Who can receive revelations/prophecy?

[Anonymous]

I came across this section this morning – out of the book “By the hand of Mormon” (Terryl Givens, p.224):

Quote:

Who, then, has rightful access to revelations, epiphanies, visions, and utterances? To the extent that the spirit of prophecy and the spirit of revelation are the same (the Book of Mormon uses the expressions in tandem and almost interchangeably), the Book of Mormon powerfully refutes the claim that prophecy is “preeminently the privilege of the prophets.” Joseph learned the lesson fully. “No man can receive the Holy Ghost without receiving revelations. The Holy Ghost is a revelator” he would teach in the years after the translation (HoC 6:58 ) Consignment of revelatory prerogatives to prophets, priests, or popes alone, the implication seems to be, is but an invitation to priestcraft.

…truth is “revealed” not by “flesh and blood . . . but my Father which is in heaven” (Matt 16:17-18)

Of course, we cannot individually receive revelations for the whole church, but I think this doctrine plays against some ‘cultural’ ideas that leaders’ revelations for their stewardship may override our personal revelations for ourselves.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Of course, we cannot individually receive revelations for the whole church, but I think this doctrine plays against some ‘cultural’ ideas that leaders’ revelations for their stewardship may override our personal revelations for ourselves.

Yup.

[Anonymous]

Ditto.

[Anonymous]

When do we “cross the line” while sharing revelation?

Let’s say that I meet with a group of people where we discuss spiritual matters, and I share some of my revelations.

When does sharing those revelations become a threat, or when should they become a threat?

[Anonymous]

I will echo the predominant sentiment here, and say I enjoy the topic. I think that the common belief is that, for example, the presiding leader (eg, bishop) would “trump” the personal revelation of the individual. There are many factors here, but I generally disagree with that stance. That is not to say that the bishop is not doing the best they can, but that reality is that there is ego, and (here’s that word again) codependency at play. Many leaders feel they are responsible for their ward members…sometimes that “stewardship” goes too far, IMHO.

I recognize that there must be a degree of order…of hierarchy in the church, for it to run smoothly. But as it relates to the spiritual progression of the individual, my personal belief is that the umbilical chords need to be cut a little more often. Members need to be given the freedom to succeed…and to fail. It is a scary thing, but ultimately what is best for everybody in the long run.

IMHO.

[Anonymous]

Here is where I see the line in the sand:

Leaders receive revelation for the group they are responsible to lead. BUT a group is not a person. It is a collection of people. As soon as something crosses the line where the direction requires actions or decisions by a person, the individual has total autonomy to decide if they will support the leader and that direction or not — i.e. receive their own personal “revelation.”

It pretty much boils down to classic leadership issues — leaders have to gain “buy in” from the group individuals. A leader can receive revelation for the direction of the group, but individual people receive revelation about whether they individually should follow those ideas.

Examples:

Leaders in the Church implicitly or explicitly declare that members should support Prop 8 in California.

Individual members must decide if that is appropriate for them or not (yes, I know this view may not be common)

My Primary President gives me direction as the 11yr old scout leader. I can support that direction. I can try to push her to receive additional “revelation” if I see things differently for my scouts, or I can resign. But all of those are my own decision.

That’s how I see it.

[Anonymous]

Yup.

Seriously, there simply MUST be respect for and support of most leaders in most of their actions in most situations that are applicable to the group as a whole. Not universal and unquestioning, but most. That’s where it stops, however.

For a touchy example, a Bishop has every right and reason to encourage his ward as a whole to attend the Sunday block of meetings every single week that they aren’t in bed sick. He has no authority, imo, to demand that any individual member do so – even as he has every right to request or encourage it for most individuals. There are WAY too many reasons why an individual member might need to and be justified in not attending every Sunday for it to be otherwise, imo.

[Anonymous]

Ray’s comment reminded me to add to mine: I still believe in being supportive of leaders, even if I have strong opinions about the sovereignty of the individual. Great leaders are *made* IMO by great followers. Unless I feel strongly about an individual direction for myself, I think it is best to support leaders and follow their vision. I think that makes for the most effective group results.

[Anonymous]

I tend to support individuals in leadership positions because they are just that leaders. Not to do so is disrespectful of those individuals who in many cases are just trying to do their best to fulfill their responsibility. But are they receiving revelation? I highly doubt it. We throw revelation around in the church like everyone has a direct line to heaven. If that were the case everyone would not be getting so many different answers.

[Anonymous]

The word revelation to me these days is very similar to intuition (the way I think about it). I am comfortable using them interchangeably in that sense. So a leader who spends great amounts of time thinking and praying about their stewardship, putting real intent into it, they have potential to output intuitive “revelation.” That doesn’t exclude the notion of God from the process in my way of thinking, but like I think Cadence seems to be saying, it isn’t so 1:1 like a direct connection. That’s my current view.

[Anonymous]

Much of what I have done in my callings in the Church that held leadership responsibilities has been my best; some of it has been unmistakable revelation in the classic “God spoke somehow to me” sense. This, as most things, is not black-and-white for me.

I wish I knew why and could anticipate when I received that type of revelation, while most of the time I’ve been left to do my best without it. I also believe there are some for whom the channel flows more consistently than it does for me. I figure I’ll understand it at some point, and that the answer might be nothing more than, “Because that’s what I wanted.”

[Anonymous]

Cadence wrote:

…are just trying to do their best to fulfill their responsibility. But are they receiving revelation? I highly doubt it. We throw revelation around in the church like everyone has a direct line to heaven. If that were the case everyone would not be getting so many different answers.

Over the past couple of years I have become more aware of assumptions and expectations. I think everything needs to be considered with assumptions and expectations in mind. For example:

The statement “If everyone had a direct line to heaven – then they would all receive the same answers.

This statement operates on a basic assumption that “heaven” (can, at least) operate something like a database; with absolute, universal answers. That assumption produces the expectation that if we had a “direct line” to tap into it, we could obtain the 100% reliable, universal answers. That’s fine – that’s one way to look at it.

Another way to approach the topic is with the question “what is the nature of heaven?” or “what is divine communication?” If we leave the topic open for further exploration, maybe we can find some additional meaningful insights.

In my view spiritual revelation is always personal. Even if it applies to a “stewardship” when received by a leader. In our human condition we can’t help but taint everything we receive with our mortal experience/understanding. We are a filter – a human medium. Whenever anything comes through any one of us, it becomes in a sense human. This is why “flesh and blood” cannot reveal anything wholly spiritual, but only the “Father.”

To me, this is why everyone will always receive “different” answers. They are all personal answers, and everyone is different. Now as a whole, when we start putting together common threads – that is where things start to get interesting! Obviously, another topic from here would be the dangers of cutting off some threads prematurely to promote the growth of others.

[Author]

Posts