In an 1892 sermon (partially quoted in Lesson 5 of the current Relief Society/Priesthood manual), Wilford Woodruff discussed the importance of ongoing revelation for the church, saying:
Oh! ye Latter-day Saints, you talk about revelation and wonder if there is any revelation. Why, bless your souls, say nothing about the Apostles and Elders around me, these mountains contain thousands upon thousands of devoted women, holy women, righteous women, virtuous women, who are filled with the inspiration of Almighty God. Yes, these women have brought forth an army of sons and daughters in these mountains by the power of God, and these sons and daughters partake of the inspiration of their mothers, as well as of their fathers. I will ask you, what are these Apostles doing when they rise up and preach to you? What are these Elders of Israel doing when they bear record here to the Latter-day Saints and to the world, if they have not inspiration and revelation? There is not a man on the footstool of God Almighty today who has power to preach the Gospel and testify to its truth, only by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Yes, we have revelation. The Church of God could not live twenty-four hours without revelation.
What kind of revelation does President Woodruff have in mind in this sermon? Is he concerned exclusively with the kind of revelation that involves the voice of the Holy Ghost to an individual’s heart, or are the more elaborate forms of visions and manifestations included? President Woodruff’s sermon certainly shows no reluctance to describe more overtly miraculous forms of revelatory experience, and even to claim such experiences as his own. In a rather beautiful turn of phrase, Woodruff states that,
I have travelled, I may say, in the midst of visions, in the midst of the administration of angels, in the midst of the power of God.
This life experience certainly seems to have included personal visionary experiences, as when, in this same talk, Woodruff says:
And I wish many times that I had power to express to the Latter-day Saints what is in my heart, and what the vision of my mind opens unto me in those sessions when I am inspired with the Spirit and power of God to see what lies before this people and before this generation.
President Woodruff’s claim about the necessity of revelation for the survival of the church thus seems to invoke a concept of revelation that includes the “still, small voice” of the Spirit to people’s emotions, but also visionary manifestations of various kinds. (For the full text of Woodruff’s sermon, click here. The link was provided by Justin Butterfield.) Does the historical record suggest that such revelatory experience has always been abundant in the church?
In fact, there is some historical evidence that church leaders have not always had the constant access to revelation that Woodruff describes as necessary for the church’s survival. One particularly vivid piece of evidence on this issue comes from Joseph F. Smith’s testimony before Senate committee hearings about whether Apostle Reed Smoot ought to be allowed to retain his Senate seat. Smith’s testimony, given in March, 1904, is a remarkable moment: on that occasion, the president of the church testified, under oath, about central beliefs and realities of the Mormon church. Some of the questioning focused on President Smith’s personal experience of revelation (in the Senate transcript, President Smith is referred to as Mr. Smith; the Senate evidently did not use his religious titles):
Senator Hoar: Does or does not a person who does not believe that a revelation given through the head of the church comes from God reject a fundamental principle of Mormonism?
Mr. Smith: He does; always if the revelation is a divine revelation from God.
Senator Hoar: It always is, is it not? It comes through the head of the church?
Mr. Smith: When it is divine, it always is; when it is divine, most decidedly.
The Chairman: I do not quite understand that — “when it is divine.” You have revelations, have you not?
Mr. Smith: I have never pretended to nor do I profess to have received revelations. I never said I had a revelation except so far as God has shown to me that so-called Mormonism is God’s divine truth; that is all.
The Chairman: You say that was shown to you by God?
Mr. Smith: By inspiration.
The Chairman: How by inspiration; does it come in the shape of a vision?
Mr. Smith: “The things of God knoweth no man but the spirit of God;” and I can not tell you any more than that I received that knowledge and testimony by the spirit of God. (United States Congress, Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections. Proceedings before the Committee on privileges and elections of the United States Senate in the matter of the protests against the right of Hon. Reed Smoot, a senator from the state of Utah, to hold his seat … [Jan. 16, 1904-April 13, 1906], vol 1, pg. 99)
In this testimony, President Smith disavows any experience of inspiration or revelation other than the receipt of the standard testimony professed by most active church members. Kathleen Flake’s outstanding history of the Smoot hearings describes, in chapter 4, the turmoil produced in Utah by this part of President Smith’s testimony. Flake also notes that Smith, in a speech to a local conference,
said that in denying he received revelation, he was only trying to avoid the “trap” designed by his “inquisitors.” He reassured the audience that God “has made manifest to me a knowledge of the truth by and through spirit of revelation.” (Flake 2004: 96)
This statement, of course, essentially reiterates Smith’s claim during the Senate hearings to have received a standard testimony of the church through the power of the Holy Ghost. However, President Smith once again does not claim to receive the ongoing revelation or inspiration that Woodruff described as necessary for the church’s survival.
Much more recently, Gordon B. Hinckley has confirmed that ongoing revelation is not the standard experience for church leaders. In a 1997 interview with an ABC news program, President Hinckley and journalist David Ransom had the following exchange:
RB: As the world leader of the the Church, how are you in touch with God? Can you explain that for me?
GBH: I pray. I pray to Him. Night and morning. I speak with Him. I think He hears my prayers. As He hears the prayers of others. I think He answers them.
RB: But more than that, because you’re leader of the Church. Do you have a special connection?
GBH: I have a special relationship in terms of the Church as an institution. Yes.
RB: And you receive……..
GBH: For the entire Church.
RB: You receive?
GBH: Now we don’t need a lot of continuing revelation. We have a great, basic reservoir of revelation. But if a problem arises, as it does occasionally, a vexatious thing with which we have to deal, we go to the Lord in prayer. We discuss it as a First Presidency and as a Council of the Twelve Apostles. We pray about it and then comes the whisperings of a still small voice. And we know the direction we should take and we proceed accordingly.
RB: And this is a Revelation?
GBH: This is a Revelation.
RB: How often have you received such revelations?
GBH: Oh, I don’t know. I feel satisfied that in some circumstances we’ve had such revelation. It’s a very sacred thing that we don’t like to talk about a lot. A very sacred thing.
Two aspects of this dialogue seem of particular note in comparison with President Woodruff’s statement above. First, President Hinckley has essentially ruled out the more magnificent kinds of manifestations that Woodruff discussed as a standard part of the experience of revelation; for Hinckley and the rest of the modern leadership, apparently, revelation is exclusively a matter of feeling the “still, small voice.” Second, revelation via the Holy Ghost would seem to be far from an everyday experience in church leadership and decision-making. As Hinckley describes the situation in this interview, the church leadership only receives revelation “occasionally,” “in some circumstances,” when the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are faced with some unusually “vexatious thing.”
Can the church survive twenty-four hours without revelation? Judging on the basis of President Joseph F. Smith’s sworn testimony from the beginning of the twentieth century, it would seem that the church has in fact survived through periods of years without revelation to its president. Furthermore, if President Hinckley’s statements at the end of the twentieth century may be taken seriously, it would seem that the church currently survives for significant stretches without revelation or inspiration.
How are we to resolve this all? Was President Woodruff wrong about the necessity of revelation? Were Presidents Smith and Hinckley somehow using a different, and higher, threshold for considering something to be revelation than Woodruff was (in spite of the evidence in the texts quoted above that all three men considered the “still, small voice” of the Holy Ghost to be revelation)? Did the church need revelation in the late nineteenth century but not now? Were Smith and Hinckley attempting to finesse the issue for a nonmember audience? Or are church leaders not now experiencing the extent of revelation that nineteenth-century Mormons believed to be an essential trait of the true church?
For readers who are interested in thinking more about the relevance of revelation for the modern church, I would recommend Jeffrey Gilliam’s excellent work on the subject.
I think that there is a difference between inspiration and revelation. I think a revelation represents the mind of the Lord pretty much exactly eg official dec. #2. I think inspiration is the Lord refining/influencing our own ideas and desires so is essentially a mixture of the Lord’s will and our own to a lesser or greater extent. I think/hope the leaders of the church are moving by inspiration all the time, but I don’t think there is a need for daily revelation. Is there anything since official dec. #2 we could call revelation as opposed to inspiration?
In addition, I think at times the leaders of the church may receive more than the still small voice. I seem to recall Elder Haight and Elder Hales talk of personal visions/angels from the general conference pulpit within the last few years. I imagine such experiences were more for personal benefit. Interestingly, I think both experiences came during very physically (health related) trying circumstances. I think in regard to President Smith’s and President Hinckley’s comments to the senate/media President Hinckley’s final remarks are instructive: “It’s a very sacred thing that we don’t like to talk about a lot. A very sacred thing.”
RT,
Nice post. Now, I don’t know if I’m missing something but it seems pretty clear that WW is talking about the Church as a body of membership, not necessarily just the Q12 or prophet. And in that sense I agree that the whole of the membership couldn’t then and couldn’t now survive 24 hours without (personal) revelation happening. Without each of us following the Spirit in our own stewardships then the Church falls apart.
There is an interesting Discourse by Woodruff Collected Discourses vol. 1, pg. 215 called “The Administration of Angels,” where he describes his fantasitic experiences but states that they all lead to the need to have the “Spirit of the Lord.”
I think that there is a big disconnect between the public and private. Smith was obviously being disingenuous…he gave us Sec 138 for heavens sake. McKay gave several examples of fantastic revelation in private, but left none written. The only reason we know about OD2 is becasue a renegade Church historian.
So, I believe that the Lord appeared to Snow, that McKay touched Jesus and that there was a pentacost in 1978…I also think the public policy is that we hear the still small voice.
A quick response, J. Clearly, the Section 138 vision is dated well after Smith’s testimony before the Senate. Smith’s vision was on October 3, 1918; his testimony was in March, 1904. So I don’t think Section 138 can be used as evidence that Smith perjured himself in his testimony to the Senate.
True. I don’t want to say that he perjured himself. But I think disingenuous is fair. While 138 is anachronistic, there is his famous “late but clean” dream/vision while on his first mission.
I do agree that what is considered a revelation has drastically chaged as well.
Actually, J., I would say that disingenuous is a more than fair description of Smith’s testimony. Earlier in his testimony, he claimed that his only title in the church was “President.” When asked if he also had the title “Prophet, Seer, and Revelator,” he would only admit that he was sustained as such. Smith’s stubbornness makes the transcript of his testimony wonderful reading, I think. But when read carefully, it seems to me that Smith routinely picks his words carefully to give as little information as possible while never actually lying. Hence, I think his claim never to have had a revelation, other than a basic testimony of the church, should be given some weight — although, as always, other evidence needs to be considered.
There are two things which really bug me when discussing this topic:
1) the equivocation between revelation and inspiration
If these are the same, then why is our church special? Indeed, why should I even go to church, since I can get more personalized “revelation/inspiration” in the comfort of my own home? If this is all the leaders are getting, then why do we consider them so special? In what sense are they prophets while we are not? And so on.
2) the “these are sacred matters” line
Must sacred mean secret? Who ever said it was sacred? If it was said to be sacred by God, why? It obviously wasn’t sacred in the same sense for Joseph.
Both seem like not too subtle attempts to steer the conversation away from the question at hand.
RT, I think that you are missing J’s point. President Smith was hardly likely to discuss the inner workings of church revelation with a Senate committee. I doubt this would constitute perjury in any case. I wonder if you are really taking audience into consideration in comparing the Woodruff statements to the Smith/Hinckley ones. One could argue that Smith/Hinckley are being evasive because they are uncomfortable with the line of questioning, not necessarily that they don’t believe they have received revelation. They are speaking to a wide audience, trying to make the church seem rational and doable.
Jeff,
Regarding #1, the claims we have regarding whether or not we should listen to the prophets are not based on the individual revelatory experiences of the prophets. Rather they are based on our revelatory (or, if you prefer a distinction, inspirational) experiences. Of which we are actively encouraged to have more and to have them more often. No-one has ever said that we are incapable of being prophets and no-one has said that we should try to not be prophets. Quite the opposite, actually.
Regarding #2, sacred does not mean secret. Sacred means “in the appropriate audience.” This should be obvious from the fact that we have whatever stories we have. If you don’t think that Joseph considered his audience in decided what to talk about, I don’t know what to tell you. I get the impression that it was a consideration.
gomez, thanks for your comments. I think that there can sometimes be a distinction between inspiration and revelation. On the other hand, the church presidents quoted here seem to generally use the two interchangeably.
Rusty, that’s a nice interpretive idea. Woodruff seems to be speaking about church members who wonder if the top leadership is receiving ongoing revelation, but it’s possible that he’s responding by, in effect, saying, “It doesn’t matter if we are, because all of you are.” That would be compatible with the other two presidents’ statements and would perhaps lead to the overall conclusion that the church does not, in fact, need ongoing revelation at the highest level.
J. Stapley, on your broader point, I agree that church leaders have left accounts of charismatic experiences during the 20th century. At the same time, they don’t seem to have been recorded with anything even remotely resembling the frequency of the 19th century. While I am as willing as you are to take those recorded experiences seriously, we’re still left with a pattern of evidence that is compatible, at least, with Hinckley’s description in which revelations to the top leadership are only occasional. That’s fine, of course, if we are willing to move away from an interpretation of Woodruff’s quote as requiring constant revelation to the leadership.
Jeff, I’m generally sympathetic with your frustration here. Even so, as I mentioned earlier in this comment, the presidents I’ve quoted above really do seem to use revelation and inspiration interchangeably. Your distinction between the two is analytically useful, but isn’t always respected in the relevant sources.
And I certainly agree that visions and revelations were treated quite differently in the 19th century (and the early 20th century) than they are today. Some of Joseph’s visions were described in missionary tracts during his lifetime, and descriptions were published in church newspapers. The new, sacred-and-secret position would thus seem to represent a genuine change in the culture of our leadership. Even so, I’m not immediately sure that this cultural change is intended to change the topic. I am not aware of any evidence which would contradict the idea that our leaders have sincerely come to believe that the Lord no longer wishes them to discuss charismatic experiences.
John, I agree that evasiveness on the part of Smith and Hinckley is one way to account for these public statements. At the same time, I kind of dislike the resulting image of our church leaders as people who in effect try to “trick” outsiders into holding a false idea of what our church is about. Nonetheless, as I mentioned in the final paragraph of the post itself, I see this as one way of resolving the questions raised by the sources quoted here.
To me the most striking thing about the Hinckley quotes is where he says “I think He hears my prayers….I think He answers them,” and then later “I feel satisfied that in some circumstances we’ve had such revelation.” It seems oddly equivocal, even considering the audience.
I’m wondering if anyone has examples of more definitive statements by Hinckley given to more appropriate audiences?
RT,
Nice compilation of quotes for your post. I think the weak link in your post is your assertion about President Woodruff’s position. You are claiming he said that that church could not survive one day without daily dramatic revelation to top leaders. But I don’t think he said that at all. First of all, there is Rusty’s point that in the first quote Woodruff is talking about the revelation/inspiration all of the members receive — not the top leaders. Second, there is nothing in that quote that implies the need for daily dramatic revelation anyway:
It seems clear to me that he is talking about revelation that is exemplified by the term “always have his spirit to be with them”. And he is talking about it for all of the saints. You (and Jeff) are trying to point out a disconnect between the revelation they used to get and the revelation received now and I think that distinction is largely fabricated.
(As you know, I wrote a series of posts and debated at length with Jeff on this subject between July 16 and August 2 of 2005. See those posts here.)
ed, that’s a great question. It seems to me that Hinckley in particular has a marked tendency to equivocate on these issues regardless of the audience. Even so, I’m eager to see if anyone else can come up with an answer to this.
Geoff, as I stated in response to Rusty above, I think that’s a useful response to these data. Even so, I think the quoted statements are important, because it’s probably helpful for people to realize that there is some historical evidence in favor of the position that our leaders don’t receive frequent revelatory experiences — just, perhaps, occasional ones.
When asked if he also had the title “Prophet, Seer, and Revelator,” [Smith] would only admit that he was sustained as such.
Didn’t Hinckley say the same thing when asked the same question on TV?
[Smith] reassured the audience that God “has made manifest to me a knowledge of the truth by and through spirit of revelation.”
I remember a similar reassurance from Hinckley in general conference after the publication/broadcast of some of his remarks to the effect of “I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it,” when he later got up in front of the LDS conference audience and assured everyone that he really did know the doctrine, and everyone chuckled.
Sorry I only have my memory to go by on those. But the similarities are enough to make me wonder whether Hinckley might have studied the Smith remarks and patterned his own remarks after Smith’s example.
RT - Perhaps I am misunderstanding the position you are taking here then. If your only point is that leaders of the church do not receive daily dramtic revelations then I heartily agree. IN fact I think ancient scriptures support this pattern (where prophets go for decades with no recorded dramatic doctrinal revelations).
Ed - I think President Hinckley has a long history of demurring when asked about his own prophetic role. I see it mostly as an indication of his personal humility.
Beijing, I don’t have a hard citation, and Google is being unhelpful. But Hinckley did say in an interview, “I am sustained as such,” in response to a question about whether he was a prophet. Joseph F. Smith’s wording was a little bit different, but the substance was similar. I also think that you make a reasonable comparison between Joseph F. Smith’s tactic of doing damage control in a conference where few outsiders would hear and Gordon B. Hinckley’s approach in terms of maximizing uncertainty in public statements and minimizing it in statements to church members.
Hinckley may well have read the history regarding Joseph F. Smith from the 1900s. But, if so, my guess is that he would not choose to use it as a model. After all, Smith’s statements in this period created serious uncertainty and unrest among church members. My guess is that’s not Hinckley’s goal.
Geoff, I’m not sure that I’m taking a position here at all. This is the kind of post where I’ve collected a few interesting primary sources related to a topic. I’ve sort of put the sources end-to-end, suggested that there’s a tension (although not necessarily a contradiction) among them, and hoped that an interesting discussion would result.
That said, the evidence seems to perhaps go a bit further than your summary. What Hinckley describes as the revelatory experience is pretty much the undramatic, still-small-voice kind of experience. And even that is said to be something that we “don’t need a lot of”. So, if this statement is to be taken seriously, then the conclusion may be not just that leaders don’t receive daily dramatic revelations — but rather that they only occasionally receive revelation of any kind, including the least dramatic varieties.
I do think that the rates of prophecy, revelation, glossolalia, visions, dreams and healings are much lower on a per capita basis now compared to the 19th century.
The early saints viewed such things as the signs that followed the true church, now they are viewed by many as bizare self delusion. While I think that some of what was experianced in the 19th century wasn’t completely authentic, there was a premium placed on the charasmatic manifestations of the spirit. Perhaps as the members have come to indentify less with the revelatory culture, seeing the hand of God elsewhere, so to has the institutional church.
I think statements in contexts like Senate committees and media interviews are pretty worthless for the purposes of serious elucidation of doctrine, because the rhetorical context is so different from that of the Woodruff quote that it’s practically comparing apples and oranges. In the face of questioning that ranges from hostile to unsympathetic to merely curious, the prime directive is to not come off looking like a religious nut. Talking to God makes one sound like a religious nut, so they avail themselves of the ineffability and ill-definedness of revelation to soft-pedal significantly. They are simply not going to cast their pearls.
Having said that, I agree there aren’t any indications that big spectacular revelations are occurring. The way I would guess they view it is that Woodruff’s “every moment” is just the common view of having the “constant companionship” associated with the gift of the Holy Ghost, a fulfillment of the sacrament promise to “always have his Spirit to be with you.”
In the context of the guidance of the Church by revelation, this means they have enormous faith in the process of unanimity in councils (D&C 107). In exercising their legitimate stewardship, when 15 people with the gift of the Holy Ghost start a discussion from 15 different points of view and come to unanimity, they understand this as the Lord having guided their decisions (or at least it not being grossly against his will).
I had never heard of Pres. McKay touching the Savior. Where can I learn more about that?
President Hinckley made the “sustained” comment in the 1997 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle:
“Q: You are the president, prophet, seer and revelator of the Mormon Church?
A: I am so sustained, yes. (Laughter)”
In the same interview, he also discussed revelation:
“Q: And this belief in contemporary revelation and prophecy? As the prophet, tell us how that works. How do you receive divine revelation? What does it feel like?
A: Let me say first that we have a great body of revelation, the vast majority of which came from the prophet Joseph Smith. We don’t need much revelation. We need to pay more attention to the revelation we’ve already received.
Now, if a problem should arise on which we don’t have an answer, we pray about it, we may fast about it, and it comes. Quietly. Usually no voice of any kind, but just a perception in the mind. I liken it to Elijah’s experience. When he sought the Lord, there was a great wind, and the Lord was not in the wind. And there was an earthquake, and the Lord was not in the earthquake. And a fire, and the Lord was not in the fire. But in a still, small voice. Now that’s the way it works.”
President Hinckley spoke about media interviews at the next General Conference (October 1997):
“The media have been kind and generous to us. This past year of pioneer celebrations has resulted in very extensive, favorable press coverage. There have been a few things we wish might have been different. I personally have been much quoted, and in a few instances misquoted and misunderstood. I think that’s to be expected. None of you need worry because you read something that was incompletely reported. You need not worry that I do not understand some matters of doctrine. I think I understand them thoroughly, and it is unfortunate that the reporting may not make this clear. I hope you will never look to the public press as the authority on the doctrines of the Church.”
My reponse to these quotations is that the Church doesn’t seem much different than other organizations in its decisionmaking process. Other churches also have counsels, also ask the Lord in prayer, and also feel that they are guided in their decisions. Even non-religious organizations use councils and deliberate issues, deciding them based on precedent and experience.
While I agree that we need to pay more attention to the revelation we’ve already received, it seems to me that there is an enormous need for revelation in our day. There are significant issues that many members want answers about, including historicity of the Book of Mormon, questions that arise from the “new” Mormon history, many unresolved issues about LDS doctrine and philosophy, etc.
To the extent that we are left with trying to interpret the scriptures, relying on vague inspiration, tradition, and precedent, how is that different from other religions that also seek to interpret their holy books with divine guidance?
Jonathan N., very astute comment. I largely agree. That’s one reason I lean Spinozist, i.e. secular. I didn’t say I thought the council procedure was ontologically valid, i.e. leads to “real” revelation—only that that’s how I think the prophets themselves understand it.
[…] a random John points out the necessity of occasionally questioning our personal revelations, while RoastedTomatoes asks if frequent revelation is necessary at all? […]
J. Stapley, I find that position entirely reasonable. In particular, there seems to have been a complete, Weberian institutionalization of charisma; the hand of God is rarely seen as acting these days other than via the bureaucratic procedures of the church.
Christian, I agree that the audience for different statements needs to be taken into account. In particular, statements to the faithful are given to an audience consisting in part of people who really want to believe in constant, spectacular revelation — so there may be a pressure toward overplaying the importance of revelation in church decision-making when addressing a faithful audience. When addressing a general audience, I’m not sure exactly what the optimum balance is. Revelation to living prophets is a big part of our missionary push, so presumably the leadership doesn’t think that idea is too off-putting to potential converts. On the other hand, it probably is off-putting to irreligious people and hardliners in other traditions, but those kinds of people are unlikely to convert in any case. Furthermore, the kind of still-small-voice revelation that is emphasized these days seems unlikely to be really offensive at all to any major audience. So I see no real reason to discount Hinckley’s various statements that such divine guidance is only occasional in today’s church leadership.
This doesn’t necessarily mean that the leadership is “off track” or anything. That’s an entirely different question. Rather, it simply suggests that they mostly make their decisions the way the rest of us do; they think, choose, pray, and when they don’t get any message from God they hope for the best.
Justin, thanks for the citations and quotes. Have I told you lately how great you are?
Jonathan, I would certainly agree that the canonical texts available to Mormons are much more effective at addressing 19th-century religious issues than 21st-century problems. On your broader questions, I’m going to refrain from speaking, since I don’t have good answers. If anybody else does, though, I’d love to hear them.
I also find the lack of courageousness in speech about revelation and the special role of prophethood damaging. I find it damaging mostly to the popular convention of what a prophet is: a guy with a red “Bat Phone” on his desk connected to God. Or maybe, a little more respectfully, a man who regularly stops by at the Holy of Holies to speak face to face with God.
But the language each prophet has used I think is more of a reflection of the culture, and language of the culture, in which the prophet lived than evidence of what the role and manifestation of revelation really is or has been. I think Hinckley’s choice of words reflects our materialist, empirical culture. Woodruff, to me, seems quite a bit more unenlightened, albeit earnest, and given to mental illness! Either or both prophets may have experienced real revelation. (How could I prove otherwise?!)
Certainly to the extent that Mormonism has a stagnant and sometimes ill-fitted canon to serve many current issues I think it can be argued well that there is not much revelation happening these days. Oddly, I find Hinckley’s language generally more honest and humble than reading the revelation of one who may have been just as likely to have a seizure and record it as a divine vision. And the reason that it is odd is that it is unpersuasive to me to accept the church’s claim that it is “only true” and lead by a unique revelatory process. But I still find it kind of lovely in its sparseness of fluff and grandeur, and a little more spiritually authentic–and persuasive.
Indeed, God may speak uniquely to Gordon B. Hinckley. I’m just inclined to accept that if He does it with Mormons, He does it no more specially or frequently than with any other church or sincere individual. But that’s okay to me. I’ve given up the need to believe that the LDS church is uniquely divine. It may still be divine not by virtue of its grand proclamations but rather is in spite of them.
Quix, Joseph Smith’s early years are perhaps the best example of a leader leaving an extensive record of visionary or dramatic revelatory experiences. Nobody else, even in the 19th century, really matched Smith’s record during the very early years of the church.
I would tend to disagree with your characterization of Woodruff as possibly mentally ill. If you read his journals, he gives the impression of being totally cogent. Furthermore, if he’s mentally ill, then so are a surprising number of the missionaries who go through the MTC — many of whom report similar sets of visionary experiences, including the more demonic kinds of manifestations that Woodruff also reported. It seems rather more likely to me that religious commitment combined with stressful circumstances produces such experiences.
I don’t really think that the Smoot transcripts are all that reliable to set forth the Church’s procedures, nor did Kathleen Flake really set forth those procedures fully. It has been awhile since I have read Flake’s work, but I do possess the entire transcripts of the hearing. After the quote you give, Pres. Smith said:
Mr. Tayler: How otherwise did he [Joseph Smith] claim to receive revelations?
Mr. Smith: By the spirit of the Lord.
Mr. Tayler: And in that way, such revelations as you have received, you have had them?
Mr. Smith: Yes, sir.
(Vol. 1, p. 100).
It was thus at pages 288 to 289 that Pres. Smith identified a “revelation” as that which become “law of the church,” which had not happened since John Taylor’s administration.
So it seems to me that when he gets into this sensitive subject, he dissembles a bit to avoid getting into sacred matter.
R. Crockett, as I’ve mentioned in a few different comments above, the Smoot transcripts are one of the very few moments in which church leaders have spoken at all in a public forum about the inner workings of the Mormon leadership. If the information they provide isn’t reliable, it’s still probably about at least as reliable as basically any other public source on the matter. The one major source that seems more reliable are diary accounts, and the ones of those that I’m familiar with are generally consistent with the picture given by Smith and Hinckley in which the leadership generally does its best to make decisions, with divine intervention being notably exceptional rather than standard.
Your additional quotes about the spirit of the Lord are a continuation of the dialogue quoted above. Smith declared that the only revelation he had was the inspiration that produced a standard testimony of the gospel. In the further statement you’ve provided, it seems clear to me that he explains that his testimony came through the Spirit of the Lord. I think that’s almost certainly true, and it’s also helpful, but it doesn’t seem to be evidence that Smith was dissembling when he said he’d had no revelation.
[…] Prev/Next Posts « Does the Church Need Revelation? | Monday, March 13th, 2006 at 9:58 am […]
[…] In a couple of interesting posts (here and here), RoastedTomatoes uses responses of President Joseph F. Smith to a Senate committee, and of President Hinckley to the media, to argue two conclusions float for thought and discussion two propositions that many believing Saints would find startling. While I am interested in the relationship of such sources to doctrine, the particular arguments are interesting in their own right, and here I recycle and extend my own take on how the prophets understand these two points. […]
Just some thoughts:
1. It may do well to reread Richard Bushman’s observation about the shift in Joseph Smith’s lifetime to revelation by council.
2. Rhetorical situation is important. In their responses, both JFS and GBH seem to consider what the word revelation might mean to an audience. It is difficult to judge a quote taken out of context. When we begin to understand what it is like to be a Mormon in the first decade of the 1900s sitting before a senate panel, we might begin to understand JFS’s response.
2a. I don’t think Church members were as shaken by JFS’s response as Flake suggests. Track church membership and participation in the period. It seems to show steady increase rather than a dip, in spite of some personal apostasies.
3. Alma 12:9-11: “And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.
“And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.
“And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell.”
4.GBH, Ensign, Oct. 1988: “On this occasion he [Spencer W. Kimball] raised the question before his Brethren—his Counselors and the Apostles. Following this discussion we joined in prayer in the most sacred of circumstances. President Kimball himself was voice in that prayer. I do not recall the exact words that he spoke. But I do recall my own feelings and the nature of the expressions of my Brethren. There was a hallowed and sanctified atmosphere in the room. For me, it felt as if a conduit opened between the heavenly throne and the kneeling, pleading prophet of God who was joined by his Brethren. The Spirit of God was there. And by the power of the Holy Ghost there came to that prophet an assurance that the thing for which he prayed was right, that the time had come, and that now the wondrous blessings of the priesthood should be extended to worthy men everywhere regardless of lineage.
“Every man in that circle, by the power of the Holy Ghost, knew the same thing.
“It was a quiet and sublime occasion.
“There was not the sound ‘as of a rushing mighty wind,’ there were not ‘cloven tongues like as of fire’ (Acts 2:2–3) as there had been on the Day of Pentecost. But there was a Pentacostal spirit, for the Holy Ghost was there.
“No voice audible to our physical ears was heard. But the voice of the Spirit whispered with certainty into our minds and our very souls.
“It was for us, at least for me personally, as I imagine it was with Enos, who said concerning his remarkable experience, ‘And while I was thus struggling in the spirit, behold, the voice of the Lord came into my mind.’ (Enos 1:10.)
“So it was on that memorable June 1, 1978. We left that meeting subdued and reverent and joyful. Not one of us who was present on that occasion was ever quite the same after that. Nor has the Church been quite the same.
“All of us knew that the time had come for a change and that the decision had come from the heavens. The answer was clear. There was perfect unity among us in our experience and in our understanding.”
5. I think most LDS would say (4) is a clear example of revelation. Who knows what non-LDS might say. C. S. Lewis said, “There are a great many things that cannot be understood until after you have gone a certain distance along the Christian road. These things are purely practical, though they do not look as if they were.”
D&C 8:2-3 is instructive here: “Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart.
“Now, behold, this is the spirit of revelation; behold, this is the spirit by which Moses brought the children of Israel through the Red Sea on dry ground.”
When some people ask about revelation they have in mind verse 3–big, spectacular events. God has something else in mind, as he teaches in verse 2.
6. Revelation in this sense (D&C 8:2-3) happens everyday on general, local, and personal levels.
One comment - I think the Lord works with what he has, according to the humility and willingness of people to receive inspiration. There is absolutely no reason why the Lord should not seek to inspire the leaders of any religion in the direction of truth, to the degree they are willing to receive it.
Indeed sometimes it seems that errors persist in our Church for years not because the Lord is holding back, but rather because the leaders or the members are so set in their opinions that they do not seek to to find out if they are really valid.
For whatever reason, the Lord seems to see fit to let us govern ourselves and learn from our own mistakes, and advance only when we are ready, than to twist our arms and give us things we are not quite ready or even interested in receiving.
Ther are interesting doctrinal issues that the Apostles could no doubt study, ponder, and seek inspired guidance in resolving - however I strongly suspect that they feel there are *much* more pressing issues at hand.
Indeed sometimes it seems that errors persist in our Church for years not because the Lord is holding back, but rather because the leaders or the members are so set in their opinions that they do not seek to to find out if they are really valid.
Very well put! A little inquiry to Heavenly Father now and then to inquire as to the validity of those things which are just “assumed” certainly wouldn’t hurt. Hey, maybe one day someone will even think to ask who God really is?