Opinion Piece by Ty Mansfield: Managing "Tension" between Doctrines and Impact

[smac97]

53 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I agree wholeheartedly with that we want to avoid all-or-nothing thinking on this. However, I am also sympathetic to @rongo's observation that, once we set and accept the precedent that prophets can and do make doctrinal mistakes, we find ourselves on a slippery slope that easily slides down to "nothing they say is true."

The slope is indeed easy, but not correct.

In any other context, the imputation of infallibility on a leader as a necessary component of having/retaining authority would fall on its face.

53 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

IMO, the real problem we have as a community and in the broader Church is that we have not adequately talked about how to keep our footing on that slippery slope.

Perhaps the first step is to reject, out of hand, the notion of infallibility.  That sure would go far.

Meanwhile, we have Elder Uchtdorf's trenchant and candid comments from 2013:

Quote

Some struggle with unanswered questions about things that have been done or said in the past. We openly acknowledge that in nearly 200 years of Church history—along with an uninterrupted line of inspired, honorable, and divine events—there have been some things said and done that could cause people to question.

Sometimes questions arise because we simply don’t have all the information and we just need a bit more patience. When the entire truth is eventually known, things that didn’t make sense to us before will be resolved to our satisfaction.

Sometimes there is a difference of opinion as to what the “facts” really mean. A question that creates doubt in some can, after careful investigation, build faith in others.

And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.

I suppose the Church would be perfect only if it were run by perfect beings. God is perfect, and His doctrine is pure. But He works through us—His imperfect children—and imperfect people make mistakes.

In the title page of the Book of Mormon we read, “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.”

This is the way it has always been and will be until the perfect day when Christ Himself reigns personally upon the earth.

It is unfortunate that some have stumbled because of mistakes made by men. But in spite of this, the eternal truth of the restored gospel found in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not tarnished, diminished, or destroyed.

As an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ and as one who has seen firsthand the councils and workings of this Church, I bear solemn witness that no decision of significance affecting this Church or its members is ever made without earnestly seeking the inspiration, guidance, and approbation of our Eternal Father. This is the Church of Jesus Christ. God will not allow His Church to drift from its appointed course or fail to fulfill its divine destiny.

Insisting on infallibility is a very unhealthy perspective.  As I noted last week: 

Quote

No organization or society or community can long withstand the corrosive effects of A) fetishizing and glorifying "victim"-ness, B) endlessly self-indulgent and capricious individualism, C) glass-jawed crybullying.

Implicit expectations of infallibility are baked into all three of these.

Conversely, in Mormon 9:32 we are taught (commanded, actually) : "Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been." 

So.  Let's stop importing unhealthy ideas into the Church.  I think Latter-day Saints need to give the Brethren some breathing room to sort these things out.  A "you do one thing I dislike and I'm outta here!" approach essentially gurantees a "cascade failure" in terms of an individual's relationship to the Lord's Church (and is, I think, a manifestation of a tacit expectation of infallibility).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 25, 2021 by smac97

[smac97]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Certainly. And every single one of them from the time of Brigham Young to the time of Spencer W Kimball supported and upheld the priesthood ban. 

As opposed to what?

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Which verse says not same sex couples?

I take the verses about men and women to be just that.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Only that Brigham Young declared (invoking his apostolic and prophetic mantle) that it was revealed to him. Can you tell me when the Melchizedek priesthood was restored? Like the date? 

Please provide the source that particular quote/declaration, then, and if it is necessary to prove the point you are trying to make, compare it with Joseph Smith invoking his apostolic and prophetic mantle to declare the restoration of  Melchizedek Priesthood, using sources such as these: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/site/priesthood-restoration For now, I don't want to get off the topic of Brigham Young's revelations.

 

[Stormin' Mormon]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

When was the first time it was stated that it required 15 men to declare the will of the Lord?

Doctrine and Covenants, Section 107:

 

 

Quote

 

23 The twelve traveling councilors are called to be the Twelve Apostles, or special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world—thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling.

24 And they form a quorum, equal in authority and power to the three presidents previously mentioned.

....

27 And every decision made by either of these quorums must be by the unanimous voice of the same; that is, every member in each quorum must be agreed to its decisions, in order to make their decisions of the same power or validity one with the other

 

There's nothing in here about any one person being authorized to make a unilateral decision about what is doctrinal revelation for the Church.  At best, it takes a unanimous decision by the First Presidency, but since the Quorum of the Twelve is equal in authority, a contrary decision from them could hang the issue in limbo.  When all 15 men agree, then there is no longer a question that the decision could be overruled by another council or quorum.

Thus, no one person, no matter their position in the church, can declare a teaching to be doctrinal, revelatory, or scriptural.

 

Edited October 25, 2021 by Stormin' Mormon

[JustAnAustralian]

21 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And I have no doubt that future apologists will be talking about how “post hoc rationalizations” were given as to why gay people couldn’t marry each other and we don’t really know where that policy got it’s start. 

Gay marriage and the priesthood ban are not fairly comparable.

Blacks were ordained under JS. BY implemented a ban. SWK removed the ban.

We don't have the same history of gay marriage being allowed, then stopped.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Isn't this position even more damning to the Church than saying that God instituted it??  If the Church and you believe that the ban on blacks holding the priesthood was just made up and lasted for 150 years, what does THAT say about how racist the Church was?  It means that every prophet since Brigham Young to Spencer W. Kimball was a racist and just perpetuated the discrimination.  .

Frankly, I find that disturbing.  

The goodness of the Church is not dependent on this specific issue, however biased it may be framed, pro or con. My request for a source has nothing to do with such a line of discussion.

40 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

 

I'm going to agree with @california boy on this. If there was no revelation establishing the priesthood and temple ban and we then perpetuated that practice for more than a century is worse than some of the other alternatives.

Perhaps as a thoroughly caucasian, cis-hetero male, I have not real stewardship to even speak into this space. I can only look to those like Brother Martins ( @smac97 linked to earlier) with respect that they can somehow see through and past these issues. But I don't see anything that helps me understand how to keep my own footing in the face of the same issues.

Bringing this to Br. Mansfield's piece that started this. I agree with him that it is sometimes difficult, but incredibly important, to balance love and truth. I notice that Mansfield simply assumed that the proscription against same sex marriage is true (to be fair, he never expressed an intent to justify the proscription). With that assumption, I thought he wrote a very nice piece. However, I would argue that one of the most unloving things we can do is perpetuate as true a practice that is not true. IMO, we need to more closely examine that assumption, and the prophetic claims that undergird that assumption, until we are certain it is TRUE.

See above. 

One of the most unloving things to do is to contend over doctrine and sabotage unity. There are loving ways to express the need for change and implement those changes. People who have the moral authority of personal revelation, coupled with the companionship of the Holy Ghost, know how to do this. The Lord gives them opportunity and gathers people to work together in His time -- not necessarily of the same mind at first, either -- as He hastens His work.

Edited October 25, 2021 by CV75

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I'm going to agree with @california boy on this. If there was no revelation establishing the priesthood and temple ban and we then perpetuated that practice for more than a century is worse than some of the other alternatives.

I dunno.  I'm open to a variety of possibilities.

15 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Perhaps as a thoroughly caucasian, cis-hetero male, I have not real stewardship to even speak into this space. I can only look to those like Brother Martins ( @smac97 linked to earlier) with respect that they can somehow see through and past these issues. But I don't see anything that helps me understand how to keep my own footing in the face of the same issues.

Mormon 9:31 helps me.  A lot.  So does ditching implicit expectations of infallibility.  Skin color, gender, etc. have precious little to do with these precepts.

It's not my job to pass judgment on Brigham Young, or any other leader of the Church.  It's my job to make and keep covenants with the Lord, and to build up His kingdom, and to sustain the leaders of the Church, despite their mistakes, errors, omissions, etc.  

15 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Bringing this to Br. Mansfield's piece that started this. I agree with him that it is sometimes difficult, but incredibly important, to balance love and truth. I notice that Mansfield simply assumed that the proscription against same sex marriage is true (to be fair, he never expressed an intent to justify the proscription).

The Church reserves to itself the parameters of marriage recognized by God.  This is why the Church can both uphold its polygamist past and excommunicate polygamists today at present.

15 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

With that assumption, I thought he wrote a very nice piece. However, I would argue that one of the most unloving things we can do is perpetuate as true a practice that is not true.

Sure.  But none of us has authority to receive revelation for the Church.  If and when the Lord chooses to re-define marriage to include same-sex marriage, I believe he'll do it through His servants, who will in turn present such things to the body of the Church.

The notion that individuals can insist that the Church alter its doctrines to conform to an individual's expectations about "a practice" is a recipt for chaos.  It us utterly unreasonable and unworkable.  Peter counseled us that "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."

So I think I would put it this way: It is up to each individual to essentially take revealed principles and, through study and faith and discussion and in counsel with those that are in authority, define his/her own way in the hope that this way is congruent with God's will.

15 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

IMO, we need to more closely examine that assumption, and the prophetic claims that undergird that assumption, until we are certain it is TRUE.

I think faith is usually where we end up.  Certainty is hard to come by.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

34 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So a prophet invoking his apostolic and prophet mantle declaring the word of the Lord doesn’t count as a “revelation”.

CFR.  What are you referencing here?  Chapter and verse, please.

34 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Okay. So where is the “revelation” presented to the church and voted on by the members that states same sex relationships are inherently sinful? 

In the same place where heroin is prohibited by the Word of Wisdom.

34 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And I have no doubt that future apologists will be talking about how “post hoc rationalizations” were given as to why gay people couldn’t marry each other and we don’t really know where that policy got it’s start. 

"No doubt," huh?  Well, we'll see.

Meanwhile, we keep our covenants and build the kingdom.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Just saw this online and thought it apt:

[Stormin' Mormon]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Isn't this position even more damning to the Church than saying that God instituted it??  If the Church and you believe that the ban on blacks holding the priesthood was just made up and lasted for 150 years, what does THAT say about how racist the Church was?  It means that every prophet since Brigham Young to Spencer W. Kimball was a racist and just perpetuated the discrimination.  .

Frankly, I find that disturbing.  

The system is set up to STRONGLY favor the status quo.  The ban wasn't kept in place by the whim of one despot after another over the course of 150 years.  The ban couldn't even have been overturned by a majority or a super-majority vote among the policy-setting body of the Church.   
 

Edited October 25, 2021 by Stormin' Mormon

[webbles]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I have heard that before: “The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord” - Yesteryear’s  disavowed First Presidency letter to someone who said the priesthood ban should be removed.

I'm not sure how that statement was disavowed.  If you believe the ban was from the Lord, then He directly commanded it of Brigham Young (or Joseph Smith) and at the same time decreed that it would end at some point.  Then, He directly commanded Spencer W. Kimball to end it.  When that letter was written, the ban was still very much enforce and the prophet hadn't been told to end it.  But the ban was always going to end at some point.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

49 minutes ago, smac97 said:

CFR.  What are you referencing here? 

https://archive.org/details/CR100317B0001F0017

Quote

Now I tell you what I know; when the mark was put upon Cain, Abels children was in all probability young; the Lord told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the preisthood nor his see, until the last of the posterity of Able had received the preisthood, until the redemtion of the earth. If there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain. I know they are, I know that they cannot bear rule in the preisthood, for the curse on them was to remain upon the, until the resedue of the posterity of Michal and his wife receive the blessings, the seed of Cain would have received had they not been cursed; and hold the keys of the preisthood, until the times of the restitution shall come, and the curse be wiped off from the earth, and from michals seed. 

 

[ttribe]

On 10/22/2021 at 8:39 PM, strappinglad said:

Scott, you remember the Great Apostasy in 1978 when 20% of the members threatened to leave if OD2 was not removed. No? Neither do I.

I do remember my Stake President casually asking me how I felt about it( while in line at the grocery store of all places ). I told him I was happy about it and that I knew it would happen sometime. 

I did hear rumors that a few members in the US south were not too happy about it, but that was just a fleeting rumor. 

During my mission ('91-'93) I met some of those members in the US South who hadn't returned to church since 1978 over OD2.  It happened; it wasn't just a fleeting rumor.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

The system is set up to STRONGLY favor the status quo.  The ban wasn't kept in place by the whim of one despot after another over the course of 150 years.  The ban couldn't even have been overturned by a majority or a super-majority vote among the policy-setting body of the Church.   
 

So are you saying that the majority or super-majority were racists and wanted to keep the status quo in place?  It took 150 years before there were enough that were not racists to change the policy?

This just keeps getting worse.  I had no idea there were that many racists in leadership positions for so long of time.

[Stormin' Mormon]

43 minutes ago, california boy said:

So are you saying that the majority or super-majority were racists and wanted to keep the status quo in place?  It took 150 years before there were enough that were not racists to change the policy?

This just keeps getting worse.  I had no idea there were that many racists in leadership positions for so long of time.

No. I am saying the exact opposite.

Even if 93% of the policy body wanted to do away with the ban (in your formulation: if 93% of them weren't racist), it still wouldn't have changed. It takes unanimity among the 15 members of those quorums to implement such change. 

 

Edited to add: my comment that the "ban wasn't kept in place at the whim of one despot after another" was a response to the below statement.

Quote

It means that every prophet since Brigham Young to Spencer W. Kimball was a racist and just perpetuated the discrimination.

None of them had the power to end the discrimination alone, even if they commanded a super-duper-majority in the policy making quorums. Nothing less than 100% agreement among all 15 men would suffice. Not 51%, not 75%, not 93%.

 

 

Edited October 26, 2021 by Stormin' Mormon

[Stormin' Mormon]

Lest I be accused of inconsistency:

It is possible for the policy quorums to enact administrative changes that some members of the quorums believe are revelatory and others do not.

My position is that the policy quorums at the time of BY unanimously agreed with the change, but there is no record that all 15 of them believed that change (the priesthood ban) to have been the product of revelation  Thus the change was implemented, but the reason for the priesthood ban has never been doctrinaly known.

And then once the policy was in place, it would require unanimity again to remove it, regardless of whether the subsequent members of the policy quorums believed the ban to be of revelatory provenance.

Church governance is hugely tilted in favor of the status quo. Once a change is implemented  it can persist for generations. In some regards this is good (stability) but it can be a challenge (needed changes can lag decades behind social norms).

Edited October 26, 2021 by Stormin' Mormon

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

No. I am saying the exact opposite.

Even if 93% of the policy body wanted to do away with the ban (in your formulation: if 93% of them weren't racist), it still wouldn't have changed. It takes unanimity among the 15 members of those quorums to implement such change. 

 

Edited to add: my comment that the "ban wasn't kept in place at the whim of one despot after another" was a response to the below statement.

None of them had the power to end the discrimination alone, even if they commanded a super-duper-majority in the policy making quorums. Nothing less than 100% agreement among all 15 men would suffice. Not 51%, not 75%, not 93%.

 

 

Are you saying that it would only. take one of the apostles to be a racists to keep the policy in place?  How could one apostle have such power when every single other apostle and prophet felt it was a racist policy?  Could one single apostle object to president Kimball's revelation from God and the policy would have continued?

[Hamba Tuhan]

Revelation changes personal opinions. Correction is kind of its entire point.

[Stormin' Mormon]

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

Are you saying that it would only. take one of the apostles to be a racists to keep the policy in place?  How could one apostle have such power when every single other apostle and prophet felt it was a racist policy?  Could one single apostle object to president Kimball's revelation from God and the policy would have continued?

Yup.  That's exactly what I'm saying.  All policy actions by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have to be unanimous.  100%.  No dissenters.

 

[BlueDreams]

I really liked the article. I've been to a couple of educational venue for therapists that Ty was running and this really sums up him in general.
Two things I personally really liked:

Quote

 

In short, the morality of promoting the church’s position on marriage and chastity is challenged to the degree that we are not at the same time looking deeply enough into the lives of others who feel somehow hurt or confused or alienated by those teachings in order to understand just where those “deep and unmet needs” are, and how at least some portion of responsibility for those deep and unmet needs falls squarely on the shoulders of our own failures and shortcomings as the body of Christ. I’ve had more than a handful of clients express some variation of the sentiment that it’s easier to connect sexually and anonymously with someone from an app than it is to get a real hug or any real understanding and connection from fellow believers.

 

When he was discussing the truth camp on one end there was a part of me that thinks he didn't go to the further end of what happens. Note, in many ways our community has gotten better....but in many others we're still working through thoughts and behaviors that we often justify in the assumption of defending truth. These are usually antithetical to me to what's actually gospel truths/principles because they to some degree distance us and/or denigrate others who's lives our different from our own. Whether that prejudice, discomfort, disgust, or something else...these are often not well hidden when some start talking about truths above all else. 
  
 

Quote

 

often the outcome they rely on is a doctrinal change allowing same-sex marital temple sealings. Authors, podcasters and commentators continue to grow bolder in their arguments that this doctrinal change is inevitable and is only being hindered by ignorance, fear, hatred or bureaucratic inertia. As more people make this argument, the expectation for this outcome grows. But this idea will not be sustaining unless it’s rooted in something true.

To the point of St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross, love without truth is a destructive lie.
....
So, while these well-meaning Latter-day Saints may be acting in good faith according to their understanding and hope, what they don’t understand is that they are unwittingly but directly contributing to confusion, conflict, pain and betrayal that LGBTQ individuals feel when prophets remind the church that the doctrine of chastity and marriage will not change. They then in turn castigate the church for simply reaffirming what it has always taught, without taking responsibility for the false hope they may have unwittingly engendered. The betrayal is real, and it does damage. It isn’t actually loving, and it’s not the church doing the harm here.

 

I tihnk this is a really fair point that's often missed. Is it really fair to stir up false hope? Even if you don't think it's really false or that there can't be another way for the church to move but to accept gay marriage one day....is it really fair to have someone bank on that now and set them up for more pain than they already felt when any statement comes out contrary? This one reminds me of my approach in my office. I'm not really a soft person. I don't mind bursting bubbles. From time to time I have a person in a really sticky situation and they ask for my opinion about where they're at or whether there is any hope in their situation or relationship. Because of what I've seen or know, there are times I have to let them know it's unlikely...or if it has a shot it may be a long and strenuos road ahead of them. It gives them a real expectation for what they'll be facing and more able to make appropriate decisions for their lives. I've found that not doing so may be comforting in the short term but in the long term does more harm than good. They're not ready for the falls that come, progress may stagnate, problems may reintrench, or worse become "hopeless" because the hope they had was often based more on something grandiose than really grounded in their reality.

That's kinda how I also see the discussion on whether there's wiggle space to believe the church will change because the church has in the past with the priesthood ban. There can be some parallels that are highlighted and pointed out that fuel hope. They fall into the categories of: things changed as the people and times changed, it was a surprise when it did change for many and not everyone had to agree with the changes at the time for it to happen, the doctrinal assumptions at the time seemed rock solid for a lot of people too for a long time, and (though I disagree with this one) there were more scriptural sources to rely on for this to happen.  All of these can foster hope and when we look at our current cultural trajectory it may even seem a foregone conclusion or reachable within a shorter period time than we currently think.

 But that's only half the story at best. There's other parts that would likely ground this. Such as: there has never been a hint from any prophet that the doctrinal assumptions about marriage occurring between men and women would switch in the future; there weren't scriptures directly addressing this because for most of the cultural history of these peoples, the idea that marriage between the same sex would happen was likely unfathomable and therefore had no real need to be addressed in the first place; this would then mean there's not going to be a reevaluation of history to help move this doctrinally along like there was with the ban; the cultural shift needed is also still ongoing and how it ends or what it'll look like in the end is still unwritten; it's a big step from learning to be tolerant and loving to a person  (something that we're still working on, particularly if you look at this not just from a western perspective but a global church experience) and spiritually affirming specific actions/assumptions held by said person. And even if it will eventually change, it should also be noted that Elijah Abel and Jane Manning James also hoped for that day...and died well before it came. In fact 120 years past before what BY started could finally be uprooted as a practice....and in the first half it got worse before it got better. etc. 

I personally don't know if there will be a day that same-sex sealings occur. I have some fairly strong doubts, TBH. But I could be wrong. Still, that's not really the point to me. The point is to  give others who would be most effected by said decisions a clear layout of what can be really expected in the near future and let them decide what that means for them. It'll likely make them more resilient to what will likely include some difficult decisions in their future. 

 

With luv,
BD

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Yup.  That's exactly what I'm saying.  All policy actions by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have to be unanimous.  100%.  No dissenters.

 

Good thing Mark E. Petersen was out of town, eh?

[webbles]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Are you saying that it would only. take one of the apostles to be a racists to keep the policy in place?  How could one apostle have such power when every single other apostle and prophet felt it was a racist policy?  Could one single apostle object to president Kimball's revelation from God and the policy would have continued?

Per Michael Quinn, this actually happened.  In 1969, Hugh B. Brown got all of the 12 apostles to agree to rescind the ban.  But then Harold B. Lee (who was a member of the First Presidency at that time) return from some travels and rejected the vote.  He persuaded them to leave the ban in place.  You can read about it on page 14 in The Mormon Hierarchy Extensions of Power.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Yup.  That's exactly what I'm saying.  All policy actions by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have to be unanimous.  100%.  No dissenters.

 

 

1 hour ago, webbles said:

Per Michael Quinn, this actually happened.  In 1969, Hugh B. Brown got all of the 12 apostles to agree to rescind the ban.  But then Harold B. Lee (who was a member of the First Presidency at that time) return from some travels and rejected the vote.  He persuaded them to leave the ban in place.  You can read about it on page 14 in The Mormon Hierarchy Extensions of Power.

So this whole thing about the Church being run by Christ and revelation doesn't really mean much does it.  It is a church run by committee that has to approve of everything unanimously.  I certainly agree with that.  I just didn't realize this was the official Church version of how things are done.  And if an apostle like Hugh B. Brown or Mark E. Peterson isn't receiving revelation, then why are they holding the position of apostle??  I would think the very most important thing about their calling is to follow the will of Christ.  If they aren't doing that, then what?  

I have to say, it is really interesting to me to see how members handle this.  Thanks for explaining this all to me.  

Edited October 26, 2021 by california boy

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I have heard that before: “The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord” - Yesteryear’s  disavowed First Presidency letter to someone who said the priesthood ban should be removed.

The priesthood ban was understood from the first to be temporary. Not so with the Lord’s law of matrimony. Any conjecture that marriage under His law will be changed to permit same-sex marriage is baseless. 

[JustAnAustralian]

2 hours ago, webbles said:

You can read about it on page 14 in The Mormon Hierarchy Extensions of Power.

Also page 26 of Edward Kimball's revelation on the priesthood article  https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3908&context=byusq

 

1 hour ago, california boy said:

So this whole thing about the Church being run by Christ and revelation doesn't really mean much does it.  It is a church run by committee that has to approve of everything unanimously.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

And if an apostle like Hugh B. Brown or Mark E. Peterson isn't receiving revelation, then why are they holding the position of apostle??

People shouldn't expect revelation to just pop out of thin air. Praying for revelation on something is pretty much the last step in the process. After counciling and thinking it out first. Hence the first presidency having counsellors, and the quorum of the 12 also being referred to as the council of the twelve.