There seems to be some occurrences of revelation within the Mormon church that have been a result of (or at the very least coincided with) societal pressures.
The Word of Wisdom was received as a result of Emma Smith complaining to Joseph Smith about cleaning up tobacco spit from the floor of the School of the Prophets. The Manifesto was issued around the same time that Utah wanted to become a state in a country where plural marriage was illegal. The revelation to extend the priesthood to all males was issued in an era of a civil rights movement.
Can society be a catalyst for revelation? Does God need to wait for a prophet to approach Him with a problem before issuing a revelation? Can any society issue put enough pressure on the Church that a revelation changing policy/doctrine be issued?
The examples you cite are some of the best examples I know of to show that current events both can and should be catalysts for revelation.
That’s the great thing about having a living Prophet. He can give us direct, up-to-date guidance on the events and challenges of our own time.
Of course, he can also receive revelation that’s completely unexpected. Sometimes the Lord just has something to tell us whether we’re asking or not. Sometimes he waits for us to ask.
I think that is a testimony to the power of prayer. I think in most instances where revelation is given, it is the result of prayer.
This also means that the brethren are not exempt from prayer (Brother of Jared), they don’t necisarily have a direct line to the big guy. As a matter of fact, I am willing to bet they pray more than most people just to be sure they don’t miss anything the lord wants them to know. lol.
Can society be a catalyst for revelation? Does God need to wait for a prophet to approach Him with a problem before issuing a revelation? Can any society issue put enough pressure on the Church that a revelation changing policy/doctrine be issued?
1. Yes.
2. No, but he usually does.
3. Depends on the policy/doctrine in question.
Considering adding to your list the change in priesthood membership. It occurred at a time of great civil rights pressure in the U.S.A.
Already done, as above:
The revelation to extend the priesthood to all males was issued in an era of a civil rights movement.
So no one, not a single one of you, views this as bowing to external pressures?
Very Interesting.
Rick: How can you show that the external pressure is the ONLY factor? In every one of the examples Kim gave, the Prophets made perfectly clear that they were motivated by external “pressure” to go to the Lord about an issue. In consequence, they obtained the Lord’s will about it.
There’s really no logical way of proving that the Prophet received NO inspiration on a particular issue. (That’s why I was near-apoplectic in my lengthy debate with Kim about Relief Society funding.)
I don’t think Rick was saying it is the only factor.
If it’s not the only factor, then I don’t see how it can be “bowing” to external pressure. If the outside pressure is just what the Prophet says it is (a reason to go to the Lord and find out his will)and if the Prophet really is receiving his will (meaning that the outside pressure isn’t the only factor) then how is it “bowing”? It’s just exactly what the Prophet says it is.
I just find it interesting that the membership would be ‘behind the curve’ rather than leading the way on moral and social issues.
That is if you buy the whole ‘living prophet with a conduit to God’ thing, which I assume every member does…
Rick: About being “behind the curve”–
Do you think the Church was “behind the curve” in bringing forth the Word of Wisdom? Maybe behind the curve would have been some point after the Surgeon General’s report on lung cancer, not in the early 19th Century. The Word of Wisdom was ahead of the curve.
Do you think the US Government was “ahead” of the Church in systematically persecuting and tearing apart polygamous families, and in throwing men in prison for lovingly supporting more than one family? Do you think the way the Church was treated in those days was a result of our being “behind the curve”? Was there something more morally advanced about a society that tolerated (and still tolerates) multiple or serial adultery but doesn’t tolerate organized plural marriage?
Do you think the Church would have been “ahead of the curve” by extending the Priesthood before the Lord gave his permission? Prophets from the time of Joseph Smith on had been asking the Lord about this, and they had all been told it wasn’t time yet. Perhaps you think they should have substituted their own judgment for revelation. Would that have put them ahead of the curve?
“Prophets from the time of Joseph Smith on had been asking the Lord about this, and they had all been told it wasn’t time yet.”
Apparently you are not familiar with the history of this practice then.
Joseph Smith did in fact ordain blacks to the priesthood. The closest he came to denying blacks the priesthood was that black slaves could not be ordained (then again, he also said the could not be baptised) without permission of the slave owners.
Brigham Young, on the other hand, modified the practise in 1852 to include all blacks.
At least two prophets were not praying to ask that the ban be lifted.
Kim, I’m aware of everything you said about the history of the Priesthood. All I meant to express was this: Joseph Smith had blacks living in his own home as guests. One of them was a woman I learned about in a Church history course at BYU. She asked several Presidents of the Church to be sealed to her husband. They all faced the question. They all sought the will of the Lord. They all found it was not yet time for the Priesthood to be extended, until a revelation was received in 1978.
And good grief, I hope I haven’t caused this thread to veer off and become a tangential discussion all about the history of blacks and the Priesthood. :(
“She asked several Presidents of the Church to be sealed to her husband . . . They all sought the will of the Lord.”
“Do you think the Church would have been “ahead of the curve” by extending the Priesthood before the Lord gave his permission? Prophets from the time of Joseph Smith on had been asking the Lord about this”
Those are two completely different issues.
I don’t think the issues are completely different. One really flows from the other. The sealing of husbands and wives is dependent on the husbands having the Melchizedek Priesthood. When we perform temple ordinances for the dead, we ordain men to the Melchizedek Priesthood after they receive baptism and before they receive the other ordinances.
In any case, my main point is that there wasn’t a single President of the Church who didn’t have to confront the question. It was always there before them. Some of them, I believe, personally wanted to extend the Priesthood. Yet they all concluded that it wasn’t yet the Lord’s will to extend the Priesthood until 1978.
If the Presidents who felt a desire to extend the Priesthood had simply done so, substituting their own will for the will of God, that would not have placed them “ahead of the curve” or “leading the way.” That is, unless one thinks that choosing one’s own path and diverging from the Lord’s will is “leading.”
“Yet they all concluded that it wasn’t yet the Lord’s will to extend the Priesthood until 1978.”
That isn’t true.
Joseph Smith did did extend the priesthood to blacks. He ordained blacks to the priesthood himself. He did not have to confront the Lord about whether to extend the priesthood to blacks because he did extend the priesthood to blacks.
Brigham Young didn’t confront the questions either. He disagreed with Joseph Smith all along on blacks receiving the priesthood. When he was made president of the Church, he simply matched the policy to his beliefs and then used weak scriptures to support it.
Kim, it seems to me that you’re claiming to know the mind of Brigham Young. As in previous threads, you claim the remarkable gift of KNOWING that there was no revelation or inspiration in President Young’s actions.
But to make you happy, let me limit my assertions. Instead of discussing whether “Presidents of the Church from the time of Joseph Smith” had faced this issue, let me just say that the issue had existed long before the time of Spencer Kimball. At least several Presidents of the Church had thought about whether this should be done (obviously including Brigham Young). And every one of them had declined to extend the Priesthood. Some of them wanted to. At least one of them brought the issue before the Twelve. But during all that time, not one of them announced that the Lord’s will had been revealed and that the long-awaited time had come for that extension. Not until 1978.
I do hope at some time you’ll get back to my main point, which is that substituting one’s own will for the revealed will of God, rather than waiting for the Lord’s permission, is not “leading” or being “ahead of the curve.”
It has nothing to do with knowing the mind of Brigham Young. I am not making this up or suggesting I can see what Brigham Young is thinking. This is based on what I have read from others’ research.
I highly recommend the book “Black and Mormon”. It is a good starting point to understanding the history of not extending the priesthood to blacks.
Itbugaf
Here you go http://www.press.uillinois.edu/f04/bringhurst.html
Kim’s right there is a lot more than meets the eye about black men not receiving the Priesthood and as Kim said, there were many blacks who recieved it when Joseph Smith was alive.
Kim, when you say here that President Young “simply matched the policy to his beliefs and then used weak scriptures to support it,” then you stating absolutely and categorically that his decision had no basis in revelation, was completely uninspired, and was purely the product of his own opinions. If you say that, then you are claiming to know his mind, regardless of whether you base your “knowledge” on someone else’s research or not. You are likewise claiming to know God’s mind, and to know it better than President Young did.
On one side of this issue I have you telling me that Brigham Young just made this up and that his decision did not reflect the will of God. On the other side, I have subsequent Prophets, especially including Joseph Fielding Smith, who tell me that it was not man but God that set the restriction in place–that the restriction came by revelation and that only by revelation from God could it be lifted.
Which side do you recommend I should believe? You or the Prophets?
Which ever you feel better believing.
Well, I’ve never heard of a Primary song titled “Follow the Blogger.” I guess I’ll follow the Prophets. :)
Hmmm, has anybody mentioned that the church was AHEAD of the curve on such issues as anti-slavery and a woman’s right to vote
Nermal, you’re joking, no?
Members owned slaves when other states were abolishing the practice.
In regard to the women’s vote issue: The misogynistic tendencies of the LDS still remain evident to this day. The practice of polygamy itself is such a polar opposite to the women’s rights movement that it alone could act as an indicator of a lack of social development of the church. Saying,’The ladies can have a vote and then we’ll do what we want with it’, is not exactly a resounding backing of women’s suffrage.
Rick: Your conclusion, or assumption, that the practice of polygamy is inherently antithetical to women’s rights is based on what?
Or are you just saying it’s a polar opposite to the “women’s rights movement”? I guess it could be true, depending on how you define said “movement.”
Rick: I’m also wondering, if the Church was so darn pro-slavery, why the Missourians were so afraid they would tip the vote in favor of abolition? That was one of the main points of friction between the Saints and the other Missourians back in the days of Far West etc.
I’m pretty sure Joseph Smith spoke out against slavery and got hassled for it.
Anyhow, under the “opinions” blog
I refered readers to the “What is ‘official’ LDS doctrine?” article which also addresses the issue of prophets being inflenced by their cultural environments. I think it covers the subject of social influences better than I could do it.
Joseph Smith advocated, in his presidential campaign, a system of abolishing slavery and compensating slaveholders for the losses they would suffer. The same kind of system was advocated by other leaders at the time; I believe (but am not sure) Lincoln was one of them. Instead of this more peaceful option, my country chose to end slavery by way of slaughering hundreds of thousands of its people in a gruesome civil war.
ltbugaf, are you honestly going to tell me that polygamy is not inherently misogynistic? If so, then we will have to agree to disagree since I do not think that we’d have any common ground upon which to begin a discussion.
Smith’s church and Young’s church disagreed on the treatment of blacks. This is a fact. To argue that the church has been ahead of the curve in regard to equal rights would imply that, due to revelation from God, the church has consistently maintained that all peoples were created equal.
If this was indeed a dictate from God – given to Joseph – then the policy would not have changed with different prophets in between that time and the 1970’s. If the church was given this information and indeed has had a conduit to God in the intervening years, there would have been no need for the 1978 proclamation.
That is the worst case scenario. It behooves the church to say that the whole race issue was, in fact, personal opinion of Young et al and the intervening years between Smith and 1978 were a time when prophets were not listening to God on this issue.
It’s a pretty nasty scenario and one in which the prophets sit in a pretty murky social dilemma.
Oh, Rick, this is just silly. You said, “If this was indeed a dictate from God – given to Joseph – then the policy would not have changed with different prophets in between that time and the 1970’s.”
Are you paying any attention? I didn’t say it was given to Joseph. I said Brigham Young proclaimed it and that subsequent Prophets (whose word I trust, for some reason, more than yours) upheld it as having come from the Lord. They also looked forward to a day when the Priesthood would be extended. The day came.
Rick: Please explain how any and all polygamy is automatically and inherently worse for women than any and all monogamy.
ltbugaf, I do not care to discuss the priesthood or when it was given to blacks. I am talking about the concept that all people have equal rights. Joseph was accepting of blacks and his views were reflected in the stance of the church. Brigham thought blacks were chattel and the church under his leadship reflected these views.
Enlightened, God-inspired men do not hold to views which are wrong. Brigham was wrong. All the prophets from Young to 1978 were wrong. I honestly believe that if President Carter hadn’t threatened to remove the tax-except status from all organizations which had documented tenants which were racist – the church may still have waited years before changing its’ policy.
In regard to the polygamy issue, I’m not sure we can have a discussion on this. If your flavour of monogamy is as stifling and oppressive as polygamy is to women, we may have little to discuss.
So: The Prophets are all wrong because Rick says so, and polygamy is misogynistic because Rick says so.
You’re right. We have nothing to discuss.
By the way, anyone out there care to show me that Moses was *WRONG* in restricting the Priesthood to only certain family lines? Was he violating human rights?
Is everyone convinced that holding the Priesthood is a RIGHT? I’m not.
Except, lbutgraf, it wasn’t Moses who restricted the priesthood. The “Lord confirmed a priesthood . . . upon Aaron and his seed” (D&C 84:18), not Moses.
According to whom? Moses. So Moses declared that it was God’s will that the Priesthood should be restricted.
Brigham Young and his successors also made such a declaration, and waited for the day when it would be expanded.
According to Jesus. He’s the one speaking in that passage.
Who wrote it down? Did Christ come into your living room and write it in your Bible? No. He gave the word to Moses. Moses declared it. According to the Bible, Moses wrote it. Prophets declare the will of God. They did it anciently and they did it in the 19th Century. And they do it today.
Sorry for referring to the Bible when you were referring to the D&C. Of course, the same truth applies: Joseph Smith declared those words from God. That’s what prophets do.
Joseph Smith wrote it down, I assume. Granted, it could have been one of his scribes. After all, I am not sure of the exact setting when D&C 84 was revealed to Joseph Smith.
The Lord confirmed the Priesthood upon Aaron and his seed through Moses. Moses was the one who declared who would receive the Priesthood and who wouldn’t. Like Brigham Young, he said he was following the Lord’s will.
This is becoming a tangle. Let me see if I can paint a bigger picture of what I’m trying to say:
1. Moses told the Israelites that it was God’s will for the Priesthood to be restricted to only certain men. His testimony that he was actually declaring God’s will and not his own was confirmed by at least one later Prophet, Joseph Smith.
2. Brigham Young told the Latter-day Saints taht it was God’s will for the Priesthood to be restricted to only certain men. His testimony that he was actually declaring God’s will and not his own was confirmed by later Prophets, including Joseph Fielding Smith and others.
You want me to believe the first prophet but reject the second. Why?
Racism is wrong – society says so.
Polygamy is wrong – society says so.
If you’d like to argue that racism is okay, then perhaps that’s a topic for another day.
Polygamy has no redeeming values. It is a bad thing.
It’s not about me being right, it’s about these truths being self-evident.
As a corollary: Arguing the virtues of a system based on sub-selections of the bible, generally, won’t serve to sway my view. If you’re directing comments in my direction, reliance on a good argument would be time better spent. That’s just me – with others it may hold more credence. FYI
Do you have a reference that we can read that states the Lord confirmed Aaron through Moses? Do you have a reference that we can read that states Brigham Young said it was God’s will to restrict blacks from holding the priesthood?
“Racism is wrong – society says so.
Polygamy is wrong – society says so.”
Why should society dictate church policy?
I suppose that it could be argued that God was racist for denying the Blacks the Priesthood.
Ploygamy is wrong, if God says so. It’s ok if God says so. Again, society does not dictate church policy, at least I hope not.
Society may be a catalist for the prophets to inquire of the lord, but the day that the church makes it’s decisions on public opinion and not on revelation, is the day that the church is fallen.
Fortunately, we have already been told that the church will never fall again.
Rick: Why would I be directing comments your way? You already said you didn’t care to discuss the topic. You sure keep coming back a lot for a guy who doesn’t want to talk. I already know you think right and wrong are determined by what society says rather than by what God says, so why repeat yourself?
Kim: You said, “Do you have a reference that we can read that states the Lord confirmed Aaron through Moses? Do you have a reference that we can read that states Brigham Young said it was God’s will to restrict blacks from holding the priesthood?”
I don’t have much of a library at hand right now, so the answer is, For the time being, no.
In the meantime, let me ask you if you’re willing to provide references for your assertions: What reference do you have showing that God bypassed his prophet Moses for some unnknown reason and laid His own hands on the heads of Aaron and the Levites? Do you really claim that God didn’t act through Moses?
Likewise, do you have any statement from President Young indicating that, in this area of leading the Church, he was completely abandoning God’s will and acting on his own? Is there some journal reference you found in your research of the topic where he recorded that he was just imposing his own opinions on the Church?
I kind of think the burden of proof ought to lie on the one who’s telling people not to believe the Prophet. That’s you, not me.
“What reference do you have showing that God bypassed his prophet Moses for some unknown reason and laid His own hands on the heads of Aaron and the Levites?”
D&C 84:18 is the only reference I have for that. Maybe I am reading it too literally, though; although, I do not see any reason not too.
“Do you really claim that God didn’t act through Moses?”
I claim a literal interpretation of D&C 84:18. If I am given scriptural proof to the contrary, then I’d be more than happy to change my mind. At this point, the only scriptures with which I am familiar regarding Aaron receiving the priesthood state he received it from the Lord.
“Do you have any statement from President Young indicating that, in this area of leading the Church, he was completely abandoning God’s will and acting on his own?”
No. The closest I have of this is the absence of any documentation whatsoever that his decision was based on revelation. Not that it matters. I wasn’t the one who brought for the claim, so I do not see why the onus lies with me to back it up.