Historians have usurped the prophets
 

With the DoM and Kimball biographies, we see an interesting phenomenon--historians giving guidance and information to church members over the most controversial aspect of Mormonism in our generation.

Why are the actual people who lived through this and made the decisions, like Gordon B. Hinckley, not willing to provide us with a similar account?

I recognize that perhaps they privately approve of these biographies, and may have even facilitated these biographies (doubtful on the latter but who knows). But why not put their own personal stamp on it?

Would the church crumple? Would testimonies be lost?

The more transparent the workings of the church and the better we know the general authorities, the more convinced we are the church is true.

Is there anyone who disagrees?

What is implied, if you don't agree?

Professional historians do us a good service, but they still pick and choose what information they wish us to know based on what that historian determines is important.

How much additional light do you really think GBH would be able to cast on this?

Having not read the Kimball biography yet, I can't say in specific.

But given that he was personally acquainted with the players, knew who supported in, and who opposed it over the years, yes I should say a lot would be learned.

Unless he had information to share regarding the direct contact that DOK, HBL, SWK et al had with God on this topic, I'm not sure anything else would be all that interesting or relevant.

Correct me if I am wrong Mike, but it seems you want folks to be as open and normal as you and I appear to be when it comes to the church. Mike, unless you live in a very weird area, they are. I know plenty of Bishops and EQ Presidents who gamble. I know plenty of people in leadership who think the personna BYU throws out is a farce. Your fear seems to be and mine at times that the zealots actually do represent membership in the church, they don't.

Even some of the straightest, follow all the rules, members I know don't subscribe to the zealots positions on things.

Just like the evangelists. I don't think those that speak out the loudest really represent how most evangelicals feel.

AS an example, even on CB. Remember there was a poll that asked if the board agreed with the "only a mormon head coach" at BYU. I think it was 75% disagree with BYU. There is your normal member of the church.

I don't presume to speak for GBH, but I can hedge a guess: it's not that relevant. The prophet himself alluded to this when he said to Mike Wallace, "That's behind us."

It would be nice if he reiterated to the Church intellectuals that revelation is revelation.

It was only revelation when it was unanimity.

This is what you will always have a hard time explaining. Because it introjects an element of human frailty which you are unwilling to consider.

Bull. The history of the church is fraught with human and prophetic frailty.

I do not know the full details (and neither do you), but I'd wager a year's earnings you're putting more emphasis on the "unanimity requirement" than was really there.

I heard an account of the SWK biography over the pulpit from my Stake President. SWK made a herculean effort to gradually over time draw the FP and Q12 into unanimity over the issue.