Today I read Doctrine and Covenants section 28, which is where the Lord sets forth the proper order of things and who is in charge of receiving revelation for the entire church. It's kind of interesting that so many people, including people like Oliver Cowdery, could be deceived by conflicting revelations. It really makes me feel that those that were deceived were already a little disgruntled and looking, perhaps, for a reason to doubt Joseph Smith.
However perhaps I am being very unfair and it is hard to understand how people would react now that we know the proper order of things and who is able to receive revelations for whom. But it does seem strange to me that if the prophet came out and said something, and then someone else came along and said the Lord had told them something different, I would certainly side with the prophet.
However, as stated, this is a very different time and we know that the prophet is the ultimate authority on receiving revelation for the church and I do not think that hardly anyone would be deceived if someone came along contradicting the prophet in this day and age. But, what if your home teacher claimed to have received revelation, what then? How would you handle that? After all, your home teacher has stewardship over your family, does that entitle him to revelation for your family? It is my understanding that your home teacher can be inspired on your families needs, but as far as receiving revelation for your family, they do not have the authority to receive revelation for what your family should be doing. That is my understanding.
It is my understanding that the only person who can receive revelation for another person is someone who has Priesthood Keys of authority over that other person. Such as the prophet, the apostles, a stake president, a bishop/branch president, or a father. A father does not have keys, however a father is the priesthood authority over the family. Of course a father could not receive revelation for another family but for his own family he is most certainly entitled, and should be, receiving revelation for his family members.
I also like how the Lord had Oliver take Hiram Page aside and tell him that he was not receiving revelation of the Lord but rather from Satan. The Lord could easily have had Joseph Smith do it, but I think Oliver needed to learn something here and so the Lord had Oliver do it. I also think the Lord had Oliver do it because it would have a greater impact. If Joseph Smith had denounced Hiram Page and his revelations, when there was already such dispute of whether or not Joseph was a fallen prophet, I think that would have only fueled the fire. However, if one of Hiram's believers, and one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon's authenticity at that, speak to Hiram and help him understand the error of his ways, I think that would have the required effect.
It is also telling that the Lord wanted Oliver to tell Hiram in private, and not denounce him in front of the entire church and congregation. It reminds me a lot of Doctrine and Covenants section 121 where the Lord tells us to reprove with sharpness but show afterwards an increase of love. I'm not sure it is appropriate to reprove those who have done wrong in public settings. That is why church disciplinary actions are never publicized. We are not in the business of public admission of guilt but rather of true, proper repentance.
It is a pleasure to know that the Lord has a plan and that He wants us all to know the proper order of things and to know the right way we should look for inspiration and guidance from the Lord. As we follow the established pattern we will not be led astray by the craftiness of the devil but will be kept safe. Until tomorrow.
No comments:
Post a Comment