S U N S T 0 N E

Revelation can go upward in the Church, upward through a hierarchy atits top or bottom, or even from non-hierarchical to hierarchical positions.

C OUNTER- HIERARCH I CALREVELATION

By Todd Compton

THIS PAPER DEALS WITH REVELATION AND HOW

it is sometimes received. Specifically I will address a process ofrevelation in which revelation is received by someone compar-atively low in a hierarchy, or not in the hierarchy, and iseventually accepted by someone higher in the hierarchy. I havenoticed this pattern in the scriptures and in Church history--in fact, this article is a direct outgrowth of my teaching SundaySchool for two years, trying to read the New Testament andBook of Mormon carefully.

While Church leaders can be inspired, they are still humanand fallible. We find this fact exemplified all through thescriptures and Church history: Moses disobeyed God at Meri-bath-Kadesh (Numbers 20:11-12, 27:12-14); as this paper willshow, according to Paul, Peter acted hypocritically in responseto social pressure; Lehi joined Laman and Lemuel in murmur-ing against the Lord; Jonah did not want to save the repentantcity of Ninevah. As President J. Reuben Clark said, "Even thePresident of the Church has not always spoken under thedirection of the Holy Ghost, for a prophet is not always aprophet .... In our own Church, leaders have differed in viewfrom the first." 1

Some might think that an emphasis on this idea is overlycritical of prophets and Church leaders, even anti-Mormon.Actually, emphasizing the fallibility of inspired leaders is theonly possible defense against simplistic anti-Mormon critics.Otherwise we have to run around in a state of paranoiacovering up well-documented failings of Church leaders in anunconvincing--and seemingly dishonest--way. And as we tryto cover up past mistakes, we add a whole new layer of failings

TODD COMPTON served a mission in Ireland; received his Ph.D.in classics at U.C.L.A.; and has published articles in AmericanJournal of Philology, Classical Quarterly, The Journal of Popu-lar Culture and By Study and By Faith, Vol. I. This paper waspresented at the 5unstone Symposium West Symposium in Concord,California, in 1989.

to Church history for the next generation of leaders to dealwith.

While some might make a strong distinction betweenrevelation and inspiration, in this paper I will treat them as ifthey are closely related, different in strength, but on the samecontinuum, and will consider inspiration, including moralinsight, to be a sort of revelation. For instance, in an 1892speech, President Wilford Woodruff seems to use revelationand inspiration as more or less interchangeable terms.2

PETER AND PAUL AT ANTIOCH

MY first test case is the confrontation of Paul and Peter

at Antioch, which Paul describes in Galatians 2.3 Unfortu-nately, we don’t have Peter’s version of this event and someinterpreters of this passage have viewed Peter with some sym-pathy. But for the purposes of this paper, in true fundamental-ist fashion, I will assume that Paul’s version is substantiallytrue. It is worth noting that the idea of a fallible Peter was sotroubling to Patristic commentators that this passage became amodel case of "polemical theology," Kontroverstheologie, in theMiddle Ages. In fact, Augustine and Jerome had a famousepistolary dispute concerning it. While Augustine denouncedJerome’s simulation theory (in which Paul and Peter stage theirdispute as a kind of teaching tool) because of the necessarytruth of every word of scripture, he also tried to harmonize thetwo apostles. Later scholars also would be troubled by thedispute between Augustine and Jerome, and would proposeharmonization theories to explain this dispute.4

When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to hisface, because he was in the wrong. Before certain mencame from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. Butwhen they arrived, he began to draw back and separatehimself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of thosewho belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jewsjoined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisyeven Barnabas was led astray. When I saw that they were

PAGE 34 JUNE 1991

S U N S T O N E

the Old Testament andencouraging gentiles tobecome Christian. Paulwas an apostle who hadreceived a personal vis-itation from Christ, butwas not one of theTwelve. In Mormonterms, on one hand wehave a president of theChurch and on theother, a junior apostle,not even a member ofthe Quorum of theTwelve. Peter, in linewith his revelation andPaul’s perspective, eatswith gentile Chris-tians--a highly symbo-lic act of Christianunity, since generallyJews were revolted bythe idea of eating incommon with gentiles;

not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said toPeter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live likea Gentile, and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that youforce Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? (Galatians2:11-14, New International Version.)As we try to reconstruct the background to this incident, we

see that Peter is something equivalent to the president of theprimitive Church--the leading member of the twelve originalapostles selected by Christ. Earlier, Peter had received animportant vision relax-ing the dietary laws of

~o0~

00,

the president of the Church in a regional conference. Extraor-dinary as the situation was, the pattern is clear: moral leader-ship and inspiration flowed from below to above.

Significantly, a passage like this found its way into thescriptures and survived. Obviously, God wants us to ponderthe fact that our leaders, prophetic as they may be, have faults.(However, it is interesting that the confrontation between Peterand Paul is not mentioned in Acts. "Correlating" is not auniquely modem practice.)

A Church leader who seeks to wield hisecclesiastical authority in an area in which he

has little or no expertise perhaps runs therisk of overstepping his bounds.

it was probably also a ritual act linked with the early celebra-tion of the sacrament.5

But as Peter eats with Gentiles in the purity of Christianfellowship, visitors arrive from James, the leader of a conserva-tive faction of the primitive Christian church concerned withpreserving Jewish ritual practice. Peter immediately with-draws; Barnabas and other Christians follow him. To Paul, thisis an act of moral cowardice, and he denounces Peter publicly"to his face," "in front of them all." "He was in the wrong"; "hewas afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group."Peter, along with others, "played the hypocrite" [in Greek,sunul)ekr~th~san]; "they carried Barnabas away with their"hypocrisy" [tel hupokrfsei]; "they were not acting in line withthe truth of the gospel." This hypocrisy language is strong,especially since hypocrisy was the central accusation Christleveled against the Pharisees.

Thus, when Peter had abdicated his position of moralleadership, Paul, though hierarchically inferior to Peter, as-sumed it and felt it was even necessary to denounce himpublicly. Imagine that scene transferred to a Mormon setting--an equivalent might be a recently-called apostle denouncing

NEPHI’S SUBTLEREBUKE OF LEHI

A SECOND ex-

ample comes from theBook of Mormon withLehi and his clan in thedesert on the way to theRed Sea: we have the"good," prophetic Lehiand Nephi, versus the"bad" Laman andLemuel. But, as oftenhappens in the Book ofMormon, things are notquite that simple. Lehi,the chief prophet of thegroup, who had com-plete hierarchical andgenealogical seniority,has a moral lapse (1Nephi 16:18-20). Wehave a moment of cri-sis: Nephi broke his

bow and there was inadequate food for the exhausted deserttravelers. Laman and Lemuel and the sons of Ishmaelmurmured "exceedingly," and Lehi, surprisingly, joined themand "began to murmur against the Lord his God." Then theyall "were exceedingly sorrowful" and murmured against theLord together.

What might have started out as a moment of discourage-ment for the elderly Lehi ended up as a virtual group rebellionagainst God. Of course, it was Nephi who assumed moralleadership at this point. His reaction to Lehi’s lapse was quitedifferent from Paul’s reaction to Peter’s. But before he ap-proached Lehi, he denounced his brothers (who were abovehim in normal family status, if not in religious hierarchy) forhardening their hearts to the extent of murmuring against God.There is an implicit reproach to Lehi here, for Lehi had beendoing the same thing. Nephi then made a new bow and arrow,and, instead of denouncing his father, asked him for guidance:"And I said unto my father: Whither shall I go to obtain food?"

It is interesting that Nephi did not attack hierarchical struc-ture or try to place himself above Lehi, just as Paul wasn’ttrying to tear down Peter’s authority in an absolute way. In-

JUNE 1991PAGE 35

S U N S T O N E

stead, Nephi tried to strengthen his father in his propheticmission. As quiet and constructive as this response was, it wasnevertheless a subtle but telling rebuke to an erring propheticleader.

Lehi inquired of the Lord and was strongly and overtlyrebuked by God "insomuch that he was brought down into thedepths of sorrow." Lehi consulted the Liahona and receivedfurther chastening so that he "did fear and tremble exceed-ingly." But the instrument gave direction for Nephi’s hunting,and he found and killed game. The crisis was averted. Onceagain, the scriptures offer an example of a serious lapse in thechief prophet of a group and of moral inspiration going froma hierarchically lesser figure to the higher.

EMMA AND THE WORD OF WISDOM

MY third example is a delightful anecdote from modernChurch history, the circumstances behind the bestowal of theWord of Wisdom revelation. Joseph Smith, in February 1833,held the School of the Prophets in a room above the kitchen ofhis house. According to Brigham Young,

the first thing they did was to light their pipes, and,while smoking, talk about the great things of thekingdom, and spit all over the room, and as soon as thepipe was out of their mouths a large chew of tobaccowould then be taken. Often when the Prophet enteredthe room to give the school instructions he would findhimself in a cloud of tobacco smoke.6Emma complained at "having to clean so filthy a floor," and

according to Brigham Young, this in part "made the Prophetthink upon the matter, and he inquired of the Lord relating tothe conduct of the elders in using Tobacco, and the revelationknown as Word of Wisdom was the result of his inquiry."David Whitmer adds a bit more, telling us that Emma actuallysuggested a revelation on the subject:

Some of the men were excessive chewers of the filthyweed, and their disgusting slobbering and spittingcaused Mrs. Smith... to make the ironical remark that"It would be a good thing if a revelation could be haddeclaring the use of tobacco a sin, and commanding its

,,7suppression.According to Whitmer, the men suggested the banning of

tea and coffee in this proposed revelation as a counter-digagainst the women. Curiously, this proposed revelation came,and it discouraged use of both the men’s tobacco and thewomen’s tea and coffee, though it was originally a word ofcounsel, not an absolute ban. Emma’s complaint "made theProphet think upon the matter"; moral inspiration came firstto a technically non-hierarchical person, then moved upwardto the head of the Church. We also have the important patternof reveiation coming through a husband-wife combination.

YOUNG JOSEPH E SMITH DISSENTS

MY fourth example is an incident from the life of JosephE Smith. This comes from the most conservative source possi-

ble, President Smith’s Gospel Doctrine, a Melchizedekpriesthood manual.9 President Smith had served a mission inHawaii as a very young man. Then, after the notorious WalterGibson had been presiding disastrously as mission presidentin Hawaii, two apostles, Ezra T. Benson, then 53, and thefuture prophet, Lorenzo Snow, then 50, accompanied by Jo-seph E Smith, then 25, visited the islands to set up the missionagain. Smith, not yet an apostle, acted as their interpreter andwas left as mission president when the two apostles returnedto Utah. However, as they arrived at the islands by boat, therewas a tense moment as they tried to land. Their vessel wasanchored in a rough channel, and the natives and youngJoseph E Smith knew it would be difficult to get to shore safely.The natives had built a breakwater, and normally would care-fully ferry passengers to shore in their small boats. But, forsome reason, the Apostles decided to take the ship’s "unwieldyfreight-boat" and try for the shore. Smith strongly disagreedwith this decision and warned the very much senior Churchleaders that such a course would be extremely unsafe, that theboat ran a great risk of capsizing. The older men refused tolisten to him. Smith offered to go ashore alone and bring a saferboat back, but the brethren were insistent on taking thefreight-boat immediately. Emotions apparently became heated,and one of the apostles told the young missionary, "Youngman, you would better obey counsel." The party got on theboat; but the strong-minded Joseph E Smith refused to leavethe main ship.

The freight-boat came to the dangerous, rough bit of sea; agreat wave overturned it, dumping the two apostles, alongwith Elder W. W. Cluff and others, into about thirty feet ofwater. Natives saw the disaster and hurriedly came out in aboat to rescue the drowning men. When they had pulledeveryone they could see out of the water, they began to paddletoward land, but Eider Cluff realized that Elder Snow wasnowhere to be seen. They turned back, eventually found him,and brought him into the boat, though he looked dead. Amessenger went back to Joseph E Smith, who had helplesslywitnessed all this, and told him Elder Snow had died. Butfortunately, with a priesthood blessing, Elder Snow wasbrought back to life on the shore.

This example shows a young man who simply had moreexperience and knowledge in a limited area than men who,though they were apostles and his ecclesiastical superiors,were newcomers to Hawaii and probably not well acquaintedwith seafaring, at least in the local area. Further, one of theapostles--who should have bowed to the younger man’sgreater experience~emanded his obedience. But Smith"reiterated his impression of danger" and refused to obey.

Thus, a Church leader who seeks to wield his ecclesiasticalauthority in an area in which he has little or no expertiseperhaps runs the risk of overstepping his bounds, despite hisecclesiastical position. For instance, if a Church leader dealswith non-ecclesiastical subjects---be they geographic, eco-nomic, scientific--he incurs a certain danger if he has only alimited background in those subjects. Joseph E Smith’sreceptivity to an impression coincided with his knowledge and

JUNE 1991PAGE 36

S U N S T O N E

experience--inspiration and perspiration go together, as theysay about genius.1° For example, a Church leader who has abackground in the methodology of history, or has even writtenhistory attempting to use the highest standards of historiogra-phy, would be best fitted for critiquing historians. Even if aChurch leader expresses true principles, as he ventures intomatters with a secular dimension he may not be able to makehis points as effectively as possible without some measure ofexpertise.

The story of LeviSavage and the Williehandcart companyillustrates this princi-ple. Savage spoke vehe-mently against startingthe westward journeyso late in the season, ashe had knowledge ofthe country and itsweather. However, hewas voted down by thehighest Church leadersin the company, and hestoically chose to makethe trip with the com-pany despite impend-ing disaster. A little la-ter, he was denouncedfor his faithlessness byan apostle, EiderFranklin Richards. Thejourney was, of course,a tragic mistake, andloss of lives and manyinjuries ensued. In anironic denouement,Brigham Young de-

he had learned the Adam-God doctrine from Joseph Smith. Inan article on this topic, David Buerger concludes, convincingly,that Joseph Smith did not teach the doctrine; Young was eitherelaborating on or misunderstood Joseph’s teachings. 12 Thoughthis conclusion, if correct, happily leaves us without thenecessity of believing in the confusing (in my view) Adam-Goddoctrine, it also leaves us with a rather unnerving view of aChurch president going fairly far astray, doctrinally. ThoughBrigham strongly believed in the doctrine, significantly, he

never advanced it as arevelation to be addedto the Doctrine andCovenants, and thebody of the Church, ledby Orson Pratt and vin-dicated by time, neverreceived it (to BrighamYoung’s frustration)..This is an example ofthe body of the Chm:chbeing more inspiredthan its leader on thisparticular issue (assum-ing that we reject theAdam-God doctrine, asElder Bruce R.McConkie, for one, hasinstructed our genera-tion to do). This doesnot mean that we can’taccept Brigham Youngas a prophet, an "Amer-ican Moses" called bythe Lord to fulfill aspecific mission whichhe did with completesuccess though he was a

fallible human being. Perhaps doctrinal exploration was notBrigham’s greatest area of expertise; like Elders Snow andBenson in Hawaii’s treacherous waters, he was out of his depthin this matter. But in many other areas, his inspiration isevident. I am not suggesting that he had no theological in-sights, but rather that he was more inspired in certain doctrinalareas than in others. 13

If we follow Church leaders who are not doingright, we are not absolved from wrongdoing;

we share their guilt. Sometimes obedience toChurch leaders and obedience to God and

moral justice are not the same thing.

nounced Elder Richards; he had been a Church leader for mostof his life and lacked practical knowledge, Young pointed outdisparagingly. Thus, in this case, the rank and file memberwith expertise in a limited area was more inspired than anapostle out of his element. 11

Another interesting example of counter-hierarchical revela-tion is the conflict of Brigham Young and Orson Pratt over theAdam-God doctrine (i.e., the teaching that Adam is God theFather, and Christ is Adam’s literal son), a topic so troubling toChurch leadership that it has almost become a taboo subject.Brigham Young, as Church president, apparently was a strongproponent of this doctrine, though sometimes he seems tohave had more typical views on Adam and God. Orson Pratt,on the other hand, was a strong opponent of it. In the fascinat-ing, long, drawn out conflict between these strong-willedleaders, Brigham Young never quite got Orson to knuckleunder completely, and Orson, though he had moments ofretraction, never stopped insisting that the doctrine did notsquare with the scriptures. Brigham Young always claimed that

CONTEMPORARY EXAMPLES OFCOUNTER-HIERARCHICAL REVELATION

FOR balance, I add two examples of the pattern from thecontemporary Church. A friend of mine once had a stakepresident who felt strongly that long hair was inappropriate formen at a time when that style was popular. He refused to allowany of the young men of his stake to be ordained to theMelchizedek priesthood if they had long hair; this went on foryears, and as a result many young men did not go on missions.Finally, when there had been widespread dissatisfaction with

JUNE 1991PAGE 37

5 U N S T O N E

his policy, he submitted it to his high council for a vote. Theyvoted against it, and he bowed to their decision. When I firstheard the story, I remarked that it showed humility that hewould submit the question to the high council. My friendcountered, "Yes, but only after years of practicing the previouspolicy with all its effects."

Another example involves a rank and file member of theChurch. A friend of mine went to a foreign country on hismission, where he met someone who had been excommuni-cated from the Church for questioning the morals of a localleader. A stake president had become involved in a seriousmoral problem, and this member, not part of the local hierar-chy, found out and was very troubled. He went to his bishopand told him the story. The bishop thought the member wasfalsely accusing the stake president (who he thought should beabove suspicion) and excommunicated the member. Eventu-ally there was an appeal to authority higher than the stakepresident and an investigation ensued. Finally the stake presi-dent was excommunicated, and the local member was re-in-stated in the Church.

This is, of course, a challenging and paradoxical situation.Church members have the "follow the Brethren" principleimpressed on them continually. But, what do you do whenchurch leaders have serious moral flaws? Fortunately, mostChurch leaders don’t, but it is always possible that someleaders could have lapses. I think the Church member in thestory above did exactly as he should have done, though he hadto endure excommunication because of his actions. If he hada strong belief in the Church and Church leaders, this musthave been a harrowing, lonely ordeal.

In addition, the counselor offices in Church governmentimplicitly acknowledge this pattern of checking leaders. If theprophet were infallible, if he received a steady, direct stream ofabsolute revelation, and were entirely self-sufficient, he wouldnot need counselors. Yet they are there--counselors for bish-ops, stake presidents, and the prophet of the Church. I’vealways been impressed with what Joseph E Smith said onbecoming president of the Church:

I propose that my counselors and fellow presidents inthe First Presidency shall share with me in theresponsibility of every act which I shall perform in thiscapacity. I do not propose to take the reins in my ownhands to do as I please; but I propose to do as mybrethren and I agree upon... I have always held, and dohold, and trust I always shall hold, that it is wrong forone man to exercise all the authority and power ofpresidency in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-daySaints. I dare not assume such a responsibility, and I willnot, so long as I can have men like these [pointing toPresidents Winder and Lund] to stand by and counselwith me in the labors we have to perform .... If at anytime my brethren of the apostleship shall see in me adisposition to depart from this principle, or aforgetfulness on my part of this covenant that I maketoday before this body of Priesthood, I ask them in thename of my Father, that they will come to me, as my

brethren, as counselors in the Priesthood, as watchmenon the towers of Zion, and remind me of this covenantand promise which I make to the body of the Church ingeneral conference assembled at this time. The Lordnever did intend that one man should have all power,and for that reason he has placed in his Church,presidents, apostles, high priests, 70s, elders, and thevarious officers of the lesser Priesthood, all of which areessential in their order and place. 14Here we have, connected with the concept of revelation

going from lower to higher, the idea of revelation coming to agroup. There is both an upward flow and a downward flow ofinspiration--the counselors’ insights and inspirations go up tothe president, who in turn has a special link to God, andrevelation comes down in response.

Also, the president, in true humility, welcomes reproof fromhis hierarchical subordinates, as watchmen,, if he acts withouttaking counsel with those "beneath" him, the body of theChurch. According to Joseph E Smith, for us to reprove leaderswho are too autocratic is not just an option, but our duty aswatchmen on the towers of Zion.

As we ponder this recommendation for ecclesiasticalreproving, we remember that a revelation given through Jo-seph Smith authorized that he be reproved. In one of theearliest sections in the Doctrine and Covenants, the Lordinstructed Oliver Cowdery to reprove Joseph on occasion:"Admonish him in his faults, and also receive admonition ofhim" (D&C 6:19). Thus we have an upward and downwardinterplay of reproval. But in the previous verse, Oliver isinstructed to "stand by my servant Joseph, faithfully, in what-soever difficult circumstances he may be .... " Paradoxically,"standing by" a leader and reproving his faults are not opposedactivities, if done in the right spirit.

This is not to deny that many times the leader is right, thefollowers wrong, perhaps the most common circumstance. Butthe other possibility exists: the pattern is there in the scripturesfor us to think about.

OBEDIENCE TO LEADERS AND TO GOD

I WILL now discuss some of the implications this patternhas for us as Church members, for leaders and also for rankand file members.

First of all, it challenges us as leaders to take seriously theideas, insights, counsel, suggestions, and even rebukes of thosehierarchically beneath us, to accept inspiration wherever wemay find it, and to look for it in other people, both "above" and"below" us. We should realize that we are fallible, morally andintellectually, and we should have the courage to admit ourmistakes and get back on track, as did Lehi, instead of dog-gedly pursuing a wrong course--instead of thinking that,because we are leaders, everything we do is; rubber-stamped asperfection. It is dangerous to equate our mistakes with thetruth of the Church. There is also the danger of not subjectingourselves to the continual moral and intellectual self-examina-tion that all human beings need---even and perhaps especially

JUNE 1991PAGE 38

S U N S T O N E

Church leaders. Lehi’s community was much better off becauseLehi did not lash out at the quiet rebuke given him by his son.The rebuke, combined with Lehi’s humility, opened the wayfor a renewal of revelation in a community that was driftingaway.

According to one patristic tradition regarding the Antiochincident, Peter "humbly submitted to the reproach of his’inferior.’ " This interpretation helped create the "humbleprelate" theme, which theologians cited when trying to reasonwith obstinate popes inthe middle ages. Later,Luther would use thistheme to argue that thehumblest Christiancould correct an erringpope.15

The implications forthe rank and fileChurch members arealso important. Wemay return to the Anti-och incident and applyto it a standard phrasefrom Mormonism:"Follow the Brethren."Consider Peter eatingwith gentile Christians,the arrival of a groupfrom James, and thenPeter, the Church presi-dent, withdrawingfrom the gathering.Then, others followhim, includingBarnabas, Paul’smissionary companionamong the gentiles.These people who withdrew with Peter were, literally, follow-ing the Brethren, the "president" of the Church. How does Paulview this obedience? Does he commend it, since the peoplewere, after all, following the prophet of the Church? No, hedenounces it strongly. They are "playing the hypocrite" alongwith Peter, and share his guilt. To Paul’s shock, Barnabas (alsoan apostle and Paul’s former mentor) is even led aside "by theirhypocrisy." Thus, according to Paul, if we follow Churchleaders who are not doing right, we are not absolved fromwrongdoing; we share their guilt. And the conclusion is ines-capable: sometimes obedience to Church leaders and obedi-ence to God and moral justice are not the same thing.

This principle puts a sobering burden on us. It can be easy,in one sense, to live by a religious version of "my country rightor wrong"; "when the prophet speaks the debate is over." Butthis isn’t what the Lord wants; he requires us to subject ourleaders’ actions and directives to moral and intellectualscrutiny; to serve with all of our mind as well as our heart. Thatis more difficult. Then, if we find our leadership wanting,

morally, we have a duty to address the problem. 16Brigham Young instructed Church members not to take his

counsel thoughtlessly, but to subject it to careful examina-tion.~r Hugh B. Brown, as a counselor in the First Presidency,said:

While all members should respect, support, and heedthe teachings of the Authorities of the Church, no oneshould accept a statement and base his testimony uponit, no matter who makes it, until he has, under mature

examination, foundit to be true and

logical deductionsmay b{ nfirmed bythe spirit ofrevelation to hisspirit becauserealconversion mustcome fro ~ within. 18

anin~ :resting exalple in a non-Morrosetting i the caseCatholic theologianHans ng, wh hasopenly spoken out

worthwhile; then his

may be confirmed by

spirit because real

come from within. 18An interesting exam-

ple in a non-Mormonsetting is the case of

Hans KOng, who has

against doctrines in theCatholic church he feelsare not compatible withscripture. He has alsoGod sees the Church in all its complexity, opposed the present

While there is hierarchical order in the Church, pope openly, who init also contains important democratic elements, turn has used every

means in his power toIt is not strictly authoritarian, but a community, quiet the theologian.

KOng describes his dis-full of checks and balances. sent as "critical loyaltyand loyal criticisms of

this Church.’49 His criticisms are a result of his loyalty. Theirmain thrust has been directed against the doctrine of Papalinfallibility, which he argues is not biblical in any way. In 1979KOng’s authorization to teach was withdrawn from him underthe direction of Pope John Paul II, causing immediate interna-tional protest. Since then, the gulf between the theologian andthe Pope has, if anything, widened, and KOng’s criticisms havebecome sharp.

In the Church, we strongly hold to the idea of personalrevelation but we often interpret it very hierarchically. You getpersonal revelation only for yourself; the Prophet alone getsinspiration for the Church. But the story of Emma and theWord of Wisdom shows that inspired insights, for the benefitof the Church, can come to us as non-hierarchical Churchmembers. If our leaders are sensitive and thoughtful, as JosephSmith was, insights we receive, can affect them and lead themto receive further revelation.

Finally, this pattern leads us to one last implication. I haveargued elsewhere that women have priesthood in our church,

JUNE 1991PAGE 39

S U N S T 0 N E

especially those who have been through the temple, and thatit should be more recognized and integrated formally into theChurch structure. But as matters presently stand, women arenot part of the Church hierarchy--they are excluded from themost important Church positions. However, the counter-hier-archical pattern shows us that women can receive revelationand inspiration for the benefit of the Church, not just forthemselves and their children.

I hope that we, as Church leaders, will be sensitive toinspiration from those "beneath" us, from the general member-ship of the church, and that we in general membership can liveclose to the spirit and convey inspiration to those above us onoccasion, and, if necessary, constructively be the loyal opposi-tion. I hope that together we can all find the unity necessary inthe gospel.

AFTERWORD

SINCE I gave this talk, a few reasonable objections have

been raised to it, which I will try to deal with now.Some object that many of my examples of people who

receive counter-hierarchical revelation are still part of thehierarchy, and perhaps even ha~e a "calling" to dissent, i.e., acounselor. However, I shared some non-hierarchical examples,such as Emma Smith and the Word of Wisdom, the case of LeviSavage, and the two modern examples. Most of us can provideexamples of local leaders who have acted because of a com-ment from the rank and file. However, this paper emphasizesonly that revelation can go upward in the Church, upwardthrough a hierarchy at its top or bottom, or even from non-hi-erarchical to hierarchial positions. I am certainly not sayingthat upward revelation is the only, or most common, patternfor revelation, only that it can happen and that it happens moreoften than we acknowledge. It is a necessary escape valve inthe Church, and we should make use of it on occasion, asleaders or rank and file members.

Another valid question: does my model lead to the dangerof schism? That danger obviously does exist. An authoritarianwrong-headed leader can do the Church a great deal of dam-age, but an authoritarian wrong-headed critic can also do theChurch a lot of damage (in my experience, some Sunstonesymposium lecturers are not entirely immune to dogmatism orwrong-headedness). But in none of my examples did theperson leave the Church when they received their individualinspirations--they stayed with the Church and enriched it.Paul never dreamed of deposing Peter or leaving the Church,when he denounced him publicly, and there are hints that hecontinued working closely with Peter after the Antioch inci-dent.2° Levi Savage stayed with the ill-fated handcart companyafter his warning had been rejected and he did all he could tohelp the company endure the winter. His stoic heroism is allthe more poignant when you consider that he was denouncedby an apostle for being faithless.

Does non-hierarchcial revelation make a person a law untohimself or herself?. No, counter-hierarchical revelation doesnot negate the hierarchy. The hierarchy is still there; it is still

the structure. The people I have looked at are usually on goodterms with the Church structure--either a part of it or relatedto it somehow. They were spiritually sensitive people. Nephididn’t lay down the law to Lehi; he went to Lehi and asked himfor leadership. There are ways of working counter-hierarchi-cally that are non-threatening.

What of the problem of conflicting revelations--membersof the Church getting (false) revelations that counter the (true)revelations of the leadership? This obviously can happen. Thisis not a simple question; living in the real world, and in the realChurch, many times does not give us simple solutions tocomplex problems. Every Church member must simply usejudgment in evaluating what is inspiration and what isn’t. Insome ways the concept of counter-hierarchical revelation isfreeing; in other ways it is a great burden. If it is misused it canlead to apostasy; but if it is not used in certain situations, thatmoral apathy can also lead to apostasy. Nephi helped bring hiscommunity back from the edge of rebellion.

Some wonder how it would be possible to keep order in theChurch with such a "counter-hierarchical" pattern in opera-tion. Again, I don’t see this pattern denying the structure of theChurch. I see it as using the structure of the: Church. Any whohave "counter-hierarchical" inspiration must subject it toChurch leaders and the Church, even if informally, for accep-tance or rejection. I believe God in his infinite vision sees theChurch in all its complexity. While there is; hierarchical orderin the Church, it also contains important democratic elements.It is not strictly authoritarian, but a community, full of checksand balances, where important inspiration can come to anyone who is in tune, not just to a few (though Church leadershave a responsibility to conduct the business of the Church).One reader of this talk commented that it raised interestingquestions about how God looked at hierarchy, and mentionedthat, after the Resurrection, Christ did not appear first to Peter,but to Mary, who was not part of the hierarchy. Thus, a"non-hierarchical" person was the first witness of the mostimportant religious event in the history of humankind and wassent to take the message to the eleven apostles (Mark 16:7,9;John 20:17-18). But this did not negate the ecclesiasticalstructure that was already in existence--Mary was sent to helpit.21

My paper could be seen as a critique of those critics of theChurch who leave the Church, instead of staying with it andworking constructively to improve it.22 ~

NOTES1. J. Reuben Clark, Jr., "When Are Church Leaders’ Words Entitled to Claim of Scrip-

ture?" talk given to LDS Seminary and Institute Teachers, Brigham Young University, 7 July1954, published in Deseret News, 31 July 1954, 2f. Clark quotes Joseph Smith, History oJ theChurch (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1978), 5:265.

2. Deseret Weekly 45:545 (9 October 1892), as quoted in Rodney Turner, Women andthe Priesthood (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1972), 281.

3. For bibliography on this confrontation, see Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians, A Commen-tary... (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 104; Karlfried Froehlich, "Fallibility Instead of Infal-libility? A Brief History of the Interpretation of Galatians 2:11-14," in Teaching Authority &Infallibility in the Church, eds. Paul Empie, T. Austin Murphy, and Joseph Burgess(Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1978), 259-269.

4. For defenses of Peter in this incident, see the Kerygmata Petrou 1:4-5, found in Betz331; Betz 109, 104, 103; for Augustine and Jerome, see Froelhlich 261-62, with bibliogra-phy.

PAGE 40

S U N S T 0 N E

5. Cf. Gonther Bornkamm, Paul, tr. D.M.G. Stalker (New York: Harper & Row, 1971),45; S. Scott Bartchy, "Tablefellowship with Jesus and the ’Lord’s Meal’ at Corinth," in In-crease in Learning: Essays in Honor of James G. Fan Burn< ed. Owens and Hamm (Manhattan,Kansas: Manhattan Christian College, 1979), 45-61, especially 57; J. Jeremias, The Eucharis-tic Words of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 204-6,262.

6. Journal of Discourses (]D) 12:158;7. David Whitmer, in Des Moines Daily News, 16 October 1886, 20; cf. Paul H. Peter-

son, An Historical Analysis of the Word of Wisdom, (Master’s Thesis, BYU, 1972), 19-20; LindaKing Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery, Mormon Enigma (New York: Doubleday, 1984), 47.

8. Peterson, "An Historical Analysis," 19-20.9. Gospel Doctrine (Salt Lake City: Deseret, 1956) 10th ed., 534-35; from a "Biographi-

cal Sketch," written by Edward H. Anderson. For another account of this incident, see ElizaR. Snow Smith, Biography and Family Record of Lorenzo Snow . . . (Salt Lake City: DesertNews Co., 1884), 276-81.

10. Elder Dallin Oaks has said, "Seekers who have paid the price in perspiration havebeen magnified in inspiration," Ensign 19 (May 1989): 29.

11. See Wallace Stegner, The Gathering of Zion (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Com-pany, 1964), 221-48; LeRoy and Ann Haler, Handcarts to Zion, 1856-60 (Glendale, CA: Ar-thur H. Clark Co., 1960), 53-141; B.H. Roberts, A Comprehensive History of the Church...(Provo, UT: BYU Press, 1965), 4:88-97. "To the overzeal, not to say fanaticism, of hisbrethren, Elder Savage opposed common sense, and his knowledge of the country .... "writes Roberts, 89.

12. David Buerger, "The Adam-God Doctrine," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought15 (Spring 1982): 14; see also Gary Bergera, "The Orson Pratt-Brigham Young Controver-sies: Conflicts within the Quorums, 1853-1868," Dialogue 13 (Summer 1980): 7. ForBrigham’s inspiration, see L. Arrington, Brigham Young, American Moses (New York: Knopf,1985); H. Nibley, Nibley on the Timely and Timeless (Provo: BYU, 1978), 229-61.

13. Brigham Young and Orson Pratt also disagreed about whether God progressed inknowledge. In our day, Elder McConkie, following President Joseph Fielding Smith,supported the Pratt position, and Eugene England supports the Young position. See EugeneEngland, "Perfection and Progression: Two Complimentary Ways to Talk about God," BY/./Studies 29 (Summer 1989): 31-47. Counter-hierarchical inspiration was operating in eitherthe earlier or later controversy.

14. Quoted from Gospel Doctrine 176-77; Conference Report (Special) 1901, 82.15. Froehlich 263, nn. 24-26; Augustine, Epistle 82.2.22; Cyprian, Epistle 71.3. For the

humble prelate theme, Froehlich 265. For Luther, see Froehlich, 267.16. See the thoughtful talk by L. Jackson Newell, "Personal Conscience and Priesthood

Authority," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormort Thought 13 (Winter 1980): 81-87.17. JD 3:45, quoted in D. Michael Quinn, "From Sacred Grove to Sacral Power Struc-

ture," Dialogue 17 (Summer 1984): 14. "Some may say, ’Brethren, you who lead the Church,we have all confidence in you.., and if Brother Brigham is satisfied with it, I am.’ I do notwish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do,unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied."Quinn cites instances in which congregations have voted against proposed Church leaderspresented by even the President of the Church; in these cases, the President acceded to thecommunity vote.

18. "Pres. Brown Addresses BYU," Church News, 24 May 1969, 13.19. Hans Kang, His Work and His Way, Hermann Haring and Karl-Josef Kuschel, eds.

(Garden City, New York: Image, 1980, orig. 1978), 176, cf. 170-75; L. Swidler, K~ng inConflict (New York: Doubleday, 1981); H. K~ng, The Church--Maintained in Truth (NewYork: Seabury Press, 1980); Freedom Today (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1966); Truthful-ness: the Future of the Church (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1966).

20. See Bornkamm 48; 1 Corinthians 9.6. "Paul reinstated the unity.., between the Je-rusalem mother church and his churches, and down to the end sought to promote this withall his power."

21. A most paradoxical situation for a woman to be "sent" to the apostles, for apostlemeans "one sent," from the Greek apost~llO, "to send." I recently learned that Mary wasknown in the MiddleAges as apostola apostolorum, the apostle to the apostles (see The GoldenLegend of Jacobus de Voragine tr. by Granger Ryan and Helmut Ripperger [New York: ArnoPress, 1969], 357).

22. Cf. Levi Peterson’s discussion of Juanita Brooks as an "inside," loyal critic ofMormonism, including the wonderful biography, Juanita Brooks, Mormon Woman Historiah(Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1988) and "Juanita Brooks, My Subject, IVy Sis-ter," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 22:1 (Spring 1989): 16-29, especially 22-24.There is also such a thing as a disloyal inside critic of Mormonism, of course.

LE BONNE VAUX

You watch Ed pad his windowto mute the outside world.You close your door to invaders,take off the receiver to the telephonemove to the back back bedroom.Walls of your skin link togetherto exclude all but insidesight that’s dropped inside you.You crawl under the webof sheets, your brain wrappedin a bandage of fog so densethe sun has gone down behindyour eyes that close and see

honey-combed walls spun under-ground like Christians of oldwho hid in dark tunnels beneath Romesecretly close to what they lovedin catacombs and you drift off, barelyremembering about cobweb cataracts--"The outside world was unclearto James Joyce" and you imaginehis glasses thickening, "so he became intro-spective," you read, feeling yot{rself falling

inside where these sheets seem to tumblein soft down through layers of comfortand you drop into the dark of sleep surroundedin salmon light and feed on what nurturesyou--joined to a primitive source almostlike a desert dwelling or mother’s softadobe walls--your private Walden,

JUNE 1991

secluded and so close to home, dreamingof ancient Jews who leave sandsof Egypt, wandering through the Red Seathat opens, and feel yourself falling,through wilderness--wandering furtherinto the steady pulse of deep sleepand sink into the ebb, the flowof the ocean breaking and pullingyou in now, retreating againthen gently pushing againstwhat is solid on shore.

You wantto stay in this world of deep peace.It is what you know, a place to bealone like Jews who finally found their ownJericho--a bonne vaux. What you love is thisfamiliar place where as a child you sank

inside to this comfort, seeing gardenslike those in Rome where inner courtsheld secrets of foliage growing lushbehind terra cotta more primitive than cavedwellings and recall your mother telling youof the desert when over walls of adobeshe peeked in, seeing green so luminousit was like a combe of Eden, moistand rich like life here and you dreamof marmots biting you, and jumpfrom your sleep, thinking that if yousink back now, this earthwomb might swallowyou, bury you in warm moist walls for good.

--MARGARET RECHIF

PAGE 41