RLDS D&C 132-144 and the problem of unity

(About this reflection)

My reading for this week was the revelations written by Frederick M. Smith (sections 132-138) and Israel A. Smith (139-144). Both were sons of Joseph Smith III. Section 144 is, as I understand it, the last revelation that the Community of Christ, the Restoration branches, and the Remnant Church have as a shared canon, since the latter two do not accept the revelations subsequently received by W. Wallace Smith and his successors.

I don't know too much about it, but FMS's presidency saw a power struggle regarding Supreme Directional Control, which was basically an effort to increase the policy-making power of the church president over that of the Twelve and the Presiding Bishopric. The issue resulted in thousands of RLDS leaving, many for the Church of Christ (Temple Lot).

A recurring theme in the FMS revelations is injunctions against contention and statements about how important it is that the church be united. Read in light of the Supreme Directional Control controversy, those injunctions take on a sinister air for me, since I suspect that what they mean in practice is: Stop questioning and do what I say. Deja vu. In section 134, FMS says that "the voice of inspiration to me" is that four apostles be released and new ones called to take their place: while, again, I don't know much about the story behind that yet, it smells like an effort to "pack" the Quorum of the Twelve with folks more to FMS's liking. The intro to that section says that a move was made at General Conference to postpone that action until certain unnamed issues were worked out between the president, the Twelve, and the Bishopric: "Debate on this procedural matter broadened into a review of the entire administration of President Smith. The document was approved by a divided vote"—which is a politely muted way to say that there was a lot of controversy, and things may even have gotten nasty.

Israel A. Smith evidently opposed Supreme Directional Control, and his revelations have a more modest feel to them. In presenting his first revelation to the General Conference, he says that "if the quorums and the body shall have this message confirmed unto them, I shall rejoice, and I have faith that the church thereby will be blessed" (139:2c). In 140:5b, the Lord says that "of necessity [church leaders'] counsel when given is not intended to dictate or to deny any man his agency." Later revelations commend church leaders for their "unity and spirit of tolerance" (141:7a) and their "spirit of moderation" (142:3).

The struggle to forge and maintain unity is a theme that stands out to me in the revelations of JSIII, FMS, and IAS. This makes sense, given the importance that the Reorganization placed on the Zion-building project, and given the prominence that injunctions to unity had in Joseph Smith Jr's revelations on Zion-building (e.g., Be one, and if ye are not one, ye are not mine; the Lord called his people Zion because they were one in heart and mind). Of the three RLDS presidents I've considered so far, FMS seems to take the most authoritarian approach to cultivating unity: Stop contending, and fall into line behind the president-prophet. This was JS Jr's preferred approach to authority as well.

JSIII favors a more collaborative, dialogic approach. In 122:13, the First Presidency, the Twelve, and the Presiding Bishopric are instructed to remain behind after General Conference, "counsel[ing] together in the spirit of moderation and mutual forbearance and concession," so that "a unity of sentiment and purpose will be reached by them." Some years later, section 129 says that "the Lord is well pleased with the advancement which has been made in approaching unity during the conference year; and though there may have been differences of opinion, these differences have been held in unity of purpose and desire for the good of my people, and will result in helping to bring to pass a unity of understanding" (129:9a-b). IAS's attitude seems to me more in line with JSIII's.

The process endorsed in section 129 is longer and harder than executive fiat, which I understand to have been the gist of Supreme Directional Control. A military model where a leader commands and underlings have a duty to follow is more efficient in terms of getting things done. It's also a model in which underlings are expected to forfeit the exercise of their agency: you do what you're told whether you agree or not, whether it makes sense or not. It's a model that looks more like Satan's plan, as I was taught the story of the war in heaven, than like the championing of a risky freedom, the power to make our own decisions and learn from our mistakes.

I've taken part in organizations that worked by consensus, and I know how incredibly frustrating that can be; I can certainly understand why executive fiat is so tempting. But I also have faith that the longer, harder, more frustrating process of "counsel[ing] together in the spirt of moderation and mutual forbearance and concession" (122:13c) and learning to hold differences of opinion "in unity of purpose and desire for the good of [God's] people" (129:9b), although less effective at making policy decisions or maintaining clear boundaries, is more effective at what ultimately matters most: training us in the disciplines of spiritual discernment and Christlike love.

That's not to say that I haven't given in many, many times to the temptation to side with executive fiat when that worked to bring about what I wanted.