Historian Nathan Hatch has called this period in the early nineteenth century the democratization of American Christianity and many different churches of the time patterned their operations after elements of the new American republic. Revelation was one of those concepts that many of the early Saints thought about democratically. In late summer 1830 Hiram Page, one of the eight witnesses and brother-in-law to the Whitmer's, began to receive revelations through a stone. According to Newell Knight, he "had quite a roll of papers full of these revelations." Some of us might jump to say--he was using a stone clearly that was wrong, but Joseph found a seer stone found in 1832 and used his seer stone at times to translate the Book of Mormon. The pattern was there. Many of the Whitmers and Oliver Cowdery believed Page's revelations "concerning the the upbuilding of Zion the order of the Church and so forth." The revelation Joseph receives clearly distinguished between revelation for the church as a whole and individual revelation.
The principle of prophetic revelation is established with 21:5 "For his [Joseph's] word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth." Section 28 explicitly clarifies that principle with verse 2: "No one shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations in this church excepting my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., for he receiveth them even as Moses." Joseph was a modern-day Moses with "keys of the mysteries, and the revelations which are sealed." And the revelation was given to this Moses's Aaron, Oliver. Hiram was Oliver's brother-in-law and he too had believed his revelations. The Lord explains the principle to Oliver (and then calls him on a mission to "the Lamanites" and talks of the location of Zion for the first time "on the boorders by the Lamanites") and gives him the task of taking his "brother, Hiram Page, between him and thee alone, and tell him that those things which he hath written from that stone are not of me, and that Satan deceiveth him" (28:11).
To Hiram Page's credit we don't hear about this anymore. His stone was likely destroyed--pulverized to dust--despite reports of stones assumed linked to him in present-day. (Here we have a good analysis from Jared Tamez of why these reports of stones are problematic.) The revelation recorded in section 43 demonstrates that there wasn't likely widespread knowledge of the Page event, because the Lord has to teach the principle yet again. (Here Jeff Cannon gives some of this context.)
In early 1831 Kirtland, there are all sorts of interesting occurrences some of which we talked about here with Section 46. John Whitmer wrote about Mrs. Laura Hubble in his history; she "professed to be a prophetess of the Lord, and professed to have many revelations, and knew the Book of Mormon was true, and that she should be a teacher in the Church of Christ. She appeared to be very sanctimonious and deceived some who were not able to detect her in her hypocrisy; others, however, had the spirit of discernment and her follies and abominations were manifest.” She was the thirty-two year old sister of Edson Fuller, one of the young missionaries caught up in some of the crazy spiritual manifestations in Kirtland. (If you need a reminder of this see here.) Again the Saints had to be taught and again this was difficult for some. The following December Mormon defector Ezra Booth wrote the “barbed arrow which she left in the hearts of some, is not yet eradicated.”
Stephen Robinson once remarked that our (the Saints of the Restoration) problem is listening to alternate voices, just as the children of Israel struggled with idols. I think we have all sorts of issues, but this clearly remains difficult. As you study the scriptures with this lesson think about what directions we're given through revelation to not be deceived.
Common consent is part of this. 26:2 and 28:13 establish the principle. We participate in the principle of common consent every time we raise our right hand and sustain a person in a calling or sustain a new revelation--though we haven't done that for a long time. I won't go into this at length, but a few quotes to think about:
“It is clear that the sustaining vote by the people is not, as is not to
be regarded as, a mere matter of form, but on the contrary a
matter of the last gravity.”
-J. Reuben Clark, Jr., CR, April 1940, 72.
“[God’s ways] are not based on social or political considerations. They cannot be changed. No pressure, no protest, no legislation can
alter them.”
Boyd K. Packer, Ensign, November 1993, 22.
“Negative votes are for reasons of wrongdoing or
transgression that, if unresolved, would disqualify the individual.”
Joseph Fielding Smith Doctrines of Salvation 3:123-124.
“When you vote affirmatively you make a solemn covenant with the Lord…”
“…sustain, that is give your full support, without equivocation or
reservation to the officer for whom you vote.”
Harold B. Lee, CR, April 1970, 103.
“…if I understand the obligation I assumed when I raised my hand—that we
will stand behind him; we will pray for him [or her]; we will defend his [or her] good name,
and we will strive to carry out his [or her] instructions as the Lord shall
direct him to offer them to us while [she or] he remains in that position.”
George Albert Smith, CR, April 1919, 40.
“The voice of the people is the voice of God.” [Quoting the OT and Moses and the children of Israel was a common rallying cry of many 19th century democratic denominations. JT here explains:]
“Then it was the voice of God and the voice of the people; or, in other
words, the voice of the people assenting to
the voice of God.”
John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, 19:120.
No comments:
Post a Comment