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?
Well, I may or may not be able to find some references. If I do I’ll get back to you.
itbugaf
My husband is not telling people not to believe the Prophet. You do not know him at all if you believe he is saying this in any way.
ian, so murder is okay if the church says so.
Adultery is okay if the church says so.
Rape is okay if the church says so.
If it’s not as self-evident to you that these things are wrong, then you and I have very differing versions of morality.
I feel that the fact that polygamy and racism are wrong as well.
I you don’t then I imagine you can reconcile anything with – God says it’s okay.
Mary, I think Kim is a devoted member of the Church. I don’t know how anyone could function as an Elders Quorum President without being really dedicated.
But I also think that Brigham Young told people that he was pronouncing the will of the Lord, and I’m certain that subsequent Prophets told people that Brigham Young was pronouncing the will of the Lord. Kim is telling people that Brigham Young wasn’t pronouncing the will of the Lord–that they shouldn’t believe the Prophets who say so. I think our earlier posts made that very clear.
However, we’re now at the “give me a specific reference to back that up” stage, and I’m kind of handicapped. I’ve read plenty of material that I don’t have available and can’t lay my hands on, so I’ll have to see if I can find anything and Kim will have to see if he can find anything, and maybe both of us can have sort of open minds.
Since your last comment was aimed directly at me let me respond directly to you, ltbugaf.
I have not said I don’t wish to discuss this topic, I said that the discussion would be difficult if you do not believe that polygamy was oppressive to women. If I did not want to talk, I wouldn’t bother to post (as irresistible as this blog is).
Right and wrong, to me, are not necessarily defined by society, but the two issues we’ve been discussing are obviously wrong.
Do you think polygamy is okay?
Do you think that racism is okay?
Do you correspond to ian’s view that if someone says that ‘God says so’, it must be right?
If that’s the case, then you need a better method of determining when it’s God doing the talking and not some prophet shooting from the hip.
I sure wouldn’t want to hang my hat on some comment without validation, when there are eternal consequences at stake, no?
Rick: What on earth makes you think I was directing my last post at you when it started out with Mary’s name?
Gee, I must not be smart. I thought when you said, “ltbugaf, I do not care to discuss the priesthood or when it was given to blacks,” that you meant you did not care to discuss the Priesthood or when it was given to blacks. But on to your latest questions:
I don’t believe it is INHERENTLY wrong to practice polygamy. I don’t think that being married to two women and treating them both with love, honor and respect is worse than being married to one woman and treating her with love, honor and respect, especially when both have given their consent. I think it’s wrong to practice polygamy without authorization from God, and it’s right to do it when God authorizes it. As it happens, the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants agree with that point of view–or more accurately, I agree with them.
I do think that racism is wrong. However, I don’t think that acting under the direction of God to limit the Priesthood–which is NOT A RIGHT–to certain men is racist. In fact, if you believe the Priesthood is a fraud (which you seem to) then you have to figure that those who are deprived of participating in the fraud are better off, not worse.
Kim: I’ve managed to make a small start on finding some references for you. The first one has to do with the Lord speaking through Moses. You have to start at Exodus 25:1 to understand that this section is the Lord speaking to Moses. Then you continue the long list of instructions the Lord is giving him until you come to Exodus 28:1, where he tells Moses, “And take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office, even Aaron, Nadab and Elihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron’s sons.”
I interpret this as meaning that the Lord was acting through Moses when Aaron and his seed were consecrated as Priests. (I do also see that mine isn’t the only interpretation one can possibly make, but I think it’s the strongest and most reasonable one.)
I’ll try to find more if I can.
Rick: I guess since you’re back in, I really should address something you said to ian: “Adultery is okay if the church says so. Rape is okay if the church says so.”
Show me an example of the Church telling people to commit adultery or rape, and then your question will have meaning. Otherwise, it has none.
Kim: Here’s one of the references I was thinking of earlier:
“If a Negro is baptized and remains true and loyal, he will enter the celestial kingdom, but it is not the authorities of the Church who have placed a restriction on him regarding the holding of the priesthood. It was not the Prophet Joseph Smith nor Brigham Young. It was the Lord! If a Negro desires to join the Church, we will give him all the encouragement that we can, but we cannot promise him that he will receive the priesthood.” Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, Volume 2.
But what is JFS basing this on?
After all, Hugh B. Brown stated that “if we had admitted the Negro to the church as a full member, at the time of Joseph Smith, we would have had more trouble with the government than we then had. Holding ourselves aloof from that until after the Civil war gave us the opportunity to establish the church without that question coming to the front. It was, in other words, a policy, not necessarily a doctrine” (Memoirs of Hugh B. Brown, page 129, emphasis added).
So, on one hand we have one apostle saying it was revealed by the Lord. On the other hand, we have another apostle saying it’s simply a policy, and not necessarily doctrine.
Hey ltbugaf,
Let us consider a story that involves Joseph Smith, Fanny Alger, an angel with a flaming sword and the subtexts of infidelity and statutory rape…
Kim, you ask what Joseph Fielding Smith is basing his statement on, but doesn’t the same question apply to Hugh B. Brown’s statement?
lbutgraf,
He stated what he based his statement on. The potential trouble with the government they avoided.
He also said on the same page that he doubted “if we can maintain or sustain ourselves in the position we have adopted but which has no justification in the scriptures“.
So, according to Elder Brown ti was a policy unsubstantiated by scripture and implemented to avoid conflict with the government.
Rick: That’s funny, I thought you wanted to talk about whether polygamy is “inherently misogynistic,” or about whether “Polygamy is wrong – society says so” or whether “Polygamy has no redeeming values. It is a bad thing.” In other words, I thought you wanted to talk about the intrinsic, inherent goodness or badness of plural marriage. Now instead, you want to talk about the details of a particular story you’ve heard or read about Joseph Smith, then about whether your sources are reliable, whether the details are substantiated by more than rumor, and so on and so on. I don’t really have the means to do that. If you want to argue details like that you may want to take it up with LDS historians.
Why not stick to talking about the actual assertion you’ve made–that polygamy is inherently evil? Have you modified your position?
Kim, I’m pretty sure Hugh B. Brown wasn’t in the leading councils of the Church in the period leading up to the US Civil War. So he’s not more qualified to discuss the history of the policy or the reasons for it than President Smith.
You also said that according to Elder Brown “it was a policy unsubstantiated by scripture and implemented to avoid conflict with the government.”
I’m trying to keep my mind open, but Elder Brown’s private musings in a personal memoir carry less weight in my mind than President Smith’s open declaration to the entire Church in a Church publication (the Improvement Era, from which Answers to Gospel Questions was compiled).
“Elder Brown’s private musings in a personal memoir carry less weight in my mind than President Smith’s open declaration to the entire Church in a Church publication”
Why would JFS’s words carry more weight with you than HBB’s? They were both prophets, seers and revelators at the time they made their statements.
Kim: “Why would JFS’s words carry more weight with you than HBB’s? They were both prophets, seers and revelators at the time they made their statements.”
Because one was being made in an official capacity to the Church and one was being made in a private musing by the author to himself.
It might also be valid to consider that President Smith’s statement was made while he was President of the Quorum of the Twelve whereas Hugh B. Brown was not, although I don’t know how important that factor is.
“Because one was being made in an official capacity to the Church and one was being made in a private musing by the author to himself.”
So are you saying that one must take into consideration the context surounding a statement given by a geneal authority?
“It might also be valid to consider that President Smith’s statement was made while he was President of the Quorum of the Twelve whereas Hugh B. Brown was not, although I don’t know how important that factor is.”
It’s not. The president of the Twelve has no more keys or right to revelation than one of the members of his quorum (granted, HBB was not a member of JFS’ quorum when it was stated, but rather Ezra Taft Benson’s).
ltbugaf asked “Show me an example of the Church telling people to commit adultery or rape, and then your question will have meaning.”
…and I answered.
I have not said anything was ‘evil’, I have said these things were bad and wrong. And they are.
I’ve come to the conclusion that you’re just being purposefully obtuse since you’re not longer discussing the topic and are now discussion me.
When you want to continue civil on topic discourse, I’m ready when you are.
Kim: “So are you saying that one must take into consideration the context surounding a statement given by a geneal authority?”
I assume you’re asking this to set me up for a real zinger, but yes– I do think the context of such a statement matters. I thought that was obvious from the start. I hope you don’t think I’ve argued otherwise.
I’d also like to argue just a TINY bit with the second, rather unimportant and collateral point: You said, “The president of the Twelve has no more keys or right to revelation than one of the members of his quorum.” I don’t think that’s so. A quorum president has keys of presidency that give him a right to revelation regarding his presidency. As Elders Quorum President, you have keys that the Elders in your quorum don’t have.
“I do think the context of such a statement matters.”
Are you suggesting that it is possible for general authorities to teach their own opinions, and that we should consider the context of those opinions when trying to understand them?
“A quorum president has keys of presidency that give him a right to revelation regarding his presidency.”
Thomas S. Monson (and for that matter Boyd K. Packer) have all the same keys as David A. Bednar. No more, no less. Nevertheless, even if he president of the 12 did have additional keys as you suggested above, those keys would not extend to declaring doctrine outside of his quorum.
Rick: If I accepted your premise that Joseph Smith practicing the ordinary prerogatives of marriage with a wife other than Emma Smith amounted to rape and adultery, then I guess there’d be something to talk about. But I just don’t accept that premise.
Oh and I appreciate your educating me–I never knew that “bad” and “wrong” were never the same as “evil.”
You also said, “you’re not longer discussing the topic and are now discussion me.” I don’t see the ad hominem attack in my statement to you. For example, I didn’t call you obtuse. But I guess, being the purposely obtuse individual you say I am, I’m just not capable of seeing it.
I do think it is possible for General Authorities and Prophets to express their own opinions. I know, for example, that Alma explicitly offers his opinion on the resurrection in the Book of Mormon.
Another example: I think it is quite likely that a General Authority who is thinking to himself on paper in a personal memoir is expressing opinions, or conjecture, or just wondering about things. It is far less likely that the President of the Quorum of the Twelve, in an official Church publication, which may be reviewed by the First Presidency (though this became likelier after full correlation), making an explicit doctrinal declaration to the whole Church, is merely expressing personal views.
ltbugaf, it’s just that evil has such a ‘heaven and hell’ connotation to it.
How old was Fanny? How do you define statutory rape?
Was Joseph married to Fanny prior to any sexual contact? Who married them and on what date?
I hope I can continue to educate you. Finding the answers to these questions will be a good start. ;)
Rick: You should feel free to find the answers to these questions and any others you want to research. If you care to offer them to me by way of education, feel free.
Kim: Don’t know if you’re still interested in any more references, but I think this quote from Spencer W. Kimball about the Priesthood policy is important:
“There are members of the Church who had brought to President David O. McKay their reasons why it should be changed. Others had gone to Joseph Fielding Smith and Harold B. Lee and to all the former presidents and it had not been accepted because the time had not come for it” (Deseret News, Church Section, January 6, 1979, p.15).
Kim: To your credit, I am somewhat persuaded to be ambivalent about the circumstances of President Young’s original declarations. I don’t yet find a statement by him EXPLICITLY stating that the Lord had REVEALED to him that the Priesthood should be restricted. I do find him making statements that the restriction was required. In the context of those statements, I also see him drawing other conclusions which, in light of the 1978 revelation, simply must be regarded as incorrect (in my opinion). On the other hand, he did predict that the day would come when blacks would qualify for the Priesthood.
Anyway, just thought I should let you know I’m trying to follow my own advice and keep my mind open.
In case anyone is still reading this thread (which seems to be mostly exhausted and abandoned), I suppose I should explain what I meant in the last post.
The statements I can find so far from President Young seem to conclude that (1) blacks could not have the Priesthood at the time (true), and (2) they would be the last group of people on earth to receive the opportunity to hold the Priesthood (true). But then, if I understand him correctly, President Young seems to go on to conclude that they would not receive the Priesthood until after the resurrection (false).
ltbugaf,
That’s because there are no such statements. Or rather, if there are, church historians and other researches have yet to find them.
Are you still convinced that his decision was not simply based on his opinion?
Well, I would like to point out that all people, whether they were non-Levites or blacks, were offered the exact same salvation and exact same opportunity for eventual exaltation as anybody else.
It appears that whether or not the original decisions on this matter were actually doctrinal, it had nothing to do with blacks as having less eternal potential and therefore less eternal value.
But the one thing we do have an equal “right” for is to receive the blessings of the priesthood, which is really the important thing here don’t you think? The preisthood is not a status symbol or something to be used for personal gain, it’s a service. Don’t forget that even priesthood holders cannot give themselves a blessing, they have to go find another preisthood holder to do it, just like anybody else.
Of course I wish this restriction had never existed, and I can’t say I can fully understand why it did with my mortal perspective, but I just thought I might point these things out.
Here is a question. Is God sexist because he made it so men cannot bear children? This is an important service for the survival of mankind! Somebody has to do it but clearly only one gender has been given this “priviledge”. Is it wrong or unfair that men simply aren’t meant to do it? The obvious answer would be the same as it would to any other accusation of racism and sexism aimed at the church.
My last point was merely to state that the delegation of roles to different groups of people, (as a means to an end that will be equally beneficial to all), does not automatically qualify as racism or sexism.
Also, society doesn’t have the best track record for deciding what is “good” or “bad”. And doesn’t it depends on what society you live in? An Arabic society would define “good” and “bad” quite differently than us. They are just as sure as we are that they are correct in their thinking. Up until recently society deemed homosexuality to be “bad”. Other societies still do. Would you say thay are they right simply because they are “society”? Society is not actually an entity, society is merely a group of people with differing opinions. Just because something is supported by the majority does not prove it’s “goodness. Society is not a reliable measuring device in and of itself.
Rick: Fanny was possibly anywhere from 16 to 19 years old. It is important to note that in the society of her era the average woman married between the ages of 16 and 20.
Didn’t John and Amy (Bullock) Ripley get married at 17? Didn’t Jennifer Hoy elope at 15 with an adult-aged dude? I’m not saying I would recommend or prefer such choices, but I don’t think there are any statutory rape issues here.
Statutory rape laws are to determine a minimum age that a person can consent to voluntary sex while having the maturity to understand what they are getting themselves into. I imagine that in reality this maturity level will vary from person to person.
And you can’t claim that all young teenaged girls would not be interested in a man in his 20s or 30s either. I’ve seen evidence to the contrary.
Anyhow, there is no evidence of sexual relations before the Joseph/Fannie marriage. Not even Robert Compton, in his very thorough yet anti-polygamy historical compilations makes such a claim as far as I know. There is no direct evidence of when they were married, though the best speculation is 1835 when Fanny was 19.
Sorry, that last comment was me. Didn’t mean click that anonymous buttom but I;m half asleep. Time to go to bed now. :|
Kim: President Young isn’t the only one qualified to state that his actions reflected the will of the Lord at the time. In order to reach the conclusion you’re asking me to reach–that Brigham Young’s actions had utterly no approval from God or basis in revelation–I still have to choose to believe you rather than believe Spencer W. Kimball or Joseph Fielding Smith. I don’t feel particularly inclined to do that.
Kim: “Are you still convinced that his decision was not simply based on his opinion?”
To accept your conclusion–based on historical research and not on revelation–that President Young’s actions were utterly contrary to the will of God, and were completely uninspired and lacking in revelation, I would have to disbelieve Spencer W. Kimball and Joseph Fielding Smith in the statements quoted above. I believe them more than I believe you.
Again, what is JFS basing his statement on? He certainly isn’t basing it on anything BY said? I don’t see how anything in SWK’s quote has anything to do with the nature of BY’s change in policy.
You may find t interesting that in 1969, the First Presidency (minus David O McKay and Harold B. Lee, as they were away) and the 12 voted to end the policy. When HBL returned, he called for a second vote, and the result of the first vote was turned down because HBL thought the decision should be prompted by a revelation. Yet, 13 prophets, seers and revelators originally did not see the necessity in a revelation in order to cancel the ban.
So you believe Harold B. Lee was wrong and that he led the Church astray?
No.
I think the “policy” versus “doctrine” issue is a red harring. Policy can be (and often is) implemented by virtue of revelation. If God says “build a ship” then that’s what we do, even though building a ship has little to do with what we consider to be core doctrine. If the priesthood ban was only a policy it doesn’t necessarily follow that it was uninspired.
That said, it seems evident that some of the reasoning among the leaders supporting such a policy was pure specualtion. That sort of thing happens all the time. But, again, it doesn’t follow that the implementation of such a policy was wrong because the reasoning as to “why” may have been speculative. We, therefore, are unable to prove that Brigham Young was wrong to implement such a policy as we are unable to prove that he was uninspired when he did so.
Jack
Oops,
That’s red herring with an “e.”
Jack
Likewise, we are unable to prove that Brigham Young was right to implement such a policy as we are unable to prove that he was inspired when he did so.
Except, that on at least one occasion he pronounced, in the name of Christ, that blacks were not to have the priesthood at that time. And if memory serves me correctly (as it’s been a while since I’ve read those passages in the JD) He said it in such a way because many were aware of the dichotomy between his stance on the issue and that which had been practiced by Joseph Smith.
Again, that doesn’t prove anything one way or the other. However, when a prophet says (in so many words) “thus sayeth the Lord” he’s really digging himself a pit if what he’s saying isn’t what the Lord would have him say.
Jack
We both know, however, that making a declaration in the name of Jesus Christ is not the same as saying “Jesus sent me a revelation”. We say things throughout the Church every week, if not more often, in the name of Jesus Christ, yet they are not necessarily revelations.
And to be frank, I think Brigham Young dug himself a pit on more than one occasion.
Be that as it may, if the current president of the church were to stretch forth his hand and say–in the name of the Savior–that such and such a thing should be done, we’d all be jumping a little higher than we normally do.
For me, it boils down to our tendency to arrogantly judge all ages past by our narrow view of what is currently socially acceptable. How many of us can truely stomach the idea of being commanded to kill every living thing in a neighboring country? And by so doing, proving our faithfulness to God? How many of us can stomach the idea of running sabbath breakers off the nearest cliff? These things are deplorable to us and yet I don’t know of anyone who’s refuting their veracity as commandedments for those to whom they were given.
I find it odd that generations of prophets are judged as being bigoted and spiritually insensitive because they would not allow blacks to have the priesthood when we have no way of knowing that they were wrong! And further more, I would like anyone to prove that the church was, in those days, farther behind other religions of the west interms of mingling with African Americans. We allowed them to be members and to sit in the same congregation. That’s a far cry from what many other churches were willing to do at the time.
There are some who say that in order to make sense of the past we have to knuckle under and just admit that the church was racist. I can concede to that point of view. However, that doesn’t mean that the “policy” was uninspired. IMO, the very reason the ban was put into place is because we, both whites and blacks alike, were not ready to stand shoulder to shoulder together in the kingdom. Call it racism by today’s standards, if you will.
Jack
Kim: You say while the President of the Church and a member of the Twelve were missing, the President’s counselors and the remaining apostles (including, by the way, Joseph Fielding Smith) discussed extending the Priesthood with some members missing. They were willing to do so at that time. But of course, they couldn’t make that decision at the time because they lacked the authority: The decisions of the Twelve must be unanimous or they aren’t valid. (See D&C 107:27) Then, when Elder Lee and President McKay returned, they considered the question again and decided that the Lord had not clearly revealed his will that the Priesthood be extended. You seem more interested in the preliminary discussions by partial quorums than in the authorized conclusions reached by the full quorums.
President McKay and Elder Lee were either right or wrong. You say they weren’t wrong. But if they weren’t wrong, then they were right. If they were right then a revelation was definitely needed in order to cancel the ban. Yet you still seem to argue that it was just a policy and could have been overturned without revelation.
“But of course, they couldn’t make that decision at the time because they lacked the authority”
Then why did they vote on it and make a decision?
“If they were right then a revelation was definitely needed in order to cancel the ban.”
Actually, many of the apostles at the time felt that a revelation was needed because it was unclear on whether Brigham Young instituted the ban because of a revelation or not. Sort of like a let’s-be-sure step.
“Yet you still seem to argue that it was just a policy and could have been overturned without revelation.”
Itbugaf,
The above statement may be somewhat rhetorical, but just in case it isn’t–I think it’s important to keep in mind that some policies are not likely to be overturned without revelation. IMO, Kim’s argument that the ban was merely a policy still doesn’t address whether or not it’s implementation was inspired.
Jack
“Then why did they vote on it and make a decision?”
Their vote wasn’t a binding one without the full quorum and without the President of the Church. In effect, they weren’t really making a decision until the full quorums could be there. Why they chose, as part of their preliminary discussions, to hold a vote, I don’t know. Obviously the First Presidency couldn’t do this without the President and Twelve couldn’t do this without all twelve. When they were all together, they came to a final and binding decision, which was to await further inspiration and revelation. You seem to suggest that their final decision was a mistake whereas the first “decision” (as you call it) was correct.
Jack, I think we’re in agreement. I don’t even know if it matters whether President Young’s initial implementation of the policy was inspired. The fact that subsequent Presidents of the Church, including at the very least David O. McKay, Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. Lee and Spencer W. Kimball, considered the CONTINUATION of the policy to be inspired, is really enough for me. I also believe that if you conclude you aren’t sure whether a Prophet is acting on revelation or simply exercising his authority the best he knows how, you give him the benefit of the doubt.
Anonymous you state “Be that as it may, if the current president of the church were to stretch forth his hand and say–in the name of the Savior–that such and such a thing should be done, we’d all be jumping a little higher than we normally do.”
Uhhhhhh correct me if I am wrong but how many current prophets have we had that have told us to get our year food storage in, pay our tithing, attend our meetings etc etc??? Last time I checked members aren’t jumping very high for anything… It’s called complacency… we have gotten in the mindset that unless Heavenly Father comes straight to stand in front of us to say something we dismiss it as fast as it takes for us to turn the computer off after General Conference.
Sally,
You’re kinda making my point. When was the last time a prophet said “thus sayeth the Lord” or issued counsel in the name of God?
I think you’re right that we have a propblem with complacency. I know I do. Thank goodness the prophets tend to lead a little more kindly these days. (at least it seems that way to us, according to our interpretation of the past) The “kinder-gentler” approach allows us greater opportunity to learn what our hearts are really made of.
Is my comment number 100? If so, kewl.
Jack