be, the fact that he was able to receive such a revelation for the church makes him a prophet, seer, and revelator, indeed–which causes one to wonder if perhaps he had good reasons for not being very forthcoming on that point during said interviews.
Very interesting quotes, Davek, thanks for sharing. To me what JFS is saying there sounds similar to what President Hinckley said to Mike Wallace, when Wallace asked him about his prophetic revelations. (quoted in a comment https://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2025/07/differing-from-church-leaders-a-personal-experience/)
“A still small voice,” which is the rather “common” spiritual experience lots of members claim to have. Like JFS, Hinckley didn’t differentiate the leaders’ spiritual experiences much from the members’.
And yes, we do have a grander vision from JFS in DC 138, and yes that did come later. But for me, I still even see DC 138 as fitting with the caretaker model because that vision didn’t really add much if anything to Joseph Smith’s teachings. JS said that the righteous could preach in the next life and JFS essentially had a vision of such a thing. Essentially confirmed JS’s teachings which is how I see the caretaker model working.
Jack, as I understand, that revelation occurred during a severe illness at the very end of Joseph F. Smith’s life.
Oh, and LHL, my apologies if my response sounded curt. Polygamy is no doubt a huge and concerning topic that deserves more attention. I’ll likely post more about it in the future and certainly understand my limited perspective on the topic as a straight male.
Stephen S. makes a good point – Quinn cites the Church News usage as evidence of a larger point, so if there is evidence that points in the opposite direction of Quinn’s point, that’s important. Also, Stephen S.’s experience with Quinn’s source citations matches my own. If you start digging into his footnotes, a lot of them turn out to be dead ends.
One thing I don’t like about the caretaker model is that it enables an irritating style of criticism of Church leaders: everything they do falls short of Joseph’s vision, etc. On the other hand, I’m pretty sure that Joseph Smith would be absolutely delighted to learn that the church he founded had built up hundreds of billions of dollars in assets, and he would have been especially satisfied to learn that the church had pulled one over on the federal government for 20 years while doing so. So, you know, tradeoffs.
I think the caretaker model falls short with respect to the living aspect of the priesthood. Presiding high priests are not put in place solely to hold the fort down–so to speak. They stand in the place of the Savior and act as conduits of his power–by which means the Lord blesses the saints with everything necessary to get their feet on the high road that leads to eternal life.
And so what we have is an outpouring of gifts and powers that enables individuals to ascend into the presence of God as fast as they’re able. Though it goes unseen by the world–the church is literally bubbling and popping and exploding with the spirit of revelation. It is the lifeblood of the church–and as such it is a quantity that flows directly from Deity by virtue of the priesthood.
A caretaker holds the fort down until the return of the king; a presiding high priest opens the way for direct communion with the King in the here and now.
I don’t think a caretaker model necessarily implies dissatisfaction with or disloyalty to the church — I think one can be wholly faithful and loyal to the church while contemplating a caretaker model.
To me, a caretaker model is closer to truth than the idea all the decisions that are made by the leaders of the church are revealed to them by the Lord Jesus Christ on a weekly or so basis. I believe Gordon B. Hinckley told the truth in the Mike Wallace interview. I believe the parable in D&C 88 points to a caretaker model. I believe God expects church leaders to make decisions on their own by virtue of their offices in which they are sustained by the people, and with the same inspiration that is available to all members.
I allow for revelation when the Lord so decides, but I generally think that such revelation is more rare than in the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and I believe Joseph F. Smith and Gordon B. Hinckley would agree. I also believe what President Oaks has said.
I like a caretaker model because we are all sojourners in the land. I sustain all church leaders in their offices, and pay for God’s guidance for all of us.
I certainly acknowledge our leaders priestly offices, Jack. I’m good with the title of “presiding high priest.”
But my sense, as indicated by both BY’s and JFS’s statements, is that those leaders were uncomfortable with claiming they were prophets (BY often said he was not one), but that both felt that the members insisted that they did have that role. Apparently such a title was not common at least from 1931 to 1955, and it’s my sense that the role of “presiding high priest” but not necessarily prophet is more accurate in terms of the historical data.
Jonathan, my sense is that the claim to prophethood invites plenty of scrutiny from disaffected members. I personally know of plenty of people losing faith over what they see as evidence to the contrary. I think it’s useful to encourage such people to stick around under a different conceptual framework.
If the “caretaker model” means 1) the Lord often leaves decisions to the wise leaders he has chosen rather than telling them everything to do by revelation, and 2) church leaders can and do make mistakes, including being mistaken about whether a particular decision was given by revelation, then I guess I believe in the caretaker model. But those propositions are true for Joseph Smith too. Joseph Smith was certainly an extraordinary prophet, but I don’t see a fundamental difference between him and his successors.
Obviously he received a lot more doctrinal revelation. I’d suggest that’s mostly because the Lord needed his people to have a certain level of understanding to do his work, so the first leader of the restored Church would have to receive a lot of doctrinal revelation. But you could also blame Church members for not being worthy of gaining greater light and knowledge since. (D&C 70:14 suggests our embrace of economic inequality is a factor.) On the other hand, Wilford Woodruff transformed our understanding of the celestial kingdom, and Joseph F. Smith expanded our understanding of the spirit world.
I’ve seen enough leadership by revelation in my ward and stake to be confident general church leaders receive revelation too. A lot of that revelation seems to be about callings, which reinforces the caretaker model in the sense that the Lord sometimes just puts the right people into positions and lets them do their best.
But that’s not all. One thing I learned as a high councilor was that I could wrestle with the Lord–and sometimes it was a long wrestle–until I knew the talk I’d written was the message he wanted me to deliver to the members of our stake. (Of course, proposition 2 of the caretaker model applies to me as well.) Then I’d really hope people were paying attention, because I knew that for some people what I had to say could be life-changing. That experience certainly changed my attitude towards general conference talks.
I completely agree that the idea that prophets are infallible is both false and faith-destroying. Sooner or later everyone realizes that prophets have made mistakes. But that doesn’t mean we should abandon the idea that the President of the Church is a prophet–he is. We just need a more accurate understanding of what being a prophet means.
Again, I do believe in revelation, but I think what I’m proposing here is what I see JFS and Hinckley saying: there isn’t a fundamental difference between the revelation the presidents get and the revelation the members get. Just like bishops, rs, eq, and deacons presidents, the church presidents can get inspiration about their callings. But God doesn’t guide any of those callings step by step.
I’m reminded of a comment Hugh Nibley made in that recorded Book of Mormon class he gave in 1989-90. I can’t remember the context, but a student raised his hand and asked, “I’m a little confused. I’m used to thinking of the prophet as the person that leads the church.”
“No.” Nibley cut him off sharply. “Prophecy is a gift not an office. One of the greatest prophets we ever had in the church was Eliza R. Snow. Prophecy is a gift not an office.”
I agree with Nibley. I do not believe that we can have an institutionalized office of prophet. I think that’s what Brigham Young and JF Smith believed too, but both felt that the membership demanded that they had that gift when they didn’t think they did.
And no, I don’t think that later leaders added much to Joseph Smith’s revelations. I see them as caretakers, “presiding high priests,” but I agree with Nibley: prophesy is a gift not an office.
But being in a church with a leadership structure that seeks inspiration is a good place to be.
Semantics aside (yes, there are at least two different definitions of “prophet” in play) it seems like the innovation here is the suggestion that Joseph Smith was fundamentally different from his successors. Is it that Joseph Smith was a theological innovator who “put together quite a religion” while his successors were not?
That seems to imply that Joseph Smith was the source of the new religion, rather than the person to whom it was revealed (and didn’t leave much for his successors to reveal even though they are fundamentally similar) but I don’t want to put words in your mouth.
” I define Mormon practice more along the lines of Joseph Smith’s teachings than strict adherence to current instructions. ”
I do see you point but …
Shouldn’t you be a fundie then?
RLD, I do see indications that leaders like Young and JFS seemed to view JS as fundamentally different in terms of the revelatory gift. My memory of the answer President Hinckley read in conference (a little different than the transcript) suggested something along the lines of JS getting most of the revelation and later leaders only needed to make usually minor adjustments.
jpv: I talk about polygamy in the OP.
Just finished Second-Class Saints by Harris. This solidified my long held belief that the leaders are care takers. Inspired no more than you and I (generally speaking) but for the church. Great read and I highly recommend the book for a healthy/correct view of church leadership. I have no problem with the “caretaker” view as I have thought that way pretty much all my life, even before I jumped into church history. I also, for the most part, think they do a good job running the church and managing the policy side of things. I think they can do better on the spiritual side, money side, and culture side of things. No new revelations since JS IMO.