Why Leave Revelations Un-written
This dispensation was opened with a deluge. Joseph wrote down the communications he received from God in abundance. It was the rush of the Colorado through the canyons of Ohio and Missouri. Now, at the Gulf of California, we stand at the delta on dry ground. The disparity is so grand that we wonder if Joseph’s heirs have the same access that he once had. I recently reread an account that suggests that they do; however, the question then changes to why it is left unwritten.
In 1933, well after the death of President Lorenzo Snow, The New Era carried an account related by Leroi Snow, the president’s son. Leroi related an experience of his father, which the Prophet had told to the family and many leaders in the church. He compiled several of the witnesses that verified the account.
President Snow put on his holy temple robes, repaired again to the same sacred altar, offered up the signs of the Priesthood and poured out his heart to the Lord. He reminded the Lord how he plead for President Woodruff’s life to be spared, that President Woodruff’s days would be lengthened beyond his own; that he might never be called upon to bear the heavy burdens and responsibilities of the Church. “Nevertheless,” he said, “Thy will be done. I have not sought this responsibility but if it be Thy will, I now present myself before Thee for Thy guidance and instruction. I ask that Thou show me what Thou wouldst have me do.”
After finishing his prayer he expected a reply, some special manifestation from the Lord. So he waited,—and waited—and waited. There was no reply, no voice, no visitation, no manifestation. He left the altar and the room in great disappointment.
Then, as Lorenzo walked into the corridor of the Temple, he received a visitation from the Lord. In the words of his grand daughter:
One evening while I was visiting grandpa Snow in his room in the Salt Lake Temple, I remained until the door keepers had gone and the night-watchmen had not yet come in, so grand-pa said he would take me to the main front entrance and let me out that way… After we left his room and while we were still in the large corridor leading into the celestial room, I was walking several steps ahead of grand-pa when he stopped me and said: ‘Wait a moment, Allie, I want to tell you something. It was right here that the Lord Jesus Christ appeared to me at the time of the death of President Woodruff. He instructed me to go right ahead and reorganize the First Presidency of the Church at once and not wait as had been done after the death of the previous presidents, and that I was to succeed President Woodruff.’
She further elucidated:
Then grand-pa came a step nearer and held out his left hand and said: ‘He stood right here, about three feet above the floor. It looked as though He stood on a plate of solid gold.’
Grand-pa told me what a glorious personage the Savior is and described His hands, feet, countenance and beautiful white robes, all of which were of such a glory of whiteness and brightness that he could hardly gaze upon Him.
President Heber J. Grant, President Lund and other apostles also testified to having received the same account. The apostles had received it from the Lorenzo Snow as a confirmation of the procedural change in the succession of the Prophets on Tuesday morning, September 13th, 1898. Elder Winter also added that the Lord told Lorenzo to select George Q. Cannon and Joseph F. Smith as councilors.
I am moved by this account and believe it. The question I am faced with is why this was not written and transmitted to the saints. Joseph frequently wrote the revelations that pertained to callings and procedures. The experience of Lorenzo marked a definitive change in church policy and qualifies under any criteria derived from our book of covenants as worthy.
I want our Prophet to have access to God that is tantamount to that of Joseph; however, it looks like there is an historic precedent for him to remain silent.
I didn’t grow up in the Church. I was raised a Baptist. And when I was investigating the Mormons I asked basically this same question of the missionaries. In so many words, they told me that the Lord doesn’t run a side show to satisfy idle curiousity, and that he expects people to have the faith that comes only from a witness born of the Holy Ghost. Their answer made sense to me then, and I believe it is true today. I know that miracles take place in the Church today. I have witnesses some of them myself. I imagine they are rather commonplace among the faithful. But I didn’t write them down and publish them to the world. I hold them sacred. I might share them on some special occasion with my wife or with my children, but that’s it. From the story you relate, it sounds like President Snow didn’t publish his account either. It found it’s way into the New Era many, many years later.
I believe this is the principle that the Savior was teaching when he said:
When we believe by receiving personal revelation, we are using greater faith than if we believe because we see. In the same way, when we believe by receiving personal revelation, we are exercising greater faith than if we believe because we hear sensational stories. I think that the Lord keeps miraculous manifestations close to his chest because it offers us a greater opportunity to walk by faith and to be valiant in the testimony of Jesus.
Comment by John W. Redelfs — 7/15/2005 @ 2:56 am
I’m all for revelation, personal and in it’s other manifestations. However, if we don’t need the accounts of the Prophet’s revelations, why did Joseph communicate so copiously his revelations?
Comment by J. Stapley — 7/15/2005 @ 10:44 am
I have a couple of issues with John’s response:
1) “I didn’t write them down and publish them to the world. I hold them sacred.”
This is a rather common belief, but I’ve never heard anybody justify it. There are many people in the scriptures which did “publish peace and brought good tidings of good, who [did] publish salvation.” Remember how Alma and the Sons of Mosiah did “publish to all the people the things which they had heard and seen?” Many examples can be found of this very phenomenon. Thus it would seem to these prophets that they DID publish their experiences BECAUSE they were sacred. Sacred doesn’t necessarily mean private. If one is going to keep revelations to themselves, especially if they concern the entire church, then a better reason must be given than “it’s sacred.”
2) “When we believe by receiving personal revelation, we are using greater faith than if we believe because we see.”
We should be careful in our use of the word “faith” here. The strongest faith isn’t faith at all, but is knowledge which IS gained upon sight. Thus when we are still relying upon our feelings instead of sight our leap of faith is certainly “larger” which really means “weaker.” Suddenly believing things by revelation instead of sight isn’t the virtue we thought it was.
3) “it offers us a greater opportunity to walk by faith and to be valiant in the testimony of Jesus.”
As I mentioned in (2) I have serious doubts about this. Why is walking in the comparative dark a virtue? I’m not prepared to fully dismiss this sentiment, but additional reasoning is DEFINITELY needed before I’m willing to even consider it.
Comment by Jeffrey Giliam — 7/15/2005 @ 11:02 am
I should also point out that the “personal revelation” response kind of misses the point that J. was getting at. Back in Joseph’s day the members were asked to recieve personal revelation that Joseph’s published revelations were true. Now we are asked, it would seem, to receive personal revelation saying not only that modern day revelation is true, but that there actually IS modern day revelation. This change calls for an explanation.
Comment by Jeffrey Giliam — 7/15/2005 @ 2:40 pm
In answer to Jonathan’s question, “why did Joseph communicate so copiously his revelations,” I believe it was because he was ushering in a new dispensation of the gospel. He was restoring the ancient church of Jesus Christ and correcting millennia of false doctrine. He was bringing forth new scripture. Publishing the everyday revelations that are needed to run the Church is not as essential to the work of God as were the founding revelations.
With that said, I believe that we are going to receive additional scripture including the other two thirds of the Book of Mormon plates. There will undoubtedly be other scriptures revealed too. The Book of Mormon speaks of these other scriptures that will be brough forth in this dispensation. When those events take place, we will undoubtedly see more of the “publishing” of revelation that is reminiscient of the Prophet Joseph’s day.
I think the revelation that changed the doctrines concerning blacks and the priesthood is an example of such publishing. Other examples are the Manifesto of 1890, the Proclamation on the Family, and the last couple of sections in our Doctrine and Covenants. If the rate of this publishing does not equal what it was in the days of Joseph Smith, it is largely because our current prophets are not ushering in a new dispensation.
I think there may be one other reason, one which I hesitate to mention. The saints may already have all the truth that they are willing to endure. It says in the Book of Mormon that the Lord will “try their faith” (3 Nephi 26:9) before he gives the saints additional revelation. The prophets of God have repeatedly taught doctrine that the saints are unwilling to accept. A good example of this was the refusal of the saints to live the Law of Consecration during the Missouri period. The Doctrine and Covenants and later the sermons of John Taylor make it clear that disobedience to that law was the primary reason for the expulsion of the saints from Missouri. Other examples that could be cited are the failure of the saints to live the United Order, and their outright rejection of the inspired teachings of Ezra Taft Benson on the subjects of freedom, the Constitution, the proper role of government, and the threats to those things from from modern secret combinations. Why should the Lord give us additional revelation when we have rejected what he has already revealed? I don’t think he will.
Comment by John W. Redelfs — 7/15/2005 @ 3:01 pm
The thing is that I don’t know how much of what Joseph wrote was new. It seems that alot of it was “So and so should have this calling…the church should do this.” It seems that many procedural changes were written as revelations. Section 106 is a great example, and there are many others.
Consequently, it seems that much of this written revelation is not a an increase in knowlege of the mysteries or stuff that we can be faithful to. Really, it just seems that Joseph wanted to let everyone know where these ideas were coming from and that Jesus was real.
Comment by J. Stapley — 7/15/2005 @ 3:21 pm
As J. already knows I find myself largely in agreement with him on this issue. While I obviously can’t argue against the “there is a good reason for it which the Lord will reveal later” line, I can argue against some of the terrible reasons which member do sometimes put forth to justify the obvious decrease in modern day revelation. The fact that these members (I’m not accusing anyone in particular, let alone John) already have these excuses only goes to show that even they have noticed the change in “policy” which cries out for justification.
The reason why it cries so loudly is because it is suspicious to say the least. The missionaries ask investigator to first read the BoM and THEN seek personal revelation about it’s truthfulness. But when it comes to MODERN (as opposed to 150 years old) revelation we don’t even get to read it. The revelations are kept as far from us as possible. How could this not arouse the suspicion in some people? After a while the “trust me, everything is fine” really starts to where thin.
Now as to John’s second response (like I said those comments where not about him at all):
1) What does ushering in a new dispensation have to do with revealing new information? Is there any shortage of false or ambiguous doctrine being taught in the church today? Wouldn’t it be nice if we could nail down some of those doctrine to which we have “no official position?” I’m sure we can all think of a few. John of all people should be able to recognize the numerous false doctrines which are believed and taught by otherwise faithful latter day Saints. Those the scriptures I quoted above from the BoM were from prophets who were not restoring a dispensation either. This excuse is pretty weak in my opinion.
2) “He was bringing forth new scripture.” Exactly. That J.’s point. Why don’t prophets bring forth new scripture today? You can’t answer the question by simply restating it as an answer.
3) “Publishing the everyday revelations that are needed to run the Church is not as essential to the work of God as were the founding revelations.” I think J. already responded to this. Joseph was willing to publish those revelations, just as much as the less “beuracratic” ones. If we do receive those today, why can’t we hear about them? Why are members anxious of saying that these are the only revelations we receive today anyways? That is a sad position, “We do receive revelation today, but it’s not even important enough for us to know about it. It’s only important enough for those immediately concerned.” (As if the church membership isn’t concerned.)
4) “I think the revelation that changed the doctrines concerning blacks and the priesthood is an example of such publishing.”
As J. knows, I have argued about this claim with a few other people on the bloggernacle. Accounts have certainly been given about the reception of the 1978 revelation as well as the interpretations drawn from it, but I have never ever even heard of somebody publishing the actual content of the revelation. All the account basically say “we prayed about it and all felt good.” Is that what our claims to modern day revelation have become? Similar things can be said about the manifesto, a document which Joseph F. Smith said was NOT a revelation at all. Who claimed the proclamation was a revelation either? If it is, how and when was it received? What were the Lord’s words exactly? Again, these claims aren’t as strong as I would like them to be.
5) Now with regards to us not being ready there isn’t too much to be said either way. I just wonder how ready the often apostate members of Joseph’s day really were compared to us. It is my opinion that we as a church are actually living up to what is now asked of us fairly well. We aren’t asked to practice the United Order or Polygamy anymore. We live the Word of Wisdom well beyond what Joseph or Brigham ever did. We read and study the revelation far more than any other dispensation ever did. A large proportion go to seminary, go on missions, visit the temple frequently, pay tithing, and so on.
There always has been and always will be a large portion which will never be “ready” but that never stopped God before. I think if people are going to use this excuse they really should say more about what they really mean by this. How are we not ready? How were those of earlier times more ready? What would make us ready? and so on.
Comment by Jeffrey Giliam — 7/15/2005 @ 4:49 pm
Good post and question, J. I’ll try to write a responding post this weekend.
Comment by Geoff Johnston — 7/16/2005 @ 12:50 pm
What revelations are “we” looking for from the prophet? New doctrine? On what? There have been periods throughout history where prophets have not revealed new truths or doctrines. Where are the new doctrines of Adam, Seth, Enoch, Noah, Melchezedek, Abraham, the other 9 original apostles, the 12 Nephite disciples etc.?
I guess I feel that when specific revelations are necessary for the church they will come. Priesthood for all, and temple building are two examples I think fit. Does God have to come down and say “Thus saith the Lord” to make His point? I don’t think so.
Now all that being said, I too would like to see/hear the prophet reveal something with the tag line of “Thus saith the Lord”. The comments are the same thoughts I’ve had from time to time too.
Comment by Don — 7/16/2005 @ 1:29 pm
I think that is why I find the Lorenzo story a fascinating case study, Don. It seems that Joseph would have for sure written it down.
Thanks for the comments Jeffrey.
I look forward to it Geoff.
Comment by J. Stapley — 7/16/2005 @ 5:18 pm
I’ve been thinking abot a few things. First, I think, as some have pointed out, that Joseph had a particular work to do in restoring the gospel. In doing that, he needed, I think to give a lot more revelation in terms of doctrine, and he gave it in a way that emphasized that it was the word of the Lord. Lots of thus saith the Lord.
That said, I read back through Pres. Hinkley’s talks in conference this week, and I really felt bound by his words every bit as much as if he had said “thus saith the Lord,” so why the change in voacbulary? Most obviously, the usage is archaic, but beyond that I was thinking about the Lord’s declaration in the D&C that whether revelation comes by his voice or the voice of his servants it is the same. Then I was sort of thining backwards through the parable of the master and his servants, where the master sends more and more important servants and then sends his son. It’s almost like we had to start there, with is son, and now he’s working back to sending his servants, since we have the faith to follow them as they act in their callings. In a way, I see it as a step towards building spiritual independence in his church. I still have to think through that, though.
As far as the Lorenzo Snow story, I think it was important for Joseph to write these things down because we didn’t know them. We didn’t know much about the nature of God. If Lorenzo’s experience gave no new knowledge of God, but was merely to assure him that he did have the access he needed to God as his prophet, then it may have been just an experience for Lorenzo, and, perhaps, the membership of the church really wasn’t concerned.
Comment by Steve H — 7/16/2005 @ 9:20 pm
I take a whack at it a few months ago, but not so much from the “because it’s sacred” angle. I’m also speaking more of revelation to the rank-and-file, like me
http://www.millennialstar.org/index.php/2005/05/18/revelation_and_keeping_your_mouth_shut
Comment by Ben S. — 7/16/2005 @ 11:51 pm
Gah, that’s what I get for not editing carefully enough. I took a whack at it a few months ago…
Comment by Ben S. — 7/16/2005 @ 11:52 pm
The question being asked by this post could be turned around — we could ask why prophets sometimes give such detailed accounts of their revelations. When we read the first verse of Joseph Smith History, Joseph Smith states that he is putting this account together because of all the lies that are being told. I get the impression from this verse that he might not have normally shared such a detailed description of the First Vision if he didn’t feel compelled to do so in order to refute slanders and lies being told about him.
Comment by danithew — 7/17/2005 @ 1:11 pm
I just found the following while reading in the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. It is part of a response to the Brother of Jared Carter regarding a revelation he felt he claimed to have had to direct the brethren:
It would seem from this that we won’t see more revelation of the sort that gets written until there is something important that needs to be given that the Lord can’t teach us individually through the revelations as they stand, even if we are searching dilligently and seeking the spirit. I don’t think this would preclude individual manifestations, just not approaching the Lord for further revelations to the church until more is needed.
Comment by Steve H — 7/17/2005 @ 4:24 pm
Something very much like Steve’s argument, combined with the idea that the Bible actually contains the collectively important material, justifies the traditional Christian notion of sola scriptura–that the Bible, combined with personal inspiration, is sufficient as a revelation of God’s will. In the early days, Latter-day Saints rejected this with the claim that constant revelation was needed to decide among competing claims. There are clearly competing claims in the LDS community today; indeed, we have them within our little corner of it, over issues no less central than the meaning of the atonement (in recent weeks). Wouldn’t Joseph Smith see a resolution of these debates as a sufficient cause to ask for revelation?
It’s possible that some General Conference talks and policy statements are based on direct revelation–but it’s an inference. We generally aren’t told by people in authority that there is any revelation involved, so claims of revelation in these instances rely heavily on folklore and folk belief. That’s not relying on faith, it’s trusting in the arm of flesh, I’m afraid…
Comment by RoastedTomatoes — 7/18/2005 @ 7:23 am
RoastedTomatoes,
There is a difference between new revelation (specifically, Joseph here says “special revelation” and authoritative interpretation of the revelations that have been given. As I understand it, the prophet is authorized to interpret scripture for the church. When we recieve the official position of the church, expressed by the prophet and the quorum together, as we have in the proclamations, there is no reason to believe that they cmae by revelation, though perhaps not through the voice of the Lord or a visitation. This is not to say that they don’t happen, just that revelation wouldn’t necessarily be more authoritative for having come in this way.
On this, Pres Hinkley’s talk on Loyalty seems relevant:
I wouldn’t call that relying on the arm of the flesh. I call it trusting the Lord’s anointed.
As far as understanding the atonement, specifically, I think that is one of the things that we must understand ourselves through study of the revelations, as Joseph suggests here. I don’t think it is anything that will be handed to us any time soon. It would never be that easy.
Comment by Steve H — 7/18/2005 @ 1:51 pm
I’d never argue that Pres. Hinckley or the others in leadership are trying to harm the church or are not seeking the guidance of inspiration. So nothing in the quote you offer, Steve, really comes as a surprise to me. However, having whole-heartedly adopted Jeffrey Gilliam’s distinction between inspiration and revelation, I have to say that Hinckley’s statement really sounds like he’s specifically describing inspiration and not revelation.
I should also specify that, when I referred to the arm of flesh above, I don’t mean to say that trusting the statements of Hinckley et al. (especially when those statements match the Holy Ghost) is trusting the arm of flesh. Instead, I mean that relying on rumors that claim revelation as the basis of specific teachings is trusting the arm of flesh.
I think we disagree about what Joseph would have said about the atonement. Study of the existing texts is the basis for our current disagreements–much like the situation with respect to Christianity more generally circa 1820. Such disputes on the basis of a shared text are precisely the justification Joseph claimed for continuing revelation.
Comment by RoastedTomatoes — 7/18/2005 @ 3:54 pm
If I remember the published writing accurately, in the biography of N. Eldon Tanner (formerly in the First Presidency) it’s recorded that Elder Harold B. Lee visited the ailing J. Reuben Clark (also formerly in the First Presidency) a few times before his death in 1971. Pres. Clark told Lee that Christ appeared to him, telling him he understood he had passed through difficult trials. Clark responded saying that He (Christ) had suffered more than all. Christ also told Pres. Clark He didn’t know when Clark would die, and that He wouldn’t tell him even if He did know.
I personally know of some who are eye or ear-witnesses, or some other tangible way experienced God, angels or His presence. I’m confident the prophets do as well when necessary. I’m not sure how productive it would be for them to tell us all. I think we should all seek our own experiences until the prophets see fit to reveal more.
Comment by cadams — 7/21/2005 @ 9:54 pm
In the October 2002 conference, Pres Hinckley said:
“And we urge, in the strongest terms possible, that fathers and mothers regard most seriously this opportunity and challenge to make of Monday evening a time sacred to the family.”
What more do we want beyond “in the strongest terms possible” from a prophet, speaking as prophet, at General Conference?
Upon further research, I found more conference talks and First Presidency messages saying that the Family Home Evening program applies as much to singles as it does to families.
I’ve been remiss in attending the Singles Family Home Evening groups lately, and will have to get my act together.
Comment by GreenEggz — 7/22/2005 @ 5:10 pm
Didn’t President Hinckley make a comment on this in his last interview with Larry King? Anyone Got a link to that?
Comment by matt witten — 7/25/2005 @ 6:13 pm
My own faith is that the LORD tried to restore the gift of “Word of the LORD” revelation to the church beginning in 1961. The church leadership and membership simply rejected the gift– so the heaven’s remain sealed to the church membership. If you can look at them objectively and sincerely pray about them, you might consider these revelations:
http://www.2bc.info
Richard
Comment by erichard — 7/30/2005 @ 1:23 am
While prophet, Spencer W. Kimball said in General Conference, “But again we testify to the world that revelation continues and that the vaults and files of the Church contain these revelations which come month to month and day to day.” Spencer W. Kimball, “Revelation: The Word of the Lord to His Prophets,” Ensign, May 1977, 76. I wonder how they are filed…by date or category (kidding).
Comment by Randy Smithson — 1/22/2006 @ 2:20 pm