One-Sided Revelations are a Disservice to Self and Others

If I receive revelation that is in opposition to revelation received by a church leader who is correct? Does my personal revelation trump church practice or doctrine?

“Two Lines of Communication”. Oaks. General Conference October 2010.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

So, my own answer to your question, Cadence, is that both might be correct (since one deals with a group and one deals with an individual) – or one or the other might be correct – but, at the personal level, yours is correct for you as an individual, even if the leader’s is correct for the group (at whatever level that group exists – global church or local unit).

I certainly like the concept that revelation isn’t from the Lord until it is felt or confirmed by all the relevant parties. In my mind this is a functional work around for two opposing points: 1) Revelation from God exists and that revelation contains the ideal action or position conceived in infinite wisdom, knowing the end from the beginning, etc. 2) People in all points of the church hierarchy have claimed revelation and then in hindsight seemed to be spectacularly wrong (or dealing with limited light and knowledge).

So the bridge between these two points becomes, “People can receive revelation that involves you but unless this action also fits into your plans, temperament, inclination, spiritual desire, etc. then you are not under any obligation to follow that revelation. It may have been true generally for other people and other people in the group but that doesn’t mean that it must be true for you.” If the revelation later ends up being a really bad idea, then at least you can’t fully claim that you were coerced in your decision, free-agency and all that.

Like I said before, I really like this work around because it provides a third option between – “When the brethren speak, the thinking is done” and “I disagree with the brethren.” It is now possible to say, “I am exercising my personal spiritual promptings to individually adapt this new revelation to my unique circumstances.” Although you still might get strange looks… :shifty:

I was in a bishopric once where the Bishop insisted that all priesthood holders involved in any aspect of the sacrament have the grooming standards of a missionary. He even stated that this was the inspiration he received for the ward. The other councilor and I did not agree with him and told him that. We even had a sit down with the SP and he said he didn’t think that it was right but that we needed to support the Bishop. The compromise we reached was that we would not publicly disagree but that we would not be the ones to try to enforce the new standards either. Most of the YM leaders had facial hair at the time and weren’t willing to shave so for a few weeks getting the sacraments prepared, blessed and passed was really ackward and uncomfortable for the whole ward. After a few weeks of the Bishop trying to enforce his policy, he very quietly changed his mind and stopped saying anything and things got back to normal.

church03333, thanks for sharing that example. It is a perfect example of how I view sustaining and supporting to the fullest extent possible – by sustaining and supporting the individual even when not sustaining and supporting everything that individual says and does (except in extreme cases where sustaining and supporting would be inappropriate). There is a wonderful lesson in that experience that everyone in the ward would have missed if you and the other counselor had acted differently.

So, my own answer to your question, Cadence, is that both might be correct (since one deals with a group and one deals with an individual) – or one or the other might be correct – but, at the personal level, yours is correct for you as an individual, even if the leader’s is correct for the group (at whatever level that group exists – global church or local unit).

I certainly like the concept that revelation isn’t from the Lord until it is felt or confirmed by all the relevant parties. In my mind this is a functional work around for two opposing points: 1) Revelation from God exists and that revelation contains the ideal action or position conceived in infinite wisdom, knowing the end from the beginning, etc. 2) People in all points of the church hierarchy have claimed revelation and then in hindsight seemed to be spectacularly wrong (or dealing with limited light and knowledge).

So the bridge between these two points becomes, “People can receive revelation that involves you but unless this action also fits into your plans, temperament, inclination, spiritual desire, etc. then you are not under any obligation to follow that revelation. It may have been true generally for other people and other people in the group but that doesn’t mean that it must be true for you.” If the revelation later ends up being a really bad idea, then at least you can’t fully claim that you were coerced in your decision, free-agency and all that.

Like I said before, I really like this work around because it provides a third option between – “When the brethren speak, the thinking is done” and “I disagree with the brethren.” It is now possible to say, “I am exercising my personal spiritual promptings to individually adapt this new revelation to my unique circumstances.” Although you still might get strange looks… :shifty:

I am OK with this approach. In fact I live by it but it would never fly in my High Priests group on any given Sunday