DiscussMormonism.com

The 1886 Revelation was said to have been given to President John Taylor, written down by him, some months later, found in his personal papers after his death. This revelation concerned the nature of polygamy and is said to show unequivocally that requirement for polygamy would never be altered or removed.

The 1978 Revelation was said to have been given to President Spencer W. Kimball, and was understood to be the Lord communicating the end of the priesthood ban for Negroes.

The Brighamite branch of the Latter-Day Saint movement holds the position that, although President Taylor may indeed have received the 1886 revelation from 'the Lord' Himself, the body of the church was never presented with it formally, via a process initially conducted in 1835 with the addition of the D&C to LDS canon.

The provenance of the only extant copy of the 1886 Revelation is disputed, but we know the wording, we have some photographic evidence that it was not made up whole-cloth by the polygamists, and the FP of 1933 even seems to accept that it originally came from 'the Lord'. Their position seems to be that the sole reason it is not valid or binding is because President Smith did not present it to the body of the church for a sustaining vote.

But wouldn't this argument also apply to the 1978 revelation?

A text of the 1978 revelation has never appeared, as far as I have been able to discover. And I might be mistaken, but I do not believe this revelation was ever presented to the membership of the church for sustaining vote.

So, what gives? Either the argument used is invalid, and the FLDS have been correct about their practice of polygamy, or the argument is valid, and blacks should still be banned from holding the priesthood.

Yes? No?

Polygamy is not practiced by the Church nor should it be. Those who upheld the belief that it should be practiced by the Church were gravely mistaken. As the Book of Mormon teaches it is a sin and nearly destroyed the Mormon Church as a result.

The ban on blacks and the Priesthood follow the same pattern. It wasn't from God. It was a man-made, racist evil doctrine that was ended.

So in answer to your question, the FLDS are wrong and Mormons that banned blacks from the priesthood were wrong.

Would you care to address the main point of my post?

The Utah church proclaims that a certain standardized protocol must be followed for a revelation to be binding up the membership. This protocol was not followed for the 1886 revelation, nor the 1978 revelation, yet the church, who disregards the 1886 revelation for this reason appears to accept the 1978 revelation despite the same absence of proper protocol.

If the protocol is truly necessary, the ending of the priesthood ban was done in error. If not, the church has fallen into apostasy by ignoring God's clear will that polygamy is necessary for exaltation.

Is it too much to ask that this God of the Mormons be somewhat consistent?

Next time you see him, Tobin, ask him 'WTF?' for me, will ya?

A text of the 1978 revelation has never appeared, as far as I have been able to discover.

If you understood revelation as is taught early in the D&C, you would realize that text is not necessary or necessarily given.

And I might be mistaken, but I do not believe this revelation was ever presented to the membership of the church for sustaining vote.

This has never been a requirement for canon or doctrine.

bcspace wrote:

A text of the 1978 revelation has never appeared, as far as I have been able to discover.

If you understood revelation as is taught early in the D&C, you would realize that text is not necessary or necessarily given.

And I might be mistaken, but I do not believe this revelation was ever presented to the membership of the church for sustaining vote.

This has never been a requirement for canon or doctrine.

This article references a statement given by the First Presidency in 1933 which reads, in part:

Furthermore, so far as the authorities of the Church are concerned and so far as the members of the Church are concerned, since this pretended revelation, if ever given, was never presented to and adopted by the Church or by any council of the Church, and since to the contrary, an inspired rule of action, the Manifesto, was (subsequently to the pretended revelation) presented to and adopted by the Church, which inspired rule in its terms, purport, and effect was directly opposite to the interpretation given to the pretended revelation, the said pretended revelation could have no validity and no binding effect and force upon Church members, and action under it would be unauthorized, illegal, and void.

This is the first presidency of the LDS Church stating that the necessary requirement for a revelation to be considered binding is that it must be "presented to and adopted by the Church..."

So, doesn't it seem, from this statement, that the First Presidency of the Church, at least in 1933, did in fact consider it a requirement?

Am I missing something?

beefcalf wrote:Is it too much to ask that this God of the Mormons be somewhat consistent?

Those writing or commenting on Latter-day Saint doctrine also need to understand that certain words in the Mormon vocabulary have slightly different meanings and connotations than those same words have in other religions.

For example, the word consistent ...

beefcalf wrote:Would you care to address the main point of my post?
The Utah church proclaims that a certain standardized protocol must be followed for a revelation to be binding up the membership. This protocol was not followed for the 1886 revelation, nor the 1978 revelation, yet the church, who disregards the 1886 revelation for this reason appears to accept the 1978 revelation despite the same absence of proper protocol.
If the protocol is truly necessary, the ending of the priesthood ban was done in error. If not, the church has fallen into apostasy by ignoring God's clear will that polygamy is necessary for exaltation.
Is it too much to ask that this God of the Mormons be somewhat consistent?
Next time you see him, Tobin, ask him 'WTF?' for me, will ya?

Both teachings were in error and were corrected and ended. There isn't some magic seal, statement, standard protocol, or circle dance the prophet needs to do to put an end to it. It was ended. I don't know why you are hung up on some technicality that nobody cares about but you.

beefcalf wrote:A text of the 1978 revelation has never appeared, as far as I have been able to discover. And I might be mistaken, but I do not believe this revelation was ever presented to the membership of the church for sustaining vote.

The problem is that there never was a 1978 Revelation.

SWK, hounded by government treasury officials And newspaper stories about teams boycotting BYU over the ban, decided to take action.
Firstly, he tasked his Apostles with the job of finding scriptural precedent for or against the ban. Then, when it was identified that there was no scriptural or doctrinal basis for the ban in the first place SWK took the decision to reverse it.

SWK went to God and prayed to communicate the decision he was taking to reverse the ban, and if He (God) did not agree then He should show SWK a sign. All God did throughout this process was to stay silent on the matter and the rest is history.

What's that scripture about asking God for signs...?

Tobin wrote:Both teachings were in error and were corrected and ended. There isn't some magic seal, statement, standard protocol, or circle dance the prophet needs to do to put an end to it. It was ended. I don't know why you are hung up on some technicality that nobody cares about but you.

Tobin,

The process you are describing here for the development and implementation of policy is that of a secular organization.

If the LDS Church makes its way by trial and error, as you have described, what need does it have for God?

Is it not God's job to lead the Church so as to make it more honorable, trustworthy and reliable than a secular organization?

What happened to the direct communication with a divine being in the management and operation of the church that is the only representative of the eternal and everlasting gospel on the Earth?

What happened to the God whose job it was to never let The Prophet lead the Church astray?

Starting with "I see but one" Joseph Smith, and continuing pretty much unbroken through "Mountain Meadow" Young, "Manifesto" Woodruff, "I don't know that we teach that" Hinkley and "Prop 8" Monson, the LDS Church has a terrible track record in terms of the honesty and integrity of its leaders.

"Lying for the Lord" is a practice that has been openly discussed and practiced by Church leaders and, as a consequence, is widely associated with the LDS Church.

When you make the kind of claims you have so far on this thread, one is left to wonder if you really have a fact-based understanding of the way in which the LDS Church is lead and operated.

In response to bcspace's apologetic dance...

beefcalf wrote:This is the first presidency of the LDS Church stating that the necessary requirement for a revelation to be considered binding is that it must be "presented to and adopted by the Church..."

So, doesn't it seem, from this statement, that the First Presidency of the Church, at least in 1933, did in fact consider it a requirement?

Am I missing something?

Only that bcspace has once again pulled rank on the FP.