Not in the Lord's program

A couple of people have brought this quote from President Hinckley to my attention over the last few days and I have been seriously pondering it. Especially interesting to me was how it could be contrasted with the interview he gave with David Random with ABC Australia news in 1997.


In both statements (on Mormon.org and interview with David Ransom), he says essentially the same thing "Women do not hold the priesthood because the Lord has put it that way. It is part of His program." However, one of the statements is much more definitive than the other. When asked by Ransom, if that could change, President Hinckley said that it could change but that it hasn't and won't because "there is no agitation for that."

My view is basically that in the quote published on Mormon.org, though he did not go onto state that the policy of women receiving the priesthood is subject to change, he could have. In a way, it does a disservice to the women of the church and those who care about equality for him to leave it like its a firm degree of God that women do not have the priesthood. In fact, there is no recorded revelation in the scriptures that says that only men are supposed to hold the priesthood. In my understanding of the doctrine, the scriptures are silent on that aspect of the priesthood.

Of course, him being prophet, he could have personally received a revelation saying that it was not God's will for women to hold the priesthood. Three problems though if that is the case: he did not ever clearly communicate this to the general membership of the church; he elsewhere mentioned that a revelation could be given that would change it (implying that a revelation did not set the policy in place originally); and any inspiration he had pertaining to women and the priesthood may have been applicable in that time but could be subject to change when revealed by the Lord that the time is right. For these reasons, I think its safe to say that the statement on Mormon.org is not authoritatively saying that it is God's will that women should not hold the priesthood. In any case, I highly doubt that he gave the matter serious attention and ever prayed to know if the current policy was God's will or not. I personally belief if he had asked, he would have received a very different answer (and the fact that he says a revelation could be received leads me to believe that he never did ask).

President Hinckley may not have been aware of the history of women and the priesthood. It would not surprise me that he hadn't read deeply into church history on that topic so he would not have known that Joseph Smith and many early Saints believed that women receive the priesthood (that is in the D. Michael Quinn chapter for quick reference).

It seems that the reasoning he is using in that statement follows like this: if women do not have the priesthood, then it must be because God revealed it to someone along the way that they are not supposed to. Because women do not have the priesthood, it must mean that God does not want them to." However, we both know how revelation works. People and prophets do not receive revelation by it coming out of the sky, but they must seek to know it. If no one ever received a revelation saying specifically that women cannot have the priesthood, then it has not been recorded and it is not contained within our scriptures. Many people speculate the reason women didn't receive the priesthood is due to cultural values of the time (though we have recorded in the Old and New Testaments instances of women as prophetesses and priestesses whether this was through the Melchizedek priesthood or not).

This is one of those cases where personal vs hierarchical revelation becomes tricky. What if Heavenly Father were to recognize that its important for a person's spiritual health to know specifically whether it is God's will for women to have the priesthood or not? Would HF reveal to a member of the church personally one way or the other? If He did, would that be different or the same as a person receiving revelation for the church or is it just for personal knowledge? Are there other examples of things that people can learn through the Spirit that may not be revealed to the leaders of the church but they can know for themselves?

I have my ideas but I want to hear yours.

When the Manna Gets Old

The Israelites in the Book of Exodus were fed miraculously with bread of heaven as they wandered in the wilderness. The bread, manna, fell from heaven each morning and provided all they needed for that day. In the evening, they enjoyed meat from quail provided to their camp. After a while though, they got bored and they wanted something different. They missed what they had left behind.

From Numbers 11:

5 We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick:

6 But now our soul is dried away: there is nothing at all, beside this manna before our eyes.

This is a well-known scene from the Old Testament and it becomes in our modern times an example of not being happy with what you have, seeking luxury, being ungrateful, greedy and selfish.

Another pretty obvious parallel is the bread of heaven as a symbol for the bread of life. In the modern LDS church, I can see this case being made: Heavenly Father has revealed a certain amount of doctrine and gospel light to the people of the world and they have an obligation to daily partake of it and live according to its principles. These doctrines are made available through the scriptures and teachings of the prophets (i.e. the bread of life). If members of the church become bored with or tired of these teachings then they are obviously in the same error as the ancient Israelites. These Church members are unable to be happy with what they have, but vainly seek for more. Their selfishness is deplorable and in extension, they can be used as an example of sinful behavior. This can be used to denounce the people who enjoy speculation or scholarship or those who mention a desire for revelation on certain topics or those who seek to understand "the mysteries" mentioned throughout the scriptures.

And to those who make that case, I will say that their meaning sounds an awful lot like the people denounced in The Book of Mormon for saying, "A bible, a bible, we have got a bible. We have not need for any more bible."

Member of the church would be familiar with the foundation principles of the gospel being the core focus of correlation. I learned from Daymon Smith's Mormon Stories Podcast that correlation consists of 72 gospel principles and core doctrines that are intended to be solely concentrated on throughout the church and throughout the world.

In response to that presentation, I commented:

I’m coming to this discussion late, but after just listening to Part 2, have to comment that the discussion on correlation is informing and validating some of my frustrations with the 72 ideas of the gospel. I’m feel pretty solid on those, to be honest. I got it down. I’m bored with the general instruction of correlation and like Andrew referred to I’m itching to move on to the “mysteries.” How I wish there was a post-correlation track for those who are ready to move beyond the basics and seek the “further light and knowledge” that is in the realm of pure speculation now? Sunstone is great for that, of course, but hardly mainstream in the church.

I can't believe that Heavenly Father wants us to stop in our progression and refrain from seeking greater light and intelligence in this life, yet I see this being taught in his church. It saddens me. I find myself in a situation where I have to hide my thoughts and feelings in fear of the judgement and persecution of others.

I know that one of the arguments supporting the idea that those who aren't content with revealed gospel knowledge are ungrateful and selfish also claim that members of the church have the obligation to become perfect in the principles of the gospel that we do have knowledge of. In extension, it is because we are not perfect in these things that we have been deemed unworthy by God to receive any further information. Its as if we are in a period of being damned and halted in our progression because we aren't good enough at what we've got.

That may be true. Yet can such a sweeping generalization be true of everyone? Is this a judgement that we are experiencing because, like many other situations in life, the many are ruining it for the few or, like in other situations, the few are ruining it for the many?

If that is the case, then it might be accurate to say that some members of the church truly are ready to progress beyond correlated principles and to learn through revelation some of the less important doctrine that help us make sense of everything that is and all that will be revealed. If the glory of God is intelligence, why are damned if we seek it?

Those who defend the correlated view say that it is important to have a strong foundation and to not stray from it. That what is taught by the church is the foundation and most important information of the gospel and all we need to know to get back to our heavenly parents. While that is true, and it is important for each member of the church to be firmly established in gospel sod, you can't live in a house that is just a foundation.

Having heard the same lessons repeated with little variance over the last few years has left me weary and yearning for more. And if I run the risk of sounding like an Israelite complaining about manna, I think I'll take it considering my intention is "to hunger and thirst after righteousness."

Human initiative in seeking revelation

I came across this quote today:

"LDS philosopher David Paulsen argues that, while God directs the ongoing restoration, He expects “concurrent human initiative— not only in seeking and receiving direct revelation from God, but also in seeking, recognizing, and appropriating ‘truths’ from others, wherever found.”

Its from an article from Dialogue about C.S. Lewis as a source for gospel truth for Latter-day Saints. In the church, I don't think many argue that he's not a good place to learn good Christian values and a positive example of Christianity. The author draws the parallel between C.S. Lewis's openness to embrace and accept truth wherever it could be found to the teachings of LDS prophets who make the same claim. Yet this quote from David Paulsen takes it to a place that perhaps many Mormons would be uncomfortable.

Most Mormons would agree that in order to receive revelations for one's self, one must take the initiative to seek it. If one takes "no thought save it were to ask (D&C 9:7), they are not very likely to receive the answer. One must diligently, prayerfully over time seek and come line upon line and precept upon precept to the answer that is to be revealed.

And yet, I have seen how some Mormons do not apply this same standard to revelations given directly to the church. I have heard a number times in different ways the thought expressed "If it was Heavenly Father's will, he would reveal it to his leaders and since that's not the way the church is run, then its obviously not His will." Its like these members of the church hold the church leaders to a different standard where they do not have the responsibility or need to take the initiative to receive the will of God for the church. In this line of reasoning, they simply wait for God to speak and tell them what we need to know.

I personally do not, and in all honesty, cannot believe that this is how revelation works in the church. I also do not believe that the leaders of the church have the time or energy to ask of the Lord on every question of doctrinal worth. At the same time, I don't understand the process by which leaders determine which issues are important to seek revelation regarding. Is it something that could be accomplished through a vote?

If we were to view LDS church leaders as representatives between us and God. is it like contacting your legislator and expressing your wishes for what it is you'd like to see accomplished or revealed? Does it then require a critical mass of constituents to effectively communicate what knowledge is being sought by the electorate?

Let's take for instance, the desire for many members of the church to receive church-wide revelation on the doctrine of Heavenly Mother. Would the leaders and, by extension, we be more likely to receive it if a great many members of the church petitioned the leaders to ask on our behalf to know more regarding the nature of a Divine Mother?

There is a pattern of this set forth in the Doctrine and Covenants where many revelations were received because a member of the church asked Joseph regarding a certain topic and as a blessing to the individual and to us generations later, we have the revelation recorded for our benefit and use. The most famous example, perhaps, is the origin of the Word of Wisdom where Emma Smith asked her husband regarding the appropriateness of men chewing tobacco and leaving their spittle to leak through the floorboards to the room below. One of my favorite anecdotes actually comes from David Whitmer who teased Emma about wanting men's filthy habits to cease but may be unwilling to give up the ladie's habits of drinking coffee and tea. Then the revelation addressed and restricted all three.

In the early church, it only took one member of the church. Now, in the modern church, how many members would it take? A couple of hundred? A couple of thousand?

And what would that effort to coordinate look like?