Can personal revelation trump counsel from the General Authorities

[MarginOfError]

I thought this discussion was worth of opening up to other viewpoints. This it taken from another thread.

...I rarely wore the Garment for a week last year when I was on a 60 mile canoe trip on the French River. Yet, even without the Garment, I had all of the blessings and protections of my temple covenant the whole week.

Marginof error:

I asked you how you put together instruction that you are to wear the garment as much as possible, and if I am hearing you right, your answer is that you went on a canoe trip for a week and did not wear garments and still had the protect that comes from wearing the garment. Your point of authority seems to be yourself. Am I correct on this or am I missing something? I also know a single smoker who used himself as an authority to outline that smoking does not cause cancer and there would not be a decrease in word of wisdom blessings. He died of lung cancer in his late 50s.

Well now you're veering off topic. but I'll humor you nonetheless. Before going on this trip, I contemplated long and hard the potential consequences of wearing the Garment on the trip. Under the conditions of the trip (8 - 10 hours in a canoe every day, with one day on open water), I felt that in the event of a capsize, wearing the Garment would be at best an incredible discomfort (no Garment I have ever worn has taken water well), and at worst, a hypothermia and life-threatening issue. After much thought and consideration, I felt comfortable that putting on the Garment to sleep, but removing it for the day's activities was acceptable to the Lord. I went on the trip and had some incredibly inspiring and uplifting experiences, and I have 100% confidence that not wearing the Garment in no way cheapened the experience.

Do I know more than the General Authorities? About somethings. They know more than me about others. But when it comes to what revelation and divine guidance the Lord is giving me, I'll assert myself in saying that I know more than they do, thank you.

Here's another one you love. When I go backpacking, particularly in the winter, I never wear the Garment. For a lot of the same reasons mentioned above (hypothermia, etc). As holy and sacred as the Garment may be, it's still made of cloth, and if it that cloth doesn't demonstrate the right wicking properties, I feel justified in protecting my own health and life by not wearing it.

Marginoferror:

I think where we disagree is on the topic of personal revelation. I once knew a guy who was a drug user who also stated that it was bad for people in general to use drugs, but somehow his position was unique and he prayed about it and felt good about his choice to use drugs. I also knew another man who committed adultery – he also received a personal testimony that he did not have to visit his Bishop or tell his wife. Both of these men used personal revelation as a trump card.

I am not in a position to argue against one who claims that have prayed and received a personal revelation. Personal revelation does exist. However, I do worry when someone claims to have a personal revelation that is in direct contrast to revelation that General Authorities outline. They really do know more than individuals and I personally would never think I know more about human behavior than a General Authority.

We differing in that to me, when a Temple recommend questions asks if we wear the garment night and day and as much as possible, I just can’t say yes if I am taking it off.

So, I'll make my response short and let other share their thoughts. All I'll say is that there is revelation received after heart felt consideration and careful pondering, and there is self-serving 'revelation' of convenience. It's true, some people will use revelation as an trump card to do what they want. They do it because there's no logical recourse against such an argument. But does that mean that all personal revelation must first be measured against the statements of Church leaders, the scriptures, and policy books before it is considered valid?

Please, discuss!

[hordak]

Yes personal revelation can trump council, (See sig) otherwise there would be no point.

But does that mean that all personal revelation must first be measured against the statements of Church leaders, the scriptures, and policy books before it is considered valid?

Not really sure what your asking. It would have to be compared to know it is personal revelation wouldn't it?

MOE runs into elders quorum with a smile on his face. "I received revelation last night that i should visit 2 ward families each month and share a spiritual message with them"

Someone pipes up. "That's called home teaching, we already do that";)

[gabelpa]

Well, this is certianly interesting. Here's what I think, though it may be controvertial.

We get everything wrong. Revelation can serve as a guise for claiming all things. I have seen similar self-deception. In our current situation, we do deceive ourselves, but leadership has done the same. We can excuse away human error by saying that is how things were supposed to happen, but is this really the case?

[Guest mormonmusic]

I think it was Hemidakota or Rameumpton who shared Dallin H. Oakes comment that leaders can only teach general principles. If you personally feel you have an exception, you have to work it out between you and the Lord. Don't ask them to comment on your exception.

I think this is good advice for all of us. So, the answer to the opening question:

YES, revelation can, will and should definitely trump the advice of general authorities. As BRM said in Mormon Doctrine (which I know is no longer published) that we are all prophets to our own personal affairs, meaning, we are entitled to receive revelation for those affairs.

Years ago local leaders told me to stay home from a mission because I was heavily in debt and all missionary fund donations from the Wards were to be used for debt reduction due to borrowings for missions. Stay home and get married they said, there's no money for you and we don't see any way you can clear off your huge student loan debt. Bishop and Stake President both. I suggested I could move into a different stake that didn't have the same debt obligations. They said "don't move to get support". "No one has the right to go to other stakes simply to ask for money".

If they had their way, I would've stayed home and just got married to my girlfriend at the time.

Then, enter deep spiritual impressions and a confirmation that I needed to go on a mission, and a year later, I did, completely out of debt due to hard work and the divine help of the Lord.

My revelation trumped theirs definitely. Counsel from leaders to me are suggestions; most of the time, I don't question them, but I'm always open to questioning their advice when I have unique personal circumstances that make it impractical. Sometimes they say things that aren't inspired, and that the Church has to distance itself from. So, ultimately, it's what I think think that matters after seriously considering what our leaders say -- not to be taken lightly -- but not to be taken lwithout question either.

Edited September 14, 2010 by mormonmusic

[mikbone]

Why can't we make our own garments. Just modify a pair of shorts and shirt that have the wicking properties that you like.

Do garments have to come from Beehive Clothing to be garments? Do the workers over at Beehive pray over them?

The military already have garments that are green.

Adam and Eve made their own garments.

There is usually a way to make our needs/personal revelation conform with GA council.

Now, where is my decaf frozen mocha?

Edited September 14, 2010 by mikbone

[skippy740]

D&C 28:11-13

11 And again, thou shalt take thy brother, Hiram Page, between him and thee alone, and tell him that those things which he hath written from that stone are not of me and that Satan deceiveth him;

12 For, behold, these things have not been appointed unto him, neither shall anything be appointed unto any of this church contrary to the church covenants.

13 For all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith.

Some of the things quoted are personal decisions while others fly in the face of actual commandments.

Some things are based on personal decision - wearing the garment on an outdoor expedition, while others are saying that "I'm exempt" from that doctrine - okay to take drugs or smoke.

"Take heed that ye be not deceived."

[Wingnut]

I think it was Hemidakota or Rameumpton who shared Dallin H. Oakes comment that leaders can only teach general principles.

It's in Hordak's signature. He referenced it in his post above.

[jayanna]

But does that mean that all personal revelation must first be measured against the statements of Church leaders, the scriptures, and policy books before it is considered valid?

Please, discuss!

I would say that it is the other way around.

If you read what the authorities say, are willing to be obedient, then you have a moment when there is an exception, you are much more likely to receive a personal revelation telling you what to do in that instance.

You are doing exactly what the leaders hope you are doing...after being obedient to the Lord with their guidance, receiving personal guidance when they cannot be there for you to tell you what He says you should do.

"Personal revelation comes as a testimony of truth and as guidance in spiritual and temporal matters. Latter-day Saints know that the promptings of the Spirit may be received upon all facets of life, including daily, ongoing decisions" LDS.org - Ensign Article - Communion with the Holy Spirit.

Yes, I think personal revelation trumps everything.:)

[Gwen]

i think that it depends. i don't see the lord giving someone revelation to become an illegal drug dealer. the command about illegal drugs is pretty cut and dry.

other things we are told to seek the lord's counsel on. the garment, caffeine consumption, birth control. there are general rule guidelines given but everyone is expected to us the since god gave them, the holy spirit and make the decisions that will be best with them. in the end no one is to judge them on their actions surrounding it; if they feel they can stand blameless before god then they are fine.

[jayanna]

oh! I just realized that it is personal revelation that tells you that those gen. auth. are telling the word of God in the first place.

So yes, personal revelation is most important.

[Suzie]

They really do know more than individuals and I personally would never think I know more about human behavior than a General Authority.

Dash, last time I checked General Authorities may be inspired leaders but they still men so I am not sure why you say they "know more" than individuals. Just because they have been called to serve in those positions, it doesn't make them particularly more knowledgeable about any topic than a regular member. And about knowing more about human behavior, unless we have some psychologists or sociologists as GA who have been trained to know a little more about human behavior then it's just a big assumption on your part.

I think we need to be careful (generally speaking) that as we strive to listen to the counsel of our leaders, we do not think of them "over" us as more knowledgeable, more righteous, more spiritual. They are MEN. Just like you and I with great talents and lots of weaknesses.

Edited September 14, 2010 by Suzie

[Wingnut]

i think that it depends. i don't see the lord giving someone revelation to become an illegal drug dealer. the command about illegal drugs is pretty cut and dry.

I think this is what MOE was referring to when he talked about "revelation" vs. revelation.

All I'll say is that there is revelation received after heart felt consideration and careful pondering, and there is self-serving 'revelation' of convenience. It's true, some people will use revelation as an trump card to do what they want.

[Suzie]

I call it the "ROCS".

Revelation

Of

Common

Sense.

[MarginOfError]

I call it the "ROCS".

Revelation

Of

Common

Sense.

awww...I thought it was going to be "rodents of common size"

[Just_A_Guy]

But does that mean that all personal revelation must first be measured against the statements of Church leaders, the scriptures, and policy books before it is considered valid?

As the (hypothetical) recipient of such a revelation, I'm going to say "yes". I think it's part of the "study it out in your mind" process outlined in D&C 9.

As a (hypothetical) disinterested third-party with respect to such a revelation: I wouldn't consider it interesting but not valid (to me), even if it conformed to the GAs and scriptures and Church policy. Spheres of authority, and all that.

Edited September 14, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[Moksha]

Do garments have to come from Beehive Clothing to be garments? Do the workers over at Beehive pray over them?

You mean like the Rabbi at the Hebrew National Hotdog factory?

Now, where is my decaf frozen mocha?

Get thee behind me calorie laden dessert treats!

My guess is that MoE was saying that the true meaning of remembrance of covenants comes from an internalized process rather than manufactured clothing items. That significance lies within rather than residing in the totem or beads.

[GaySaint]

I'm going to open a can of worms here:

Please, let's NOT use ME as an example =)...

How many of you have actually had someone tell you that they received direction to go against something a General Authority has said - and what was your internal response? Even if you said "Ok," to their face, did you really BELIEVE that this person was justified?

I once heard a quote (tongue-in-cheek) that said the difference between Mormons and Catholics is that Mormons say their leaders are fallible while actually believing they are not, while Catholics claim their leaders are infallible while actually believing they are.

Thoughts (besides mine: Oh please oh please don't let me regret hitting 'Post')?

Edited September 14, 2010 by GaySaint

[pam]

I'm going to have to be honest and say no I initially wouldn't think they are justified.

But when General Authorities state facts or opinions it is usually to encompass the entire body of the Church.

I do believe that people can receive personal revelation that might be what we would think is contrary to what GA's tell us.

Example: We are told to attend our Church meetings and partake of the Sacrament.

What if you are in a situation where attending church meetings would jeopardize your family unit? So after praying about it, you receive personal revelation that it's okay to miss Church for now and tend to your family priorities.

Is that justified? I believe so. Would I believe the person who blurted out that they are not attending Church because God told them not to. No probably not really. But I am not always privy to the personal aspects of someone's life and therefore who am I really to say they aren't justified?

[MarginOfError]

I'm going to open a can of worms here:

Please, let's NOT use ME as an example =)...

How many of you have actually had someone tell you that they received direction to go against something a General Authority has said - and what was your internal response? Even if you said "Ok," to their face, did you really BELIEVE that this person was justified?

I once heard a quote (tongue-in-cheek) that said the difference between Mormons and Catholics is that Mormons say their leaders are fallible while actually believing they are not, while Catholics claim their leaders are infallible while actually believing they are.

Thoughts (besides mine: Oh please oh please don't let me regret hitting 'Post')?

I've actually had this happen a number of times. My response when someone says that they've received a revelation that is contrary to the statements of the scriptures or General Authorities is always, "OK."

If I'm ever in a position where I have the keys to judge one's worthiness I might respond differently. But as it stands, I don't have the right or the privilege of telling another person if he or she has correctly interpreted their feelings of revelation.

[GaySaint]

This is something I see very differently being outside of the church than I did inside of it. I always professed the idea that prophets were men and therefore fallible (which helped justify a lot of anti-mormon stuff), but actually could never cite a time when I thought a prophet made a mistake in regards to leading the church...

So either I believed they WERE fallible, and had just never made a mistake (or perhaps had, but then the Lord called them home before we ever knew it... which COULD mean every prophet except Monson was about to lead the church astray - tongue again in cheek), or I actually believed them to be infallible. I still have issues resolving the idea that they are fallible but can't lead the church astray... that just seems like an impossible duality.

But maybe this belongs in the "are prophets infallible" thread... ha! I just think the two subjects relate quite wholly: If a prophet cannot lead the church astray, can the church lead a person astray? That seems to me to be the only way that personal revelation could ACTUALLY trump a GA... unless the GA wasn't speaking in commandment, only counsel... Which then goes back to the counsel vs commandment thread

[Moksha]

Even we Mormons have received the Gift of Nuremberg: That is that we must be responsible for our own evil doings. I have confidence that the majority of us Mormons would decline a request by a Church Authority to strap a bomb to our backs and wander into a crowded market place to explode it. There is a point to which our own innate sense of right and wrong kicks into gear, no matter how pervasive the push toward obedience in all things.

[pam]

But maybe this belongs in the "are prophets infallible" thread... ha! I just think the two subjects relate quite wholly: If a prophet cannot lead the church astray, can the church lead a person astray? That seems to me to be the only way that personal revelation could ACTUALLY trump a GA... unless the GA wasn't speaking in commandment, only counsel... Which then goes back to the counsel vs commandment thread

Again, do we know whether that person interpreted the revelation correctly? If not they are leading themselves astray not the Church.

[GaySaint]

Pam: So your thoughts then are that personal revelation could go against a GA, but most likely wouldn’t, and if it did, then if it goes against commandment it is due to incorrect interpretation. Did I get that right?

Whew that’s complicated :)

[skippy740]

As I'm following the thread, I think there is a difference that must be explored:

"Principles of Gospel Living" versus "Doing the Best We Can with What We've Got"

To me, the principles of gospel living include attending church meetings and living by the commandments.

Doing the best we can means "hey, I know I'm supposed to go to my meetings, but this is the only job I can get right now, and I need to work on Sundays." My heart is in the right place, but I've got to do what I've got to do.

The principles of how to live are unchanging. Our personal circumstances are ALWAYS changing and so are the ways we deal with our daily lives.

That's where the part of "agency" comes in.

[PrinceofLight2000]

Well, this is certianly interesting. Here's what I think, though it may be controvertial.

We get everything wrong. Revelation can serve as a guise for claiming all things. I have seen similar self-deception. In our current situation, we do deceive ourselves, but leadership has done the same. We can excuse away human error by saying that is how things were supposed to happen, but is this really the case?

Only when it isn't truly personal revelation. I think anyone who tries to claim a message from God as a license to sin is in major trouble.

Edited September 14, 2010 by PrinceofLight2000