Disclaimer: The contents of this blog are my opinion. I believe that opinion to be well-informed and in harmony with the teachings of the LDS church, but my words should not be taken as official doctrine or policy. I invite you to study and reflect on the matter yourselves.
Second disclaimer: There's some stuff going on right now in the church that certainly informs the context of what I'm saying and why I'm saying it now. My post should not be taken as endorsement of any of those ideas, issues, voices, or movements currently in the spotlight (and they are many and varied, which is why I'm not linking to any of them in particular). It is, rather, a response to a criticism of such ideas generally, which I have increasingly heard in recent months--a criticism which I claim is misguided. Please do not misunderstand my purpose, or impute motives beyond what I have stated here. I've chosen my words carefully; at this time I do not mean to say any more nor less than what I have said.Latter-day Saints (Mormons) share a strong belief in continuing revelation, and that changes to church policy and additional doctrine always come by revelation, and are disseminated to the whole church through the proper channels of authority--the prophet.* This is true, and wise; it prevents fragmentation.
But many Latter-day Saints also believe that such revelations are always a completely top-down affair--that if God wants something to change, he will tell the prophet (or maybe one of the general authorities) first. The scriptures and LDS church history demonstrate that this last proposition is not true. As this blogger documents, there is a long tradition of revelation coming first to members, working its way up to the prophet, and from there spreading out to the whole church.** But don't stop with his handful of examples. Last year, LDS Sunday Schools throughout the world studied the Doctrine & Covenants. Even a casual reading of that book of scripture will provide many more examples of the pattern of revelation Brother Swift and I are describing. A study of the other books of scripture will yield additional examples; I invite you to look for them as we study the Old Testament this year.
In other words, my first paragraph contains two connected, but separate propositions:
1. God is continuing to reveal truth to the world.
2. Revelation affecting the whole church must go through the prophet.A third proposition--really a modified form of the second--that "major" revelation must originate with the prophet (or at least the general authorities), is neither true, nor necessary to the conclusion that God stands at the head of this church and guides it.
We often say that we have to have stewardship in order to properly receive revelation in a given area. But note that, while Sarah Granger Kimball became one of the first leaders of the Relief Society, at the time she began to organize a women's organization in the church, she held no such "stewardship" in any official sense. My point is that we cannot lightly dismiss "ordinary members" when they have questions or ideas concerning the church, simply because they are "ordinary members."
Because continuing revelation is a cornerstone of our faith, there are few things more important for Mormons than to understand how it operates, both for the church, and in our own lives. As Paul reminds us in 1 Corinthians 12, we are one body in Christ, and each member is necessary and honorable. All of us have access to the Holy Spirit; all are entitled to receive revelation from God. We cannot dictate our ideas to the church, it is true. God's house is a house of order. But all of us--the newest baptized member no less than Thomas S. Monson himself--have the privilege and responsibility to seek inspiration concerning the work of building Zion, and to act faithfully and humbly on the inspiration we receive.
image: The Sacred Grove, by Greg Olsen. source: history.lds.org
.jpg)
