Natalie Brown: Maybe LDS leaders can make big changes without big revelations

We routinely hear that it would take a revelation for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to change its positions on gender. To some extent, the perceived requirement for a revelation is a product of the 1978 Revelation on Priesthood (now canonized as Official Declaration 2) in which then-President Spencer W. Kimball ended the church’s practice of barring Black members from the temple and Black males from priesthood ordination. Women of all races are still unable to be ordained within the church.

The 1978 revelation now serves as a pattern for the authority needed to enact major shifts in church policy or doctrine (the distinction between which is often unclear). New research into the revelation, however, raises the question of whether we are holding change to too high of a revelatory bar. Does change require a revelation, especially if no one can point to a revelation that began the tradition? And, if so, what do we mean by “revelation?”

Matthew Harris’ recently published “Second-Class Saints: Black Mormons and the Struggle for Racial Equality” explores the history, ending and legacy of the so-called priesthood/temple ban.

Harris tells an uncomfortably recent story that underscores how even well-intended church leaders at times struggle to parse human-made tradition from inspired doctrine. It is impossible to read this story and not perceive how this instance of mistaking tradition for the divine exacted a heartbreaking human toll, particularly for families denied priesthood blessings and individuals who spent years struggling to reconcile now-rejected church teachings with their own self-worth and moral intuition. This story demands that we work to dismantle the racism that lingers in the church and address past wrongs. It also demands that we think seriously about the claim that some changes must only occur through revelation.

(Courtesy) Historian Matthew Harris, right, is the author of this new book about the former priesthood/temple ban against Black members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

“Second-Class Saints” offers a deep look into the lengthy process that led to Kimball and the apostles receiving the priesthood revelation. Members are often inclined to believe that significant revelation on behalf of the church requires something akin to Joseph Smith’s “First Vision.” Harris persuasively demonstrates, however, that the 1978 priesthood revelation involved nothing of the kind. He shows that it was the product of prolonged debate and discussion among general authorities as well as external pressure, including a federal investigation and threats to the church’s global aspirations.

“Mormon revelation isn’t the dramatic thunderbolt observers might imagine,” Harris writes. “There was no burning bush, no angels telling Kimball what to do, no cosmic force scripting it for him. Rather, Kimball, his counselors, and the 12 apostles, ‘thrashed out, discussed, and rediscussed’ the church’s race doctrine until they reached a consensus that it needed to change.”

function onSignUp() { const token = grecaptcha.getResponse(); if (!token) { alert("Please verify the reCAPTCHA!"); } else { axios .post( "https://8c0ug47jei.execute-api.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/dev/newsletter/checkCaptcha", { token, env: "PROD", } ) .then(({ data: { message } }) => { console.log(message); if (message === "Human

Natalie Brown: Maybe LDS leaders can make big changes without big revelations

Natalie Brown: Maybe LDS leaders can make big changes without big revelations

Natalie Brown: Maybe LDS leaders can make big changes without big revelations

Natalie Brown: Maybe LDS leaders can make big changes without big revelations

Natalie Brown: Maybe LDS leaders can make big changes without big revelations