Several founders of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and especially Joseph Smith III, who accepted leadership of the church in 1860, had deeply resented the authority claimed and exercised by Brigham Young and the apostles between 1844 and 1846. The searing experience of the loss of the Prophet, the promulgation of plural marriage, contention over settlement of the Smith family estate and Church properties, and a period of "wandering" from claimant to claimant of the Prophet's mantle, all left them distrustful of any assertion of strong ecclesiastical authority.We can see this distrust in the very first canonized revelation of Joseph Smith III, which instructs the Twelve and the Bishop to start gathering tithes, but with the caveat that they must "see to it, that the temporal means so obtained is truly used for the purposes of the church, and not as a weapon of power in the hands of one man for the oppression of others, or for the purposes of self-aggrandizement by anyone, be he whomsoever he may be" (114:1b). A later revelation explains that this instruction was given because Joseph Smith III "had not yet approved himself unto the scattered flock," and the Lord wanted to be sure "that the scattered ones and those who had been made to suffer might have assurance that I would not suffer that he whom I had called should betray the confidence of the faithful" (122:5b). Another revelation acknowledges the possibility that "the liberties of the people of the church [c]ould be in jeopardy" or that "there [c]ould be a flagrant disregard of the rights of the people" because of things done by church leaders (126:10c-d).
The excerpt from Joseph Smith Jr.'s Liberty Jail letter which became D&C 121 (but not until 1876, which means it wasn't part of the canon of Joseph Smith Jr. revelations shared by the LDS and the Reorganization, and therefore has never appeared in an RLDS D&C) contains its own famous warning against the possibility of unrighteous dominion by church leaders. D&C 121 doesn't indicate a solution to the danger other than exhorting leaders to exercise authority by persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, and love unfeigned—a kind of self-regulation. The Reorganization's solution was to use the principle of common consent as a kind of check-and-balance. The church can't be governed by straightforward prophetic fiat: the quorums and/or the General Conference have to vote when the president claims to have received a revelation.
I need to be careful not to romantically exaggerate the difference: I've heard Bill Russell (the Sunstone Symposium's longtime RLDS/CofC attendee) complain about what he sees as an undue deference to presidential claims to revelation, such that no revelation has ever not been accepted, usually with virtual unanimity, as I understand it (with exceptions such as D&C 156, on women's ordination, over which a substantial minority left the church). Still, by comparison to LDS slogans that make me gnash my teeth, like "When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done," or "The Lord will never allow us to lead the church astray," or "Don't criticize church leaders even if the criticism is true," I find the Reorganized approach much healthier. By comparison to the slogans I just referenced, there's a relatively more humble, modest air about Joseph Smith III's revelations because he knows they have to be approved by the membership and, in theory at least, might not be.
This modesty is especially evident in Joseph Smith III's later revelations. In section 124 (written in 1897), the Lord tells the Twelve that if they choose William H. Kelley to fill a certain position, "it will be pleasing unto me; nevertheless, if directed by the spirit of revelation and wisdom they may choose another" (124:3). This is quite literally a divine suggestion, rather than a commandment, based on the explicit understanding that the Twelve, not just JS III, are entitled to "the spirit of revelation and wisdom"—and the implicit understanding that their spirit of revelation can trump JS III's. In the preface to D&C 128 (written in 1909), JS III introduces a revelation by saying, "Whether that which has come to me will bring relief to the situation, I know not; but such as it is, I hereby present it." A few years before that (section 126, written in 1902), JS III reported on a vision he'd had that he understood as revelation about who should fill certain callings; he noted that this revelation seemed to deviate from established procedures and left it in the hands of the church to decide whether to implement it: "the whole matter is hereby submitted for the approval or disapproval of the church" (126:13). (Imagine OD 1 or OD 2 being presented to the membership on those terms.)
One of Joseph Smith III's revelations shows that the church didn't always accede to prophetic instruction. In 1901, JS III presented a revelation to the General Conference without first presenting it to the quorums, which had been the custom. He explained that he had been "bidden" to deviate from the established practice. The Conference, however, voted to refer the revelation back to the quorums, as per the standard practice. The revelation itself refers to another instance where the church overrode prophetic instruction: 125:7a alludes to JS III having been "directed" and "led" by the Spirit of the Lord to present certain policies to the church, "but the conferences of my people saw proper to change these articles and rules," a reality to which the Spirit is apparently willing to adapt, because JS III now offers new direction from the Spirit to the effect that the revised policies should be left in their revised state (125:7b).
Again, I need to be careful not to exaggerate or romanticize the extent to which Joseph Smith III's revelations sanction democratic dissent. The same section I've just been looking at contains a warning from the Spirit which basically says: You're free to reject my guidance, but you'll forfeit blessings by doing so. (The actual wording is: "If my people will respect the officers whom I have called and set in the church, I will respect these officers; and if they do not, they cannot expect the riches of gifts and the blessings of direction" [125:14c]). An earlier revelation had instructed the Saints that if church leaders "be found transgressors, or idle servants, ye shall not uphold them" (118:4a)—which immediately struck me because of the contrast to Dallin H. Oaks's insistence that members aren't entitled to pass that kind of critical judgment. But the very next sentence goes on to caution the Saints to "be not hasty in withdrawing your support from them, peradventure ye shall injure my work" (118:4b). The last couple of revelations JS III wrote (in 1913 and 1914) express concern that a "spirit of recrimination and accusation" among elders and Conference delegates "evinces a serious lack of . . . charity" and is undermining the Saints' confidence in the leadership (130:8; 131:4). I feel I have to submit to a just divine rebuke in those words. At the same time, I would rather be part of a community that had to be chastened for disunity and not adequately sustaining its leaders than a community that elevates sustaining its leaders to the point of idolatry and disregard for the conscience of dissenters.
No comments:
Post a Comment