Revelation Different from Apostles and Prophets

My husband got an answer that the new policy wasn’t quite right. What he received was that it came through the Spirit but wasn’t the strategy God wanted them to use. However, God let’s his leaders have free agency just like us so sometimes they make mistakes, but as long as it doesn’t totally mess up His plans, He will let it happen because free agency is important to Him.

That was what my husband felt and it made sense to me. I don’t like the first article you posted either because I feel like it’s saying you should be biased while praying that the prohpets must be right and if you get the answer that they’re wrong then you got the wrong answer. That screws with the belief of praying about whether the prophet is right or not. It turns it into ‘pray so you know it’s right, because it is, and that better be the answer you get’. There are so many examples in the scriptures of prophets making incorrect or bad decisions. I don’t like how now it’s turned into ‘the prophet is infallible’ when he is still a human and can make mistakes.

If we should immediately doubt or second-guess personal revelation that disagrees with Church policy, shouldn’t we do the same with personal revelation that agrees with Church policy?

Otherwise why even have personal revelation? Why not just outsource our spirituality to people who apparently know God better than we do? Surely there’s nothing the Lord has to say to me that wouldn’t be better said to President Monson.

I’m going to recommend this talk by Elder Oaks: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/two-lines-of-communication?lang=eng” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/two-lines-of-communication?lang=eng

While I don’t agree with every word of the talk (I rarely do), there is some good stuff in there:

First, the priesthood line does not supersede the need for the personal line. We all need a personal testimony of truth. As our faith develops, we necessarily rely on the words and faith of others, like our parents, teachers, or priesthood leaders (see D&C 46:14). But if we are solely dependent on one particular priesthood leader or teacher for our personal testimony of the truth instead of getting that testimony through the personal line, we will be forever vulnerable to disillusionment by the action of that person. When it comes to a mature knowledge or testimony of the truth, we should not be dependent on a mortal mediator between us and our Heavenly Father.

A final example applies these principles to the subject of priesthood authority in the family and the Church. All priesthood authority in the Church functions under the direction of one who holds the appropriate priesthood keys. This is the priesthood line. But the authority that presides in the family—whether father or single-parent mother—functions in family matters without the need to get authorization from anyone holding priesthood keys. That is like the personal line. Both lines must be functioning in our family life and in our personal lives if we are to have the growth and achieve the destiny identified in our Heavenly Father’s plan for His children.

We must use both the personal line and the priesthood line in proper balance to achieve the growth that is the purpose of mortal life. If personal religious practice relies too much on the personal line, individualism erases the importance of divine authority. If personal religious practice relies too much on the priesthood line, individual growth suffers. The children of God need both lines to achieve their eternal destiny. The restored gospel teaches both, and the restored Church provides both.

I would think Elder Oaks was not really supposing that individuals might get a different message than priesthood leaders, but he does open the door for the possibility of our own testimonies taking precedence over priesthood authority.

In my calling I do have occasion to discuss things, such as gay marriage, where my opinion may not be in accordance with what seems to be the concurrence of the Brethren. That does not mean we can’t discuss them – but it does mean I can’t stand at the pulpit and declare the prophets are wrong.

I have used this talk in a lesson and it seemed to go over good. It was the High Priests and about 1/3 were sleeping and a few other playing farmville or words with friends.

I know some of the people who write or wrote for FAIRMormon, and the ones I know are good people – but I don’t go there for understanding that resonates with me. Too much of it is too apologetic for me, and the perspective simply doesn’t match mine.