RobertAC Posted November 9, 2012 Posted November 9, 2012 I understand that Mormonism believes in ongoing divine revelation between God and mankind, and that anyone can have a personal, divine revelation. But how does it work within the LDS church?Does the President and Prophet of the church have authority to proclaim a revelation on his own? From what I have read, I can extrapolate that the process of revelation is a fairlly lengthy one where the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have to approve of the revelation.I am also extrapolating that there are different levels of revelation, church canon, etc. Is there a specific process and hierarchy to revelation?
harfad Posted November 10, 2012 Posted November 10, 2012 The Prophet/President is the only one who has authority to receive revelation for the whole Church (D&C43:1-7). If he does receive a revelation, it is discussed with his counsellors (who jointly hold the keys of Presidency with him), and with the Twelve Apostles before the decision is made to proclaim it to the Church.
RobertAC Posted November 10, 2012 Author Posted November 10, 2012 Thanks Harfad! Are there any known situations where the President has received a revelation and his counselors and the Twelve Apostles have to tell him that it is not a revelation, or they are split on the subject? How is the issue resolved in that case? Does the Seventy have any say in what is a revelation?Is a revelation requested, or can it come spontaneously? I guess what I am asking is whether the President has to go into the Temple and pray and ask for guidance before a response is given.
The Nehor Posted November 10, 2012 Posted November 10, 2012 I am pretty sure that the First Presidency and the Twelve approving the revelation is a courtesy to them and not a requirement. The Prophet does not need their permission to proclaim it. It is just easier to implement if all the others agree.Joseph Smith did not run all revelations by the Twelve first. Neither did Brigham Young or Wilford Woodruff.
cesc101 Posted November 10, 2012 Posted November 10, 2012 Yes Nehor, I agree.But, in today's church (as a matter of fact, by past experience) were we can't draw the line when God is speaking & when man is, it becomes expedient to run it by the 12 (afterall, isn't that what the law of common consent is all about?)
cesc101 Posted November 10, 2012 Posted November 10, 2012 Robert, God moves in a mysterious way (spontaneous or in the temple), He does speaks today!Ours is the responsibility to "study it out in [our] mind, and if it be right...", you know what follows...
harfad Posted November 10, 2012 Posted November 10, 2012 That situation as far as I am aware has never arisen.A revelation can be requested, or it can come unrequested when the Lord has something to reveal to his servants or to the Church. If you look at the section headings in the Doctrine and Covenants, you will find that some of them were requested, and some came by the will of the Lord, without such a request.
RobertAC Posted November 10, 2012 Author Posted November 10, 2012 Thank you for the responses! Would I be correct that the First Presidency and/or the Quorum of the Twelve can and do write theological positions based upon prior revelations made by the Prophet/President? In other words, can there be broader theological developments based upon prior prophecy, but where the developments themselves are considered intellectual rather than prophetic?
harfad Posted November 10, 2012 Posted November 10, 2012 Yes. The theology of the Church is based on, or derived from, the existing or canonised scriptures or revelations of the Church. How that theology is developed on the basis of that revelation or canonised scripture is in part an intellectual process; aided, one can only hope, by the inspiration or enlightenment of the Holy Spirit. And the process is not immune from error. That is how mistakes in doctrine have been made in the past, and will no doubt continue to be made in the future. That is where the agency of individual Church members comes into play. All Latter-day Saints have a duty to retain the constant companionship of the Holy Spirit with them at all times to detect such errors when they are made, and not be misled by them.
Deborah Posted November 10, 2012 Posted November 10, 2012 Let's distinguish between revelation and what becomes canon. A prophet can receive revelation, but it may not necessarily involve anything that requires implementation or approval of the Twelve. That would apply only to things that will have a major effect on the church as a whole. The changing of missionary age is an example of this. But Pres. Monson has spoken many times about personal revelation he has received and acted on. I've had personal revelation as have most members of the church. It can be as simple as an impression to do or not do something or a vision or dream or a voice heard. Everyone is entitled to revelation. I think we don't always acknowledge how much revelation we might receive because we aren't paying attention a lot of the time. 1
harfad Posted November 10, 2012 Posted November 10, 2012 Thank you Deborah. That is a valid distinction. But I think what the OP was talking about is how the theology of the Church is determined, which is a more complicated phenomenon than just receiving (or not receiving) revelation.
harfad Posted November 10, 2012 Posted November 10, 2012 Thank you Deborah. That is a valid distinction. But I think what the OP was talking about is how the theology of the Church is determined, which is a more complicated phenomenon than just receiving (or not receiving) revelation.
rpn Posted November 10, 2012 Posted November 10, 2012 One of Pres. Kimball's fervent prayers is that the 12 would accept his revelation on the priesthood (read his biography). I suspect that was also true with the manifesto, which we know was not universally accepted. I think it was in Elder Bednar's press conference after being called as an Apostle that he spoke of a meeting with the first presidency and twelve (he was there on business from the college he headed up), and when issues were proposed, the discussion starts with the newest apostle and goes to the longest serving. At the end there appeared to be consensus, but Pres Hinckley declined to move forward on the item. The teller of the story said that one of the apostles thanked the prophet privately and noted he did have reservations. Decision in church counsels are supposed to be by consensus. That is why there is a first presidenCY and a quorum. And it is also why it takes a long time sometimes for every member of the deciding group to get their own testimony that the move/change is of God. Further, canonization takes place by the common vote of the people. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1978/10/revelation-on-priesthood-accepted-church-officers-sustained?lang=engSo, yes the prophet can have a revelation and propound it on his own. But that isn't the way the church government actually works.
harfad Posted November 10, 2012 Posted November 10, 2012 rpn, that is how decisions are made, or problems are solved, at the leadership level. When issues arise or decisions need to be made, the Lord wants us to "study it out in our minds" (D&C 9:, before giving us a revelation on the subject. Discussing issues and problems in Church councils before decisions are made is part of the process of that "studying it out in our minds". Often enough inspiration may be given during that process that direct inquiry of the Lord may not be necessary to solve a problem. But once the Prophet inquires of the Lord, and the word of the Lord is given, and he dictates it to his scribe, there is no further argument. Accept it or be damned!
RobertAC Posted November 14, 2012 Author Posted November 14, 2012 Thanks guys! This discussion was very helpful!
Recommended Posts