Can personal revelation trump counsel from the General Authorities

[beefche]

We cannot be told everything, but some sheople seem to want just that.

So, because someone follows what they are told when they are instructed to wear the garment day and night and to remove it only for appropriate activities, they are "sheople?" That's a great way to describe others, mrmarklin, who don't agree with you.

[MarginOfError]

So, because someone follows what they are told when they are instructed to wear the garment day and night and to remove it only for appropriate activities, they are "sheople?" That's a great way to describe others, mrmarklin, who don't agree with you.

I think he was referring to those who insist that if the exception is authorized in writing by someone in authority then it doesn't exist. That is, people who want everything spelled out for them rather than having to contemplate and ponder on their own.

I interpreted his use of the term "sheople" to be rather narrow in scope, and not nearly as general as you're applying it.

[beefche]

I don't like the term at all. I think it is derogatory to anyone who is trying to follow the Lord to the best of his/her ability--even if that "best" isn't our idea of best.

[carlimac]

I don't like the term at all. I think it is derogatory to anyone who is trying to follow the Lord to the best of his/her ability--even if that "best" isn't our idea of best.

I don't mind being a sheep. Didn't Jesus tell us "Come follow me"? I don't think He minds though, if we stray a few feet off the path either direction to graze.

[Soulsearcher]

I don't like the term at all. I think it is derogatory to anyone who is trying to follow the Lord to the best of his/her ability--even if that "best" isn't our idea of best.

It may be an odd term, but i think it fits. There are people who don't want to think, who just follow blindly because they were told and use that as their way of explaining all answers. It worries me on some things because there are times i think thinking should be required and yet all i hear was " i was just following orders".......i've heard it before and seem to remember it wasn't an acceptable defence in Nuremberg. I think the lord would want people coming to him directly for confirmation rather than just looking to men on earth and taking every word from them as gospel and following with out thought or question.

[Suzie]

That is, people who want everything spelled out for them rather than having to contemplate and ponder on their own.

It reminds me of Hordak's signature:

"There are not enough general authorities to do all the thinking for the membership of the church." J. Golden Kimball

[MarginOfError]

A lot of the confusion seems to me revolves around the idea(myth?) that the garment should be worn at "all times", and that it offers some sort of physical protection.

Common sense needs to prevail. We cannot be told everything, but some sheople seem to want just that.

The whole thing about the garment is to remind us of our covenant with the Lord. Period. It's the covenant that protects us from the World, and doing wrong, not the garment itself. Let's not fall into the trap the ancient Jewish leaders did, and get all about the trappings, and not about what is really going on.

There's not a day in my life that I've started without putting on the garment. But I've certainly taken it off for various activities in which it would be inapproprate. I didn't ask for "revelation" on whether it would be a good idea or not. It was just common sense.

This actually makes me wonder how many people would object to me removing the Garment if I were going canoeing for a day, or kayaking on the coast.

EDIT: I think I need to expand on why this is a relevant question.

So my decision in this instance has received a little bit of criticism. Some of that criticism is directed toward the fact that we are counseled to wear the Garment as often as possible and the people in question feel that the confirmation I claim to receive is both contrary to that counsel and conveniently aligned with my personal preferences.

But if I were to go out canoeing for a day, wearing my bathing suit, and removed my Garment for that activity, as many of us often do for water activities (an activity that has been given an explicit exception to the general counsel), would anyone even blink?

so what is it that makes the week long instance open to criticism, but the day long instance or the hour long instance immune? Is it strictly the amount of time? Does it depend on whether you wear a shirt in the boat or not? Does the presence or absence of a mesh netting in my shorts change the equation?

Edited September 16, 2010 by MarginOfError

[Wingnut]

Sheople? I thought it was a typo, and I thought beefche was just mocking the spelling error (because many of us have been known to mock). Whoops.

[Therauh]

The sheople term may have not been the most politically correct term to use but I'm pretty sure what he meant by it was along these lines.

We have already received instruction to prepare for the coming storms in these latter days. The prophet warned us that we must seek our own light of Christ within us, showing that we cannot progress on our spiritual path while depending on the light from others. Elder Charles Dider had said,

The gift of the Holy Ghost is the foundation of the bridge of faith....

...The inner feelings and promptings to overcome the obstacles of life and to make righteous choices will come by listening to the voice of the Holy Ghost. Crossing the bridge of faith may not be as easy as we may think. A bridge will only resist the storms because of the strength of the pillars of its foundation....

... A cry for increased faith at such a time will always be answered by the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, a "constant companion,... an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth" (DC 121:46).

(Charles Didier, "Building a Bridge of Faith," Ensign, Nov. 2001, 10)

Borrowed light is not a substitute for the Holy Ghost, because borrowed light means to lean on others who carry God’s light. (Past) President Ezra Taft Benson said,

"The time will come when no man nor woman will be able to endure on borrowed light. Each will have to be guided by the light within himself."

...If you don’t have it you will not stand; therefore seek for the testimony of Jesus and cleave to it, that when the trying time comes you may not stumble and fall."

(Ezra Taft Benson, "Valiant in the Testimony of Jesus," Ensign, May 1982, 62)

President James Faust said,

"We will not be able to travel through life on borrowed light. The light of life must be part of our very being. The voice we must learn to heed is the voice of the Spirit."

(James E. Faust, "The Voice of the Spirit," Liahona, Sept. 1995, 17)

That was from here Borrowed Light from the Scriptures (Article)

[riverogue]

When I did the 6 month basic training/AIT thing and a year in Iraq I was told it was up to me whether to wear my garments. I brought mine along but found it wouldn't work out because a half dozen times a day my whole battery would see me in them. I have had sergeants tell me not to wear them. I stopped wearing them, but not because of my sergeant. When I went to Iraq, I had the army brown garments. I chose not to wear them after they got mixed up in the laundry. One day my platoon sergeant put on my garment top thinking it was his normal undershirt. When he saw the symbols he went before my whole squad and asked whose they were, I piped up and told them they were mine and he went off on how kinky weird they were in front of everyone. I also had a pair of bottoms blow of the line and was picked up by an Iraqi who was wearing them around! So obviously there are times when it is up to the person to decide whether to wear them or not. Also, I don't see anything wrong with buying a similar undershirt with your fabric of choice, as a soldier can just mail his army undershirts to the church for them to sew the symbols on for him/her. Obviously military women wearing their bras underneath their military temple garments is ok. Also temple patrons mistakenly tell women that they have to wear them under their bra even though the official stance is that whether wearing them under or over the bra is up to the individual. Probably be a big relief to a lot of LDS women if they actually knew that.

Edited September 17, 2010 by riverogue

[jayanna]

I'd like to say that the Lord can call me one of His sheep any day. I would consider it a compliment. :)

At the temple there is a really big painting in the foyer of the Savior, there are a lot of white sheep around Him. They are clean and happy looking, but there is one sheep that is black and kind of dirty, and small.

He is carrying that one.

I love that, I'd like to be any one of those sheep. It's my favorite Jesus painting ever I think.

I'd never heard the term sheople, and I'm not insulted by it, it can only be insulting if you let it be.

Sorry, I know, off topic...

[Moksha]

Could we get a ruling from the senior English major as to whether we are sheople or sheeple?

[HiJolly]

Could we get a ruling from the senior English major as to whether we are sheople or sheeple?

Google proclaims the winner: Sheeple! -- the other option is not even close!

HiJolly

[ryanh]

What exactly was I supposed to get from those first four paragraphs?

You can take from it whatever you would like, as I expect you will no matter what is said.

One option is to take it at face value (and not project your internal thoughts and processes upon another), that someone has a different opinion from you. I was operating under the impression that it was ok for people to have differing opinions and perspectives. That is the paradigm that I work under, which encompases the understanding that it is not ok according to others. So be it.

[mrmarklin]

Could we get a ruling from the senior English major as to whether we are sheople or sheeple?

I've seen it spelled both ways. Not sure if it's a real word, but it certainly describes a lot of persons on a lot of fora.

[Daniel2020]

I served my mission before Blacks were allowed to hold the priesthood and enter the temple. In those days many missionaries served as branch presidents.

One day a young woman asked for counsel. She'd served a mission and received a patriarchal which spoke of her husband holding the priesthood and marrying her in the temple.

She was in love with one of the most faithful young men in the district. However, because of his ancestry, this young man could not hold the priesthood. (He was a very honest young man. He didn't "look Black" and had he been willing to conceal his ancestry he probably would have been ordained.)

She'd prayed earnestly about the situation and said the answer to her prayers was she should marry the young man. Because of what her patriarchal blessing said she was understandably confused, but after much prayer married the young man. (Based on her patriarchal blessing I didn't think she should. Neither did the mission president.)

Of course, a few years later due to revelation given to Spencer W. Kimball this young man would be able to receive the priesthood and they would be able to be married in the temple.

Does his help?

Edited September 19, 2010 by Daniel2020

[EandLDOW]

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

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!

Personal revelation is God's way of giving us specific instructions or knowledge we need to help us get through our daily lives.

I wouldn't say it "trumps" what the General Authorities say, but rather it supplements it and gives us guidance on implementation of their counsel in our specific circumstances. I do know that true revelation from God will never contradict anything the General Authorities have told us.

[HiJolly]

(snip) I do know that true revelation from God will never contradict anything the General Authorities have told us.

That does not agree with my experience. If you change the statement to "...anything the General Authorities have taught us as doctrine." Then I might agree.

HiJolly

[Misshalfway]

If we think that all personal revelation is going to absolutely agree with the prophets, then we don't know our scriptures very well.

I really think that the problem with personal revelation is not in the receiving of it, but how others judge it when we share or when they observe us in our atypical obedience. Bless our beautiful hearts! We can't seem to stop ourselves from judging each other. But how foolish we feel when God corrects our presumptions.

Edited September 30, 2010 by Misshalfway