Revelation and keeping your mouth shut

[WindRiver]

---

Edited April 20, 2010 by WindRiver

[Moksha]

At a certain threshold of knowledge, it seems that the more we know, the less God wants us to say. Possessing such knowledge creates temptation to share it, saying or revealing more than we should. If we, lacking spiritual permission, indulge in that temptation, we essentially repeat Lucifer’s actions in the Garden of Eden, in that we are disseminating knowledge that we are not authorized to give.

This is why I try to keep my threshold of knowledge at a minimum.

[beefche]

Moksha

One of my BYU professors used to say, "God does not reveal Hiimself to blabbermouths." I agree with my BYU prof.

[JanisMiller]

LOL, Moksha! Great article, WindRiver! Thanks for sharing.

[Grandmakabipbip]

Interesting thread...

I have found that sometimes what we receive isn't complete and can mislead us if we get too overly enamoured with how important it might makes us feel...

I have seen many get lost because they were told that they were prophets... if they had waited and listened to what the Lord would add to this information, they would find that the kind of prophet they are being called is as common as a cold...

Many are called-- few are chosen.

[Moksha]

I think the message at Church is quite clear, that we the members are welcome to have our own thoughts and opinions but must not voice those countervailing thoughts or opinions at Church. For some, this silence is acceptable - sometimes with acquiescence and sometimes with a wince. For others, it becomes overwhelming and they leave.

:)

[Maxel]

I think the message at Church is quite clear, that we the members are welcome to have our own thoughts and opinions but must not voice those countervailing thoughts or opinions at Church. For some, this silence is acceptable - sometimes with acquiescence and sometimes with a wince. For others, it becomes overwhelming and they leave.

:)

My goodness, this church you speak of sounds terribly oppressive! I thank my God that the LDS Church doesn't do that, or punish someone for their beliefs, whatever they may be.

Maybe you should switch churches if you don't like the one you're in now, Moksha?

[lost87]

I think the kind of revelation that this post was referring to is an individuals revelation to the "higher truths" of the gospel...the real deep meaty stuff of the Lord. If you are having "revelations" that contradict the basic teachings of the church, it might be a good indication that your getting the messages from the enemy Here is my thought on the situation....if you are recieving revelation from God then you are probably living a life that allows the presence of the spirit, and if you continue then you'll be led to know when you should open your mouth and share the new found knowledge, and when you should keep your mouth closed and just pray in private that those around you will come to know the wonderful things that the Lord has revealed to you....at least I think thats how it should work

[Arkwelder]

I think personal revelation ought to be shared privately, with those you trust, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost. I find the "blabbermouths" are usually pretty full of themselves anyway--not very becoming of a so-called "prophet".

[Moksha]

My goodness, this church you speak of sounds terribly oppressive! I thank my God that the LDS Church doesn't do that, or punish someone for their beliefs, whatever they may be.

Yeah, that Jeffery Nielson who taught philosophy at BYU and spoke out against Church opposition to Gay marriage, would never be fired for speaking his mind. It is probably overly harsh if you label this reaction by the Church as terribly oppressive. Couldn't we just say that the Church appreciates and expects obedience.

Maybe you should switch churches if you don't like the one you're in now, Moksha?

Another invitation to leave the Church? Hey, it could be worse. I've been also been invited to leave Utah if I didn't love it on multiple occasions. Don't know why people always feel it is within their purview to make such odious suggestions. Thank goodness I am inclined to dismiss such invitations.

Now here is a point for you to consider Maxel: Being able to talk about our reactions to issues does not constitute any disloyalty or lack of love for the Church. It you disagree with something I said, then let's discuss the disagreement rather that placing yourself in a role my judge. For instance, do you believe that we are indeed allowed to openly air non-correlated ideas at Church? If so, upon what do you base this?

Or if it was not regarding the factual basis for what I said, then what it up?

.

[Lstinthwrld]

My goodness, this church you speak of sounds terribly oppressive! I thank my God that the LDS Church doesn't do that, or punish someone for their beliefs, whatever they may be.

Maybe you should switch churches if you don't like the one you're in now, Moksha?

What about the lady that was excommunicated a few years beck for 'believing' that women have a place in the priesthood. Seems like she was punished for her beliefs to me.

[Grandmakabipbip]

Not all messages that don't exactly click with the 'general' church doctrine comes from the devil or evil..

For instance-- prophets aren't always leaders... they just have been given the gift of prophecy. yet some get so carried away with this gift they begin to believe they are more important than the church will give them credence for...

I personally have become friends or been associated with many in this catagory-- Lafferty ... was our ward elders quorum president, two others are still our friends though excommunicated... and another went mentally insane because what he knew he couldn't speak of... another just goes around looking for converts to his own form of doctrine..

Yet I know two who are perfectly oriented with their knowledge they are prophets and are totally active in the church, knowledable in the doctrine and do what the Lord has ask of them without asking for any great recognition... they are simple primary worker and home teacher.

I know of them because they are family members. They didn't go about telling everyone of their special experience/visitation -- until some twenty years later when they felt they should share it with me....

[Grandmakabipbip]

She went about trying to convert others to what she felt she knew... I would agree with her actually because every time I go to the temple I am given such knowledge.

[Grandmakabipbip]

You are right-- we can't just blurt out stuff that isn't for the masses... after all we know that if the Lord wanted the massees to know enmass-- he would have it announced over the pulpit on Sunday having handed it down through THE prophet.

[Palerider]

For instance-- prophets aren't always leaders... they just have been given the gift of prophecy. yet some get so carried away with this gift they begin to believe they are more important than the church will give them credence for...

Is there a reference for the above quote or is this your opinion.....??...

[Grandmakabipbip]

Yes there are references.. like the one describing the gifts of the spirit in the D&C or the one that states if one prophesys and it comes to pass, he is a prophet/true prophet ... in the OT... then there is the reference from JS which states that all should be prophets.. and of course logic...

[Palerider]

Yes there are references.. like the one describing the gifts of the spirit in the D&C or the one that states if one prophesys and it comes to pass, he is a prophet/true prophet ... in the OT... then there is the reference from JS which states that all should be prophets.. and of course logic...

The way you quoted it...made it sound like you had names....when making a statement about such things....please provide references or state if its your opinion...Thank You...:)

[Grandmakabipbip]

I have names and addresses as well... but they are not for me to hand out.. : )

[Palerider]

I would suggest that you read the rules of the site....:)

[Grandmakabipbip]

Okay... I am new and not all that smart..

[Grandmakabipbip]

I would suggest that you read the rules of the site....:)

Is this the one you are referring to?

. Please do not share any "true" or "faith promoting" stories, unless you can verify the source.

[Maxel]

What about the lady that was excommunicated a few years beck for 'believing' that women have a place in the priesthood. Seems like she was punished for her beliefs to me.

I believe you're talking about Margaret Tuscano (I may have the spelling wrong). IIRC, she was going about teaching it as doctrine and trying to convince people she was right. There's a difference between believing something personally and preaching it to others. If I'm thinking of the right woman, I clearly remember her saying she attempted to defend her beliefs to the disciplinary council- completely missing the entire reason she was there (I saw this in the PBS documentary about Mormons).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, that Jeffery Nielson who taught philosophy at BYU and spoke out against Church opposition to Gay marriage, would never be fired for speaking his mind. It is probably overly harsh if you label this reaction by the Church as terribly oppressive. Couldn't we just say that the Church appreciates and expects obedience.

Or we could use reason in the matter?

BYU does not equal the Church. Being released as a part-time instructor by department heads does not, in any way shape or form, amount to Church discipline. Furthermore, being released for violating university rules really isn't a surprising event. Break the rules, and punishments follow (Nielson wrote an op-ed piece in the Salt Lake Tribune criticizing the First Presidency's stance concerning same-sex marriage. It is, apparantely, against the rules of employment for BYU professors to publicly criticize the First Presidency.).

Your implication that Nielson received Church discipline because he merely 'spoke his mind' is blatantly false.

Another invitation to leave the Church? Hey, it could be worse. I've been also been invited to leave Utah if I didn't love it on multiple occasions. Don't know why people always feel it is within their purview to make such odious suggestions. Thank goodness I am inclined to dismiss such invitations.

You constantly complain about the Church. My invitation to leave was hyperbole making a point: stop complaining or do something about it. I would prefer you not leave the Church.

Now here is a point for you to consider Maxel: Being able to talk about our reactions to issues does not constitute any disloyalty or lack of love for the Church. It you disagree with something I said, then let's discuss the disagreement rather that placing yourself in a role my judge. For instance, do you believe that we are indeed allowed to openly air non-correlated ideas at Church? If so, upon what do you base this?

Or if it was not regarding the factual basis for what I said, then what it up?

Moksha, whenever I directly confront you about your attacks against the Church (or any other groundless assertions you make), you suddenly stop posting on the thread. Why should I assume it would be different in this case? You run when outmaneuvered, then patronize those who are refraining from bringing to light your insidious remarks? Where is the logic in your actions, Moksha?

For the record: I know we "are indeed allowed to openly air non-correlated ideas at Church". I know this because I have done so in the recent past and have received no disciplinary action. Then again, I only talked about it to a few friends when the Branch President was listening- I didn't print my views or proselyte them.

Since you want me to respond to your original remarks I will do so. I will give you the courtesy of plain speaking.

I think the message at Church is quite clear, that we the members are welcome to have our own thoughts and opinions but must not voice those countervailing thoughts or opinions at Church. For some, this silence is acceptable - sometimes with acquiescence and sometimes with a wince. For others, it becomes overwhelming and they leave.

Where to begin?

"the message at Church is quite clear, that we the members are welcome to have our own thoughts and opinions but must not voice those countervailing thoughts or opinions at Church"- from whence does this message come? Who is saying this? Who is saying that members can't voice their thoughts and opinions? I haven't heard anyone saying that- except those with a standing (and public) grudge against the Church. You must mean, then, that the 'message' is the 'reason' those who receive Church discipline are disciplined in the first place: for holding heterodoxical views. I challenge you to produce one example in Church history where someone was punished for their belief (and being punished for proselyting said beliefs does not count; believing something does not equate to preaching it).

I guarantee you that if I went to my bishop and told him I believed the Adam-God doctrine was true, or that Joseph Smith was visited by a pink unicorn and not Angel Moroni, I would not receive disciplinary action. If I tried to convince others of my own views and did not cease when asked to by my leaders, I guarantee you I would receive disciplinary action.

"For some, this silence is acceptable - sometimes with acquiescence and sometimes with a wince. For others, it becomes overwhelming and they leave." We've already determined that there is no Church discipline against those holding out-of-the-mainstream views, or even views directly opposed to the First Presidency's stance. Your phrase "sometimes with acquiescence and sometimes with a wince" is a beautiful example of groundless appeal to emotion. These poor souls who can't speak out are being terribly oppressed! Your phrase "for others, it becomes overwhelming and they leave" puts the burden of members' choice to leave the Church on the Church itself and it's implied-yet-nonexistent practice of punishing those with non-orthodox views and opinions.

When we sum it up, you have- in only 3 sentences- falsely accused the Church of ideologically oppressing its members, made your readers to feel sympathy for the nonexistent plight of the oppressed, and blamed the Church itself for its members' decisions to leave! That's quite an accomplishment, Moksha- a perfect example of that 'spin' we discussed on another thread recently.

I feel obligated to admit that there are probably those who fear they will receive discipline if they let others know they have heterodox views. However, such fears are groundless and often fed by those such as yourself who perpetuate the myth. If there are any who are feeling oppressed, who's creating that feeling of oppression? Not the Church; not by any action of its own.

Edited September 8, 2009 by Maxel
Clarification

[Maxel]

Grandmakabipbip-

I think you're guess about which rule Palerider is talking about is correct. While I can't say anything to your comments about your acquantinces, I can offer an opinion on the underlying principle (that there are prophets, but not all are called to leadership positions).

I think Samuel the Lamanite was one such prophet. We have no record of him being a leader in the Church, yet he was called of God to preach repentance unto the wicked Nephites. Also, we are told that all men may receive visions and revelations from God, according to their needs and stewardship- one definition of the term 'prophet' is one who testifies of Christ. In that regard, we all can be prophets in that we testify of Him and come to know Him through revelation and the Atonement- but we cannot take upon ourselves positions of leadership, which is what the LDS Church's use of the word 'prophet' usually implies.

[pam]

Yet I know two who are perfectly oriented with their knowledge they are prophets and are totally active in the church, knowledable in the doctrine and do what the Lord has ask of them without asking for any great recognition... they are simple primary worker and home teacher.

Do they inform people they are prophets? Do you consider them a prophet in the same sense as President Monson? I personally would have a really difficult time if someone from my ward came up to me randomly and said they were a prophet.

[pam]

Joseph Smith said this concerning the "gift of prophecy."

“We believe that we have a right to revelations, visions, and dreams from God, our Heavenly Father, and light and intelligence through the gift of the Holy Ghost, in the name of Jesus Christ, on all subjects pertaining to our spiritual welfare, if it so be that we keep his commandments so as to render ourselves worthy in his sight.” (Kent P. Jackson, comp. and ed., Joseph Smith's Commentary on the Bible [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1994], 160.)

I take this to mean that we have the gift concerning ourselves and our own welfare. Not necessarily prophets that can foresee or receive revelation for anyone else on earth.