- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
In my ongoing struggle to find real meaning in the church I have had difficulty with the concept of revelation. It seemed so strange that one man can claim revelation for the whole world and then proceed to set in motion a series of events and then regulations to measure your obedience to your belief in his revelations. Many men have used this formula over the years for good and bad, but is it the best way? I have come to believe that the only revelation that matters is personal revelation. Someone can tell me of their revelation. I can ponder it and pray about it and even live by it if I choose, but ultimately it is someone else’s revelation. To know God I think you must have your own revelation. In this I am not referring to receiving revelation to confirm the truth of what others are saying but to receive revelation completely independent of what others are saying.To be open to any and all possibilities. To let God let you know what is the best course for you. Would this lead us all to the same conclusions, I think not. That would mean we are all the same and God has the same message for all of us. As for me I can no longer focus on the words of others for salvation. I must create my own path to salvation. True there may be many to give advice and I can listen, learn, and apply as necessary, but never throw myself over completely to another’s predefined corse no matter how many will say this is the only way.
This process is beginning to bring me the peace of mind and soul that has so often eluded me as I struggled to conform to the revelatory directions of others.
High Priests Group was interesting today. It was focused on Elder Christofferson’s recent talk on the scriptures – and the discussion (which included more than one former Bishop, a military chaplain, and numerous local leaders of various types) didn’t contradict anything in this post. Granted, the focus included using the scriptures and the words of the prophets as the foundational canon that functions as an interpretive lens for how we envision Truth; granted, there was a discussion of the idea that it is wrong to believe that there is no Truth and that whatever people imagine is all the truth that can be known; granted, the idea of Prophetic / Presidential deference was taught. However, the idea that we don’t know “All Truth” and must remain open to increased light and knowledge and personal revelation – and that wonderful people everywhere regardless of specific religious orientation and faith teach and live some Truth and contribute “good fruit” – and that we over-emphasize our own “religious fathers'” suffering and endurance (like Joseph in Liberty Jail) to the exclusion of others’ even greater suffering and endurance (like William Tynsdale’s incarceration and martyrdom highlighted by Elder Christofferson) – and that we can’t just blindly follow what leaders say and not seek personal revelation – all of those ideas were discussed, as well.
One brother called it the universal tension between the desire for safety in following others and the fear of failing by following one’s self.
In Sunday School, we talked about Elijah, and one member mentioned that we tend to think we will be blessed in obvious, objective ways if we obey the Lord’s voice to us personally – but that Elijah suffered greatly for his own obedience to the Lord’s directive. Someone mentioned how much more difficult life had been for a while after he and his wife followed a very clear answer to a prayer – and that even now they aren’t quite sure why they had to do what they felt they had to do. I also heard one brother say to a sister next to him that we tend to focus too much on what we want to get and not enough on what suffering and hardships can do to who we become.
I understand the tension between accepting others as leaders (and the inherent need to follow leaders, generally) and walking our own path according to the dictates of our own conscience – but I certainly don’t think anything you wrote in this post is outside pure Mormonism in any important way.
Yeah, I believe that MOST GA’s probably would agree with everything you said Cadence. However, they are still responsible for the 85% of the active members that need/want to be told EXACTLY what to believe and how to act/behave. Most people DON’T take the time to really, really get in tune with “the spirit.” Most people just want a list of rules, do’s and don’t, and they are happy as can be. That is who the church is setup to serve and “administer” to. They are going to make policy and rules for those 85% – to ensure the general membership is “safe”, and us other folks are going to be left on the sideline to figure it out for ourselves. Hopefully their will always be a place for guys like us in the church? 20-30 years ago – we would be in church courts – today – probably okay if we can just keep our mouths shut and our opinions to ourselves. I know you know this Cadence, but just imagine if the church ran things like WE wish they would – and pertaining to this thread, especially if they announced that everyone was entitled to receive revelation for the doctrine/policy and one could than just go ahead and follow that pathway, independently of what they are saying from the pulpit. Think of the chaos and apostasy that would engulf the church over night. Sure, we would be happy, but most members would be absolutely lost.
Here is real example — I had a discussion with my brother about Oregon’s Death With Dignity law. I felt spiritually inclined to vote for it, even though the local leaders and SLC were very opposed. No problem – the church lets us vote how we see fit, and I doubt anyone in the church really cares how I feel about the issue. My brother on the other hand, said, that he would never vote it until SLC said it was okay. He also made the comment that he didn’t think Marijuana was bad necessarily, but he would never vote to legalize Marijuana until the Prophet took it off the WoW list. ?????
Most people just don’t want to think and stretch their minds about issues and spiritually, and when they do many of them don’t trust their own conscience – they are spiritually lazy and have no problem being told what to believe and how to behave. I think that is why we have the system we have.
I would even go so far as to argue there is no such thing as revelation, except for personal revelation. The word itself means something that was hidden is realized and discovered. Someone else can tell you what was revealed to them, if they can actually find the right words (which is debatable too in my mind). But it is not revealed to you without the experience of personal revelation. Without this, you are simply following someone besides God, depending upon the arm of flesh. For a time in our life, this is good. At some point, it holds us back. I like a lot of what’s being said here in this thread. I think that there are two kinds of revalation. General revelation for the world at large, and personal revelation. Just like the scriptures we find different meanings on an individual level in private or in a small group. The same can be said for general revelation. If president Monson says we should prepare for disaster with a 72 hour kit it maybe that if you live in a remote region that this maybe a 144 hour kit. If you owned a factory that made MREs you wouldn’t need one at all. I think this is true for pretty much anything in life there are general guidlines to follow but there are always exceptions. Cadence — as an extension of your ideas, I’m forming this belief in a bottom-up approach to truth. An approach to truth that has me obeying only those commandments about which I have a personal testimony if blind obedience causes me angst. As part of developing these testimonies, I might obey those commandments as an experiment with truth — to follow the Lord’s mandate to “do His will and know of the doctrine”. But if significant effort and experimentation with the principle doesn’t resut in testimony, I may well have to abandon blind obedience on that command.
I’m finding blanket revelations that “the Church is true” etcetera aren’t enough for me to stay true-blue Mormon anymore. I NEED that personal revelation on those commandments that bother me.
Now, since all this is formative stuff, I now question — this what the Lord wants from us? Isnt Abraham the ultimate example in blind obedience after getting blanket testimony of God’s desires for us to follow him unquestioningly? Again, I paint myself into a corner….
Quote:Isn’t Abraham the ultimate example in blind obedience?
Nope. Anything but. Look at his life prior to Isaac – even if you accept the Isaac narrative as generally interpreted.
Cadence wrote:…the only revelation that matters is personal revelation. Someone can tell me of their revelation. I can ponder it and pray about it and even live by it if I choose, but ultimately it is someone else’s revelation. To know God I think you must have your own revelation.
In this I am not referring to receiving revelation to confirm the truth of what others are saying but to receive revelation completely independent of what others are saying.… Brian Johnston wrote:…Someone else can tell you what was revealed to them…But it is not revealed to you without the experience of personal revelation. Without this, you are simply following someone besides God, depending upon the arm of flesh…
I agree to some extent if you mean that there is no good reason to feel obligated to believe in someone else’s supposed revelations just because they have a special title. However, the problem I have with automatically dismissing everyone else’s revelations is that many of them seem so much more interesting and impressive than my own personal revelations or lack thereof. In other words, I still like hearing or reading about other people’s revelations and at the same time I wouldn’t have much confidence in trying to distinguish any personal revelations or inspiration from random thoughts that just pop into my head without warning. So I would have no choice but to be some kind of agnostic/deist if I have to depend entirely on my own revelations alone.
Personally, I don’t have any problem with listening to and believing in other people’s revelations as long as they make sense to me. The real problem is when we are given “revelations” that don’t really make sense especially when they are also an unnecessary inconvenience. That’s when they really start to raise suspicions that something isn’t quite right about them.
In some cases we have ended up with what looks more like layer upon layer of various corrupt traditions and fabricated myths originating purely from the vain imaginations of men rather than any kind of divine revelation. If God wants to reveal something that directly contradicts all logic and evidence then I don’t see how he could possibly blame me for not believing in it. I am willing to consider any “revelations” on a case by case basis. If Joseph Smith was right about the Civil War it doesn’t mean that he also had to be right about most of the other things he said and did.
Good comments and good thread. To me, it is like the question:
“What if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there … does it make a sound?”
Revelation isn’t revelation unless I am there to feel it or experience it. Others may have it or tell me they have had revelations…but is not revelation to me until I experience it…just like the tree falling is not a sound to me unless I’m there to hear it.
I am not sure which of all the revelations Joseph Smith professed to have were directly from God or internally to him and his Spirit…all I know is the ones that move me are revelations to me.
Those that don’t move me…well, I deal with it in two ways:
1. Don’t think about it much…or I could even say I don’t believe them and they aren’t a big deal to me (Word of Wisdom falls in this category for me.)
2. I am not sure…so to be on the safe side, I just do what Sam’s brother does and just obey it until I get some personal revelation that I don’t need to accept it or there is another choice that is better for me.
I’m not against obeying just to be safe or to be a good citizen in my tribe…but I feel strongly that I can’t accept revelation when my personal feelings tell me otherwise. I think it is ok to disagree, because revelation is absolutely personal, or it is nothing to me.
Quote:D&C 9:8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.
Sometimes I don’t get a true burning in the bosom…I just don’t agree in mind or spirit…and that’s my revelation.
I don’t know if what others profess (including TSM) is from God or in their minds…but I trust that if God wants me to believe what others say or claim as revelation, He’ll either let me know or it is not important to me or Him.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:Personally, I don’t have any problem with listening to and believing in other people’s revelations as long as they make sense to me. The real problem is when we are given “revelations” that don’t really make sense especially when they are also an unnecessary inconvenience. That’s when they really start to raise suspicions that something isn’t quite right about them.
That is pretty much how I see it too. I would not automatically dismiss the revelations received by others. They are interesting, and I appreciate them. But they are not important for me to act on unless I receive a personal revelation to do so.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.