The Revelations of 1886 and 1978

[_Buffalo]

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?

Excellent point. Also note the lack of any revelation for changing the Word of Wisdom, or for banning masturbation.

[_Runtu]

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

That is true. No text has ever been presented.

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

You are mistaken.

http://www.LDS.org/ensign/1978/11/revel ... d?lang=eng

[_sock puppet]

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.

It simply is a search for the measuring rod of Mormon god's imparted knowledge. The Brethren shovel all the s*** they speak as god-given, until they have to retract it because it is later proven wrong. So why should ANYTHING that the Brethren say be given so much as the time of day? The Brethren are all just ass-chatting and claiming Mormon god told them those words--at least until they have to retract them later.

[_Runtu]

Here's how the church describes the process of canonization (accepting new scripture):

4. Scripture becomes part of the standard works through the process of canonization.

■ Explain the meaning of canon, and describe the process by which scripture is canonized.

“A word of Greek origin, originally meaning ‘a rod for testing straightness,’ now used to denote the authoritative collection of the sacred books used by the true believers in Christ” (Bible Dictionary, “canon,” 630–31).

In the Church, canon refers to the authoritative collection of sacred books of scripture, known as the standard works, formally adopted and accepted by the Church and considered binding upon members in matters of faith and doctrine.

The process is illustrated by the action taken in the April 1976 general conference under the direction of President N. Eldon Tanner, in which two revelations were added to the Pearl of Great Price. Conducting the business of the conference, President Tanner said:

“President Kimball has asked me to read a very important resolution for your sustaining vote.

“‘At a meeting of the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve held in the Salt Lake Temple on March 25, 1976, approval was given to add to the Pearl of Great Price the following two revelations:

“‘First, a vision of the celestial kingdom given to Joseph Smith … ; and second, a vision given to President Joseph F. Smith … showing the visit of the Lord Jesus Christ in the spirit world. …’

“It is proposed that we sustain and approve this action and adopt these revelations as part of the standard works of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

“All those in favor manifest it. Those opposed, if any, by the same sign” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1976, 29; or Ensign, May 1976, 19). In 1979 these two revelations were moved to the Doctrine and Covenants and became sections 137 and 138.

Harold B. Lee explained, "The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church."(The First Area General Conference for Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Munich Germany, August 24–26, 1973, with Reports and Discourses, 69.)

So, once again, bcspace is mistaken.

[_Drifting]

Harold B. Lee explained, "The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church."(The First Area General Conference for Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Munich Germany, August 24–26, 1973, with Reports and Discourses, 69.)

So, once again, bcspace is mistaken.

So, unless it has been sustained by the Church it cannot be classed as doctrine...hmmm...I don't recall Christofferson mentioning that when he 'clarified' the position on doctrine at the last conference. The sad reality is the top echelons don't really know themselves so what chance as poor old bcspace got...

[_Runtu]

So, unless it has been sustained by the Church it cannot be classed as doctrine...hmmm...I don't recall Christofferson mentioning that when he 'clarified' the position on doctrine at the last conference. The sad reality is the top echelons don't really know themselves so what chance as poor old bcspace got...

Not exactly. It's not scripture if it's not sustained by the Church. Doctrine can reside in First Presidency statements and proclamations that are not sustained as scripture.

Of course, scripture is automatically doctrine.

[_Buffalo]

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...?

Can you provide me with some links or source for further reading on this topic?

[_Drifting]

Can you provide me with some links or source for further reading on this topic?

http://mormonthink.com/blackweb.htm#eventsleadingto1978

There's a lot about it on here ^

{Le Grand}Richards: Well, the last one is pretty true, and I might tell you what provoked it in a way. Down in Brazil, there is so much Negro blood in the population there that it is hard to get leaders that don't have negro blood in them. We just built a temple down there. It's going to be dedicated in October. All those people with Negro blood in them have been raising money to build that temple. If we don't change, then they can't even use it. Well, Brother Kimball worried about it, and he prayed a lot about it. He asked each one of us of the twelve if we would pray--and we did--that the Lord would give him the inspiration to know what the will of the Lord was. Then he invited each one of us in his office--individually, because you know when you are in a group, you can't always express everything that's in your heart. You're part of the group, see--so he interviewed each one of us, personally to see how we felt about it, and he asked us to pray about it. Then he asked each one of us to hand in all the references we had, for, or against that proposal. See, he was thinking favorably toward giving the colored people the priesthood. Then we had a meeting where we meet every week in the temple, and we discussed it as a group circle. and then held another prayer circle after the close of that meeting, and he (President Kimball) lead in the prayer; praying that the Lord would give us the inspiration that we needed to do the thing that would be pleasing to Him and for the blessing of His children.

And then the next Thursday--we meet every Thursday--the presidency came with this little document written out to make the announcement--to see how we'd feel about it--and present it in written form. Well, some of the members of the Twelve suggested a few changes in the announcement, and then in our meeting there we all voted in favor of it--the Twelve and the first Presidency. One member of the Twelve, Mark Peterson, was down in South America, but Brother Benson, our president, had arranged to know where he could be reached by phone, and right while we were in that meeting in the temple, Brother Kimball talked with Brother Peterson, and read him the article, and he (Peterson) approved of it.

Walters: There wasn't a special document as a "revelation", that he had wrote down?

Richards: We discussed it in our meeting. What else should we say besides that announcement? And we decided that that was sufficient; that no more needed to be said.

That is, the First Presidency and the Twelve decided to tell the Lord that they were going to change the policy regarding blacks and the LDS priesthood "unless He gave them a sign to the contrary."In the absence of any sign, they changed the policy.
No one officially coming over from SLC to the MTC at the time denied this story.  It was later that I heard the word "revelation" actually used in conjunction with it.  But Elder Le Grand Richard's statements in his interview with Chris Vlachos and Wesley P. Walters supports this version of the events.

[_DrW]

Bump for Tobin.

[_Buffalo]

Can you provide me with some links or source for further reading on this topic?

http://mormonthink.com/blackweb.htm#eventsleadingto1978

There's a lot about it on here ^

{Le Grand}Richards: Well, the last one is pretty true, and I might tell you what provoked it in a way. Down in Brazil, there is so much Negro blood in the population there that it is hard to get leaders that don't have negro blood in them. We just built a temple down there. It's going to be dedicated in October. All those people with Negro blood in them have been raising money to build that temple. If we don't change, then they can't even use it. Well, Brother Kimball worried about it, and he prayed a lot about it. He asked each one of us of the twelve if we would pray--and we did--that the Lord would give him the inspiration to know what the will of the Lord was. Then he invited each one of us in his office--individually, because you know when you are in a group, you can't always express everything that's in your heart. You're part of the group, see--so he interviewed each one of us, personally to see how we felt about it, and he asked us to pray about it. Then he asked each one of us to hand in all the references we had, for, or against that proposal. See, he was thinking favorably toward giving the colored people the priesthood. Then we had a meeting where we meet every week in the temple, and we discussed it as a group circle. and then held another prayer circle after the close of that meeting, and he (President Kimball) lead in the prayer; praying that the Lord would give us the inspiration that we needed to do the thing that would be pleasing to Him and for the blessing of His children.

And then the next Thursday--we meet every Thursday--the presidency came with this little document written out to make the announcement--to see how we'd feel about it--and present it in written form. Well, some of the members of the Twelve suggested a few changes in the announcement, and then in our meeting there we all voted in favor of it--the Twelve and the first Presidency. One member of the Twelve, Mark Peterson, was down in South America, but Brother Benson, our president, had arranged to know where he could be reached by phone, and right while we were in that meeting in the temple, Brother Kimball talked with Brother Peterson, and read him the article, and he (Peterson) approved of it.

Walters: There wasn't a special document as a "revelation", that he had wrote down?

Richards: We discussed it in our meeting. What else should we say besides that announcement? And we decided that that was sufficient; that no more needed to be said.

That is, the First Presidency and the Twelve decided to tell the Lord that they were going to change the policy regarding blacks and the LDS priesthood "unless He gave them a sign to the contrary."In the absence of any sign, they changed the policy.
No one officially coming over from SLC to the MTC at the time denied this story.  It was later that I heard the word "revelation" actually used in conjunction with it.  But Elder Le Grand Richard's statements in his interview with Chris Vlachos and Wesley P. Walters supports this version of the events.

Thanks very much!