The Revelations of 1886 and 1978

[_larry+]

If you are going to use your good reason and sense to make up your own mind, why bother to speak to God? If "the LDS church is only true as far as it leads you to speak with God" then it is no more true than the any Christian church. Indeed, Muslims are taught the same thing about the same God. But, of course, the LDS church claims to be the ONLY true church led by prophets, seers and revelators -- who, of course, are just fallible men. Nonsense!

[_KevinSim]

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.

As near as I have been able to determine, Spencer Kimball felt inspired to write the following words:

As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.

Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness.

We declare with soberness that the Lord has now made known his will for the blessing of all his children throughout the earth who will hearken to the voice of his authorized servants, and prepare themselves to receive every blessing of the gospel.

Kimball presented this statement to his counselors, who also felt the Holy Spirit inspiring them that God had inspired the statement; then he presented it to the Quorum of the Twelve, who similarly felt the Holy Spirit telling them the same thing.

This statement was presented to the membership of the LDS Church for a sustaining vote, in September 1978.

[_harmony]

They are fallible men, and as human as anyone else and not God.

Whoa. Have you told Packer? Or Oaks?

[_moksha]

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

No. Polygamy was a misstep for the Church from the word go. Ending the Priesthood Ban was clearly more inspired than the creation of the ban itself.

[_Drifting]

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

No. Polygamy was a misstep for the Church from the word go. Ending the Priesthood Ban was clearly more inspired than the creation of the ban itself.

Yes, but the inspiration came from the boycott's and the threat of financial sanction rather than the altruistic purposes of a God who seemingly arrived late to the same conclusion that society had reached a decade earlier.

[_moksha]

Yes, but the inspiration came from the boycott's and the threat of financial sanction rather than the altruistic purposes of a God who seemingly arrived late to the same conclusion that society had reached a decade earlier.

Hey, inspiration is inspiration, whether it comes when desperate need warrants it or prayerful deliberation suggests it.

[_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?

If I recall correctly the move to make the WOW binding was also never presented for a vote. Ergo, it's invalid.

[_Buffalo]

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.

QFT