- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’ve often thought this same thing (and said it), that at any given General Conference, some talks are for us, and others are simply not. They just don’t speak to us as much. The other thing I was thinking about as I read the OP was a time that I was in RS. The teacher talked about Pres. Benson’s talk telling mothers to quit working and come home. One sister shared that when that talk came out she gave the matter prayer and felt that the right thing for her was to pursue her career (she’s a lawyer). Two others of us said likewise, that we had received what we considered to be personal revelation for ourselves that differed. A different sister raised her hand and said she didn’t know we were allowed to ask for personal revelation that differed or was unique to us. Several shared that of course we could. I said that it’s your life, and you have to seek your own revelation to know what it right for you personally, that not everything anyone says in leadership is for every single person.
There have been so many GC talks that seem to have a specific and particular audience and that audience isn’t me. It weirds me out when I see a member try to apply such a talk to their lives when it is obvious that they aren’t part of the intended audience either. Graduate school felt like something that God was yelling at me to pursue. It was important to God that I go. It turned out to be a huge blessing in our lives that I went. Our youngest needed to attend a particular private school that could meet her needs. We could do it. Other therapies .. Not a problem. All because I have certain credentials and I work.
All church events on modesty — I have felt personally inspired to not let our youngest daughter attend. She is too modest. She doesn’t need anyone promoting more modesty.
The list goes on. I believe in personal revelation. Even this faith journey, I’m not sure where I’ll end up, but God is okay with my journey. My DH got that same answer — that God was aware and it was okay. That answer has changed his comfort level with my choices.
This reminds me of something from Dallin Oaks’ dating vs. hanging out talk: Quote:Now, brothers and sisters, if you are troubled about something we have just said, please listen very carefully to what I will say now. Perhaps you are a young man feeling pressured by what I have said about the need to start a pattern of dating that can lead to marriage, or you are a young woman troubled by what we have said about needing to get on with your life.
If you feel you are a special case, so that the strong counsel I have given doesn’t apply to you, please
don’t write me a letter. Why would I make this request? I have learned that the kind of direct counsel I have given results in a large number of letters from members who feel they are an exception, and they want me to confirm that the things I have said just don’t apply to them in their special circumstance. ….
As a General Authority, I have the responsibility to preach general principles. When I do,
I don’t try to define all the exceptions. There are exceptions to some rules. For example, we believe the commandment is not violated by killing pursuant to a lawful order in an armed conflict. But don’t ask me to give an opinion on your exception. I only teach the general rules. Whether an exception applies to you is general rules. Whether an exception applies to you is your responsibility. You must work that out individually between you and the Lord.I kind of like the strongly worded, “don’t write me a letter!” (Even if I wasn’t a fan of the way he couched everything in that talk.) Live your life. Value
yourdesires, opinions and thoughts. And don’t look only to others, including the church, for constant validation and approval. It’s a balancing act, like the RF poster says, but for so many the institution side of the scale is on the ground and the individual side is flapping in the breeze. I like the way Greg Prince summarized David O. McKay’s presidency as the shift away from “Let them obey,” to “Let them grow.” Growth is not disobedience. Ann wrote:This reminds me of something from Dallin Oaks’ dating vs. hanging out talk:
Quote:…Whether an exception applies to you is general rules.
Whether an exception applies to you is your responsibility. You must work that out individually between you and the Lord.
Really like the concept of personal authority and I’ve tried to adopt the idea that I can pray for an exception and that any exceptions are between me and the Lord. The problem is that for topics that are close to “core doctrine” (e.g. law of chastity) the church doesn’t recognize personal authority – which means that if we claim “exception!” we must be prepared for church consequences. Which may or may not mean that our exception is invalid.
I agree with the author of the blog post and glad to see her “ah-ha” moment on this. It has continued to be my experience that stories told in church, in public, are that of bowing to General Authority literally without question is an expression of faith and devotion, and celebrated as a positive thing. “If it is good enough for the General Authority, it is good enough for me” -kind of approach.
And that is great for them if that is how they process it.
It just seems like many things that have been adopted in the church (even things like Word of Wisdom) feel very much General…too general…but have become cultural.
But the mature and wise thing, in my experience, is not bowing unnecessarily, when as Hawkgrrrl states…some is simply just not for me…it is General, not specific to me, and that can be hard to allow oneself to appeal to personal authority. Sometimes I just keep it to myself…after all…it is personal.
Individualism of personal authority is not often celebrated openly in the church. But it exists. It is how I make it work for me. I don’t think I’m that unique.
That quote by Oaks reminded me of another talk of his about the two lines of communication: priesthood (authority) and personal. It seems to be a theme for him. I like it. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/two-lines-of-communication?lang=eng hawkgrrrl wrote:That quote by Oaks reminded me of another talk of his about the two lines of communication: priesthood (authority) and personal. It seems to be a theme for him. I like it.
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/two-lines-of-communication?lang=eng I liked the following paragraph from this talk:
Quote:The personal line is of paramount importance in personal decisions and in the governance of the family. Unfortunately, some members of our church underestimate the need for this direct, personal line. Responding to the undoubted importance of prophetic leadership—the priesthood line, which operates principally to govern heavenly communications on Church matters—some seek to have their priesthood leaders make personal decisions for them, decisions they should make for themselves by inspiration through their personal line. Personal decisions and family governance are principally a matter for the personal line.
Unfortunately he then contradicts what he is quoted as saying previously about working out exceptions to counsel between the individual and the Lord.
Quote:Unfortunately, it is common for persons who are violating God’s commandments or disobedient to the counsel of their priesthood leaders to declare that God has revealed to them that they are excused from obeying some commandment or from following some counsel. Such persons may be receiving revelation or inspiration, but it is not from the source they suppose. The devil is the father of lies, and he is ever anxious to frustrate the work of God by his clever imitations.
And he started the talk so well…:thumbdown: Well, my personal line tells me to ignore that paragraph. Obviously there are exceptions on the personal level. It’s dumb to think otherwise. One size doesn’t fit all. hawkgrrrl wrote:That quote by Oaks reminded me of another talk of his about the two lines of communication: priesthood (authority) and personal. It seems to be a theme for him. I like it.
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/two-lines-of-communication?lang=eng Hi HG.
I read this talk on the train. Found it interesting, but there were some things I didn’t really like much. Wanted your take and possibly others as well.
Oaks makes it clear there are 2 lines of communication as you mentioned. He hit very hard that you have to be worthy to receive personal communication, and then turned it a slant that I didn’t like — and Roy pointed it out: if you receive personal revelation that goes against the priesthood line of revelation, you are likely being influenced by Satan. In a later post, you mentioned you ignored this paragraph.
Another thing is he pointed out how JS struggled to translate until he made up with Emma. The way Oaks portrayed this, at least in my mind, was along the personal revelation line. So an additional thing I didn’t like was that the personal worthiness line was unilaterally applied ONLY to those looking for personal revelation. Oaks seems to have left out the worthiness for those giving priesthood lines (as though they couldn’t be challenged or held accountable for their own worthiness or communications), nor did he address when priesthood lines are giving counsel that is based on preference or opinion as opposed to revelation.
I will have to re-read this more carefully to see if I just missed it, but that is how it came across for me.
Now, here are some counter-point examples that Oaks’ position doesn’t address:
1. Nephi. We revere him as a prophet. He went against the priesthood line or authority and followed personal revelation when he killed Laban. From the priesthood line, he was a murderer. He violated the “Thou Shalt not Kill.” (and i’m sure there is a whole list of apologetic reasons for his choice of action) In fact, had it been known to the authorities what he did, he probably would have been excommunicated by today’s standards, and stoned by laws of earlier days. Oaks would justify Nephi’s choices, but if someone did something similar today,…or something less serious like speaking against a policy that violates personal lines of revelation, what would the response be?
2. Brigham Young. We revere him as a prophet. Was it personal revelation that blacks shouldn’t receive the priesthood? Was it priesthood line of authority? Or,..was it a policy that was in BY mind only? If it was priesthood revelation, it should have been presented as a revelation to the church–but was not. If it was personal or opinion, then did it violate lines of priesthood authority? I say it did. Here is a VERY good example:
2 Nephi 26:33 wrote:
33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.Well, what BY did would have to be argued as “good” for the children of men to be from God or else it violates the “doeth that which is good among the children of men”
- BY would have to make it clear and “plain” the reasons for the decision, or else it violates the “save it be plain unto the children of men”
- BY would have to explain why Blacks were denied the “goodness” that comes through the ordinances, or else it violates the “inviteth them all….
black and white, bond and free“
etc.
Something comes to my mind at this point from Bruce McConkie where he was speaking about the ban being lifted. He said something like this: “We were proceeding on the best light and truth we had at that time…but now God has given more so we need to all fall inline…”
So here is another question for this thread: What happens if you have more light and truth given to you through personal revelations than the priesthood line allows for? Do you violate what you have been told yourself to be obedient to what the priesthood line says? From Oaks perspective, the way this would happen is being inspired by Satan.
Thoughts?
Elder Oakes: Some will claim that they are the exception to the general rule and that they are excused from following priesthood counsel. Hawkgrrrl: My personal line of revelation tells me that your statement does not apply to me.
Elder Oakes: Your personal line cannot tell you to disregard my statement. I represent the Priesthood line. Your personal line can only properly personally affirm that my words are true.
Hawkgrrrl: What good is a personal line if it only tells me to follow the priesthood line?
Elder Oakes: It makes perfect sense. If the lines of revelation are inspired from the same source then they will act as two separate witnesses to a unified truth.
Hawkgrrrl: I don’t know what to tell you but my personal line is telling me that your statement does not apply to me.
Elder Oakes: That can only mean that your personal line is tuned into the father of lies, the devil himself!
😈 Hawkgrrrl: Isn’t that a tad overly dramatic?
Elder Oakes: I told you that some would come claiming exception to priesthood counsel and here you are claiming exception. I am right again! You should repent of your errant ways and start listening to me.
Quote:Unfortunately, it is common for
persons who are violating God’s commandmentsor disobedient to the counsel of their priesthood leadersto declare that God has revealed to them that they are excused from obeying some commandmentor from following some counsel. Such persons may be receiving revelation or inspiration, but it is not from the source they suppose. The devil is the father of lies, and he is ever anxious to frustrate the work of God by his clever imitations. Let me take a hand at this. The bolded areas represent two different extremes, not one category. In the first pair, we have a spectrum between people who full on violate commandments all the way down to people who simply don’t do what some priesthood leader recommends. That’s a HUGE category that basically comprises every human being. Treating this as ONE group of people makes no sense at all. The second pair is a wide spectrum that ranges from the extreme of seeking to be excused from obeying (God’s) commandments to simply not following some leader’s recommendation. Again, too broad a group of people.
Oaks is a smart guy. He certainly can’t really imagine that every priesthood leader (including all the lemons out there) should be followed without question in all cases and by all people. There is literally no way he thinks that’s right. It’s insane. But what he doubtless intended is that we should listen and take care not to justify sin or even to justify disobedience by wishfully thinking ourselves into false personal revelation. That’s a reasonable caution. We should listen to what leaders advise, but ultimately, we own the personal line of communication that tells us what we should do.
It’s certainly plausible that Oaks thinks the priesthood line is more reliable than the personal line. After all, people are prone to self-justification and rationalization. But I see that the priesthood line is kind of a shotgun approach that lacks individual circumstances. Unless you are seeking justification to break the commandments (e.g. I’m really in love with this person who isn’t my spouse, so I should go ahead and have an affair), then you have to take your personal circumstances into account. The Lord looketh on the heart. Priesthood leaders not so much.
Sort of related story my recently RM son told me. He worked in the office for several months of his mission so he saw this story play out. A missionary in his mission (let’s call him Elder Smith) had a brother serving in another mission and they both went to different MTCs in January. Elder Smith’s brother was to be released in December because of the way transfers work. Elder Smith was asked by the MP if he wanted to go home earlier (December) or later (January) and Elder Smith prayed about it and decided December would be great since he was given a choice and he would be home with his brother for Christmas. The MP agreed and Mom and the rest of the family were informed of the great news and made plans for the holiday. A couple weeks later President informs Elder Smith that he had given it some more thought and prayer and felt that Elder Smith needed to stay until the January release date. There was some discussion about answers to prayers on both sides and the MP did try to pull the hardline “I’m right because I’m your priesthood leader” thing (which Elder Smith apparently didn’t buy). In what was then seen as a stroke of genius by my son, Elder Smith then told the MP “OK, but you have to call my mom and tell her.” Elder Smith went home in December. Wise Elder there! DarkJedi wrote:In what was then seen as a stroke of genius by my son, Elder Smith then told the MP “OK, but you have to call my mom and tell her.” Elder Smith went home in December.
Revelation can be thrown around so much that it gets lost on “my ideas” or “convenient administration” versus any kind of divine intervention. Suddenly…priesthood revelation can bow to the fears of a mother and christmas plans.D&C 121:39
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.