{"id":41877,"date":"2021-06-24T07:29:48","date_gmt":"2021-06-24T12:29:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.timesandseasons.org\/?p=41877"},"modified":"2021-06-24T07:29:48","modified_gmt":"2021-06-24T12:29:48","slug":"when-moved-upon-by-the-holy-ghost","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/2021\/06\/when-moved-upon-by-the-holy-ghost\/","title":{"rendered":"&#8220;When moved upon by the Holy Ghost\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>At this point in the year, we\u2019ve finally caught back up with the context of where we began\u2014Section 1.\u00a0 The conference in early November 1831 (at which Sections 1, 67 and 68 were recorded) was focused on publishing the revelations that Joseph Smith had been\u2014a project which would come to be known as the <em>Book of Commandments <\/em>and later <em>The Doctrine and Covenants<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>It is, perhaps, inevitable in a religious movement that believes in both being led by prophets and that everyone can receive revelation that there are going to be tensions about who is able to speak for the Lord.\u00a0 From a revelation sparked by <a href=\"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/2021\/03\/for-he-receiveth-them-even-as-moses\/#_ftn19\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">the Hiram Page incident<\/a> in September 1830, we have the statement that: \u201cNo one shall be appointed to Receive commandments &amp; Revelations in this Church excepting my Servent Joseph for he Receiveth them even as Moses.\u201d<a href=\"#_ftn1\" name=\"_ftnref1\">[1]<\/a>\u00a0 This placed the burden of receiving revelations for the Church squarely on the shoulders of Joseph Smith as the prophet of the Church. \u00a0At the November 1831 conference, however, members of the Church expressed concerns about <a href=\"https:\/\/www.timesandseasons.org\/harchive\/2020\/12\/by-mine-own-voice-or-by-the-voice-of-my-servants\/#_ftn11\">whether the revelations were the Lord\u2019s words or whether they were Joseph Smith\u2019s words<\/a>.\u00a0 Section 67 issued the challenge to \u201cappoint him that\u00a0is the most wise among you or if there be any among\u00a0you that shall make one like unto it then ye are\u00a0Justified in saying that ye do not know that is true\u201d as a way to rebut those concerns.<a href=\"#_ftn2\" name=\"_ftnref2\">[2]<\/a>\u00a0 Section 1 also attempted to address these concerns by stating that\u00a0the revelations \u201cwere given unto my servants \u2026 after the manner of their language,\u201d even though they \u201care of [the Lord],\u201d\u00a0but ultimately sidesteps answering whether the revelations were word-for-word dictations from the Lord or not by stating that it doesn\u2019t matter whether they are Joseph Smith\u2019s words or the Lord\u2019s words because, either way, they are approved by the Lord: \u201cWhether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.\u201d<a href=\"#_ftn3\" name=\"_ftnref3\">[3]<\/a>\u00a0 The overall purpose of these statements was to shore up Joseph Smith\u2019s role as revelator and mouthpiece for the Lord, consolidating the right to speak for the Lord to one person.<\/p>\n<p>In the midst of that same November 1831 conference, however, we have reminders that other people can speak for the Lord as well.\u00a0 For example, Section 1 states that the Lord \u201ccalled upon my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and spake unto him from heaven, and gave him commandments \u2026 that every man might speak in the name of God the Lord, even the Savior of the world.\u201d<a href=\"#_ftn4\" name=\"_ftnref4\">[4]<\/a> \u00a0That indicates that one of the central goals of the Restoration is to facilitate revelation for everyone.\u00a0 Likewise, we have a significant statement in a revelation directed to a group of four elders at the conference who wanted to know the Lord\u2019s will concerning them. \u00a0In that revelation (now Section 68), it is stated that the elders should \u201cproclaim the everlasting Gospel by the spirit of the living God.\u201d\u00a0 The revelation went on to state that:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>this is the ensample unto them that they shall\u00a0speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost &amp; whatsoever they\u00a0shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be Scripture\u00a0shall be the will of the Lord shall be the mind of the Lord\u00a0shall be the voice of the Lord &amp; shall be the power of God unto\u00a0Salvation<a href=\"#_ftn5\" name=\"_ftnref5\">[5]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>This indicates that any elder can speak for the Lord \u201cwhen moved upon by the Holy Ghost.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Still, this opens up the question: How do we know when someone is authentically \u201cmoved upon by the Holy Ghost\u201d?\u00a0 In other words, if everyone <em>can<\/em> speak for the Lord, how do we recognize what is <em>actually<\/em> from the Lord?\u00a0 We can say that we must recognize it through confirmation by the Holy Spirit, but the reality is that, as humans, we\u2019re generally pretty bad at discerning what is the Spirit and what are our own thoughts.\u00a0 This makes it quite difficult at times to recognize truth or to identify official Church doctrine. \u00a0The latter, though easier than the former, is complicated by the fact that individual presidents of the Church and the other high-ranking officers of the Church each have their own set of beliefs and opinions that shape official doctrine, but those don\u2019t always line up with each other, particularly when compared over time.\u00a0 This makes it difficult to pin down what the Church as an institution accepts as the word of Lord and as official doctrine.\u00a0 While human beings may be bad at discerning the Holy Ghost, however, we are relatively good at systematizing things.\u00a0 As a result, over the years, several systems and guiderails have been outlined or suggested by various individuals to help make sense of what the Church\u2019s official stance is on a given topic.<\/p>\n<p>One of the key touchstones from Church leaders is <a href=\"https:\/\/prophetsseersandrevelators.wordpress.com\/2013\/09\/06\/when-are-church-leaders-words-entitled-to-the-claim-of-scripture-by-j-reuben-clark-jr\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">a 1954 address given by President J. Reuben Clark Jr. at BYU<\/a>.\u00a0 Given in the midst of a behind-the-scenes effort to respond to Joseph Fielding Smith\u2019s publication of <em>Man, His Origin and Destiny<\/em> (which advocated positions on topics like evolution to which President David O. McKay did not agree),<a href=\"#_ftn6\" name=\"_ftnref6\">[6]<\/a> the talk focused on the quote from Section 68 that was cited above, asking the question \u201chow shall we know when the things they have spo\u00adken were said as they were \u2018moved upon by the Holy Ghost?\u2019\u201d \u00a0Clark outlined a series of points to use in guiding whether or not we should consider something as having been inspired by the Holy Ghost, largely using statements from the Doctrine and Covenants to support his statements:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>First, he indicated that we \u201cmust be guided by the written word\u201d and are \u201cnot to rely upon his own ideas and concepts.\u201d In other words, texts accepted as canonical scripture in the Church have primacy in determining whether other statements are coming from the Lord.<\/li>\n<li>Second, he emphasized that the first principles (repentance, keeping the commandments, faith on the Savior, baptism and receiving the Holy Ghost) should be our primary focus, since he felt that: \u201cIt would not be easy to preach false doctrines, undetected, on the first principles of the Gospel.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>Third, he noted that while \u201csome of the General Authorities have had assigned to them a spe\u00adcial calling\u201d that includes \u201cthe right, the power, and authority to declare the mind and will of God to his people,\u201d only those officers who are \u201cspiritually endowed as a prophet, seer, and revelator\u201d have that calling. Further, \u201conly the President of the Church \u2026 has the right to re\u00adceive revelations for the Church, either new or amendatory, or to give authoritative interpretations of scriptures that shall be binding on the Church, or change in any way the existing doctrines of the Church.\u201d\u00a0 Because of that, all other authorities \u201cmust act and teach subject to the over-all power and authority of the President of the Church.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>Fourth, he acknowledged that \u201cthere are many doctrines \u2026 that have not been of\u00adficially defined and declared\u201d and that there have been times when apostles have \u201cspo\u00adken \u2018out of turn,\u2019 so to speak\u201d by stepping beyond the bound in the third point in stating beliefs about these ill-defined doctrines. Beyond that, \u201cThere have been rare occasions when even the President of the Church in his preaching and teaching has not been \u2018moved upon by the Holy Ghost.\u2019 You will recall the Prophet Joseph declared that a prophet is not always a prophet.\u201d\u00a0 The only ways he indicated we could know this had happened was \u201cby the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members\u201d as a Church or when a subsequent President of the Church declares that the previous teaching was wrong.<a href=\"#_ftn7\" name=\"_ftnref7\">[7]<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Thus, President Clark indicated that the baseline rules are that not everything a general authority says is scripture, that there are well-defined tenets that can be looked at as reliable and other doctrines that are more speculative in nature (and thus less reliable), that the Church\u2019s canon has primacy in determining doctrine, and that the current President of the Church is the only fully-authorized arbiter of Church doctrine.<\/p>\n<p>While Clark\u2019s address was notably cited by Elder D. Todd Christofferson in a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.churchofjesuschrist.org\/study\/general-conference\/2012\/04\/the-doctrine-of-christ?lang=eng\">2012 general conference address<\/a>, a more fully-developed system of determining doctrine based on President Clark\u2019s remarks comes from BYU professor Robert Millet.\u00a0 As outlined in his 2003 essay, <a href=\"https:\/\/rsc.byu.edu\/vol-4-no-3-2003\/what-our-doctrine\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">\u201cWhat Is Our Doctrine?\u201d,<\/a> he looked at ways for religious educators in the Church to \u201ckeep the doctrine pure.\u201d\u00a0 A few of his key points were to \u201cteach directly from the scriptures, the standard works,\u201d to \u201cpresent the doctrine the same way the prophets in our own day present it\u2014in terms of both content and emphasis,\u201d to \u201cpay special attention to the scriptural commentary offered by living apostles and prophets in general conference addresses,\u201d to \u201cfocus on fundamentals, and emphasize what matters most,\u201d and to \u201cacknowledge that there are some things we simply do not know.\u201d\u00a0 While that list seems to be derivative from Clark\u2019s address, Millet went on to state that:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>In determining whether something is a part of the doctrine of the Church, we might ask, Is it found within the four standard works?\u00a0 Within official declarations or proclamations?\u00a0 Is it discussed in general conference or other official gatherings by general Church leaders today?\u00a0 Is it found in the general handbook or approved curriculum of the Church today?\u00a0 If it meets at least one of these criteria, we can feel secure and appropriate about teaching it.<a href=\"#_ftn8\" name=\"_ftnref8\">[8]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>This takes things a bit beyond President Clark\u2019s approach by providing more systematic approach of weighing beliefs based on current Church publications.<\/p>\n<p>The latter part of Millet\u2019s approach bears similarities to an idea <a href=\"https:\/\/www.dialoguejournal.com\/articles\/the-fading-of-the-pharaohs-curse-the-decline-and-fall-of-the-priesthoods-ban-against-blacks\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">proposed by Latter-day Saint and sociologist Armand Mauss<\/a>.\u00a0 While addressing the issue of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.timesandseasons.org\/harchive\/2020\/09\/reconsidering-the-curse-of-ham\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">racist<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.timesandseasons.org\/harchive\/2020\/08\/reconsidering-the-curse-of-cain\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">teachings<\/a> that supported the priesthood and temple ban on individuals with Black African ancestry, Mauss noted that \u201cthe changing definitions surrounding the black man in Mormon history raises the question \u2026 of just what is authentic doctrine in the Church?\u201d\u00a0 He proposed viewing teachings through the lens of a \u201cscale of authenticity,\u201d with four levels of doctrinal authenticity in the Church\u2014canonical, official, authoritative, and folklore.\u00a0 In this scale, <em>canon doctrine<\/em> includes \u201cboth doctrines and (for these purposes) policy statements which the prophets represent to the Church as having been received by direct revelation, and which are subsequently accepted as such by the sustaining vote of the membership\u201d (in other words, our scriptures or Standard Works).\u00a0 <em>Official doctrine<\/em> includes \u201cstatements from the president or from the First Presidency \u2026 also, church lesson manuals, magazines, or other publications appearing under the explicit auspices of the First Presidency.\u201d\u00a0 <em>Authoritative doctrine<\/em> is characterized as \u201cother talks, teachings and publications of authorities on Mormon doctrine and scripture,\u201d particularly those from people with authority from \u201chigh ecclesiastical office (e.g., Brucer R. McConkie), or from formal scholarly credentials and research (e.g., Hugh Nibley).\u201d\u00a0 Folklore, or <em>popular doctrine<\/em>, is a residual category for anything that cannot claim the authority of the higher three categories, such as \u201capocryphal prophesies that often circulate around the Church; common beliefs \u2026 and a host of other notions having either local or general circulation.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Mauss went on to indicate that \u201ca particular doctrine can be found in all four categories,\u201d and that \u201cit is rare for a doctrine in a given category to not have some \u2018following\u2019 in the <em>lower <\/em>categories.\u201d\u00a0 He felt that \u201cwhat becomes crucial for us to determine, however, is how <em>high <\/em>up the scale is the <em>primary source<\/em> of a given doctrine or policy.\u201d<a href=\"#_ftn9\" name=\"_ftnref9\">[9]<\/a>\u00a0 He also indicate that these categories were not permanent for any given doctrine, with changes in both directions having occurred in the past (such as happened with the doctrines surrounding the priesthood\/temple ban, since their status has gone from folklore to official doctrine and back to folklore over the course of the Church\u2019s history).<a href=\"#_ftn10\" name=\"_ftnref10\">[10]<\/a>\u00a0 Changes do make the process messy, since it takes time for doctrines to shift between categories, resulting in some contention between members who assess the level of authenticity of a given doctrine differently.<\/p>\n<p>Systems such as those described by Clark, Millet, and Mauss are useful in determining what the Church currently accepts as official doctrine, or (in other words), what statements can be officially treated as having been given while the speaker was \u201cmoved upon by the Holy Ghost.\u201d\u00a0 In any case, measuring my own words by any of these systems, I cannot be said to be saying anything authoritative, so I\u2019ll wrap this post up here.<\/p>\n<p>What do you think of these different systems? \u00a0How do you approach discerning what statements are inspired by the Lord and which ones aren\u2019t as inspired?\u00a0 What are some statements and beliefs that you\u2019ve had to weigh in this way?<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Footnotes:<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref1\" name=\"_ftn1\">[1]<\/a> \u00a0\u201cRevelation, September 1830\u2013B [D&amp;C 28],\u201d p. 40, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed March 16, 2021,\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.josephsmithpapers.org\/paper-summary\/revelation-september-1830-b-dc-28\/1\">https:\/\/www.josephsmithpapers.org\/paper-summary\/revelation-september-1830-b-dc-28\/1<\/a><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref2\" name=\"_ftn2\">[2]<\/a> \u201cRevelation, circa 2 November 1831 [D&amp;C 67],\u201d p. 115, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed December 26, 2020,\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.josephsmithpapers.org\/paper-summary\/revelation-circa-2-november-1831-dc-67\/2\">https:\/\/www.josephsmithpapers.org\/paper-summary\/revelation-circa-2-november-1831-dc-67\/2<\/a>. Compare D&amp;C 67:6-7.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref3\" name=\"_ftn3\">[3]<\/a> D&amp;C 1:24<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref4\" name=\"_ftn4\">[4]<\/a> D&amp;C 1:17, 20.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref5\" name=\"_ftn5\">[5]<\/a> &#8220;Revelation, 1 November 1831\u2013A [D&amp;C 68],&#8221; p. 113, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed June 23, 2021, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.josephsmithpapers.org\/paper-summary\/revelation-1-november-1831-a-dc-68\/1\">https:\/\/www.josephsmithpapers.org\/paper-summary\/revelation-1-november-1831-a-dc-68\/1<\/a><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref6\" name=\"_ftn6\">[6]<\/a> See Gregory A. Prince and Wm. Robert Wright, <em>David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism<\/em> (Salt Lake City, University of Utah Press, 2005), 46-49.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref7\" name=\"_ftn7\">[7]<\/a> Clark, J. Reuben. \u201cWhen Are the Writings or Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture?,\u201d in <em>Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought<\/em> Vol. 12, No. 2, 68-81.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref8\" name=\"_ftn8\">[8]<\/a> Robert L. Millet, \u201cWhat is Our Doctrine?\u201d, <em>The Religious Educator<\/em>, Vol 4 No 3, 2003, 15-33.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref9\" name=\"_ftn9\">[9]<\/a> See pp. 32-34 in Armand Mauss, \u201cThe Fading of Pharaoh\u2019s Curse,\u201d <em>Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought <\/em>14, 3 (Fall 1981):10-45, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.dialoguejournal.com\/articles\/the-fading-of-the-pharaohs-curse-the-decline-and-fall-of-the-priesthoods-ban-against-blacks\/\">https:\/\/www.dialoguejournal.com\/articles\/the-fading-of-the-pharaohs-curse-the-decline-and-fall-of-the-priesthoods-ban-against-blacks\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref10\" name=\"_ftn10\">[10]<\/a> See Harris, Matthew L; Bringhurst, Newell G.. The LDS Gospel Topics Series: A Scholarly Engagement (p. 298). Signature Books. Kindle Edition.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>At this point in the year, we\u2019ve finally caught back up with the context of where we began\u2014Section 1.\u00a0 The conference in early November 1831 (at which Sections 1, 67 and 68 were recorded) was focused on publishing the revelations that Joseph Smith had been\u2014a project which would come to be known as the Book of Commandments and later The Doctrine and Covenants. It is, perhaps, inevitable in a religious movement that believes in both being led by prophets and that everyone can receive revelation that there are going to be tensions about who is able to speak for the Lord.\u00a0 From a revelation sparked by the Hiram Page incident in September 1830, we have the statement that: \u201cNo one shall be appointed to Receive commandments &amp; Revelations in this Church excepting my Servent Joseph for he Receiveth them even as Moses.\u201d[1]\u00a0 This placed the burden of receiving revelations for the Church squarely on the shoulders of Joseph Smith as the prophet of the Church. \u00a0At the November 1831 conference, however, members of the Church expressed concerns about whether the revelations were the Lord\u2019s words or whether they were Joseph Smith\u2019s words.\u00a0 Section 67 issued the challenge to \u201cappoint him [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10397,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2895,18,53],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-41877","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-come-follow-me-currculum","category-general-doctrine","category-latter-day-saint-thought"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41877","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/10397"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=41877"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41877\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":41878,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41877\/revisions\/41878"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=41877"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=41877"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=41877"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}