- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’m curious as to this community’s thoughts on how revelation and/or church policy comes to be as official and binding. I recently perused this article dealing with the Word of Wisdom: http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V14N03_80.pdf ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V14N03_80.pdf Quote:An understanding of the way in which the current interpretation of the Word of Wisdom developed is significant because it provides a case study of the usual method of revelation and hence of doctrinal and policy development in the Church. Evidence seems to suggest that change has ordinarily come about through prayerful consideration over time of contemporary problems in the context of tradition (including previous scriptures and statement), immediate conditions (including political, social, and economic problems) and alternative courses of action….
Thus, the student of Latter-day Saint doctrinal and policy development will paint a more detailed picture if he conceives his task more broadly that the narrow context of looking only at the scriptures and at public statements of church leaders. If a study of the interpretation of what the Word of Wisdom can tell us anything, it is that such change does not take place in a vacuum. (sic)
It is interesting for me to consider that deliberation, discussion, and personal opinions, when considered prayerfully (as we must assume they are) lead to revelation, which can then be determined to be church policy or doctrine, depending on the situation. The recent “evolution” of doctrine regarding race and the priesthood, and the presumption that future statements may lead to changes regarding the Word of Wisdom, “marriage equality”, etc., make this a potentially very pertinent and interesting discussion.
I really like this, although I understand how others might see it as nothing more than a normal thought process, devoid of divine inspiration. Occasionally, I have had what I would term “flashes of insight”, but they nearly always have come after I have been thinking and/or talking about something quite seriously. I think this is one of the reasons the Priesthood Ban was not based on revelation, as the newest explanation shows.
Brigham Young was so sure of his former beliefs (learned as a Protestant and brought with him into the LDS Church) that he didn’t do what is listed in this description. Rather, he simply accepted and continued the justifications of ancient times without the proper consideration, contemplation, discussion, prayer, soul-searching, research, etc. that could have put his mind into a more open condition to accept what Joseph had started and what I believe God would have continued.
I think we all do it, to varying degrees, so I can’t condemn anyone else who does it (even with regard to important things), but I can agree completely that rash, quick decisions generally are not the best decisions. Therefore, even if divine influence is removed from the equation, I still think it’s excellent advice.
I recently posted this to the quotes thread. I like the simplicity of it. No “heavenly fax machine.” It doesn’t sound much like the revelation of OT prophets or Joseph Smith and his angels popping by to give a new statement. But it’s a more believable model for today.
Maybe… This is the way the patriarch/Joseph received revelation like this too, but described receiving it using hyperbole, in a more “magical” way, for an audience who expected that type of “mode of revelation.”
Or… Maybe… The prophets today are still getting angelic visits/voices from heaven but describe it in a more “mundane” way so the secular, modern audience (members or not), find it more believable.
I doubt the second as the number of times they have said “I don’t know” or “perhaps” or changed views with cultural trends all suggest that they get answers when they are willing to reach unanimity as a quorum and then pray for confirmation. Revelation by consensus, not by heavenly intervention.
President Hinkley on receiving revelation:
Quote:
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.
http://www.abc.net.au/compass/intervs/hinckley.htm If you review the “race and the priesthood” article and follow the link to the Edward Kimball article you’ll see that this is exactly the way the ban was ended. They reached consensus and then prayed for confirmation.
This is much the same way a Bishopric will receive revelation about a new calling. Reasoned consensus then pray for confirmation.
I’m not sure, but I think this is a good thing. It’s not a different model for one or the other.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.