Can personal revelation trump counsel from the General Authorities

[hyohko]

Lurker here, casting 2 cents in.

I think I can reduce ryanh's point down to a few sentences. He argues that if a person does receive a personal revelation that contradicts general counsel, they are not justified (and perhaps condemned) by sharing such experience in a place where other people might hear it. The logic of this argument is that if other people get the idea that there can valid exceptions to the counsel, then they will assume that it is a license to ignore said counsel completely.

Boiled down to its essence, "If your experience doesn't match the counsel of your leaders, you'd better not say anything, even if you're right - even if you really did have such a revelation."

If this isn't too much of a straw-man characterization, if it is accurate, I call nonsense. If we have to constantly fear or brutally enforce self-censorship when sharing private feelings, especially feelings of the Spirit, then there is really no point to this forum, no point to bearing testimony, unless we submit to repeating the canned recitations of Primary Children.

Experience with God is personal, and so is the decision to share such experiences, especially if it helps those of us who likewise struggle with how to balance the whisperings of the Holy Ghost with the words of our leaders. I say that more stories, more lessons, more experiences should be shared. That way, we Saints will know that we are not alone in our mortal time, that there are others like us - flawed, imperfect, but honestly trying to do what is right and to seek God's will.

Pearls before swine - the phrase means to take holy things and put them before people who mock them, ridicule them, make light of the things of God. It means sacrilege, blasphemy, putting God to shame. MoE has done none of these things, but has attempted to understand his own experience. How is that so wrong?

Edited September 15, 2010 by hyohko

[ryanh]

I think I can reduce ryanh's point down to a few sentences. He argues that if a person does receive a personal revelation that contradicts general counsel, they are not justified (and perhaps condemned) by sharing such experience in a place where other people might hear it. The logic of this argument is that if other people get the idea that there can valid exceptions to the counsel, then they will assume that it is a license to ignore said counsel completely.

Boiled down to its essence, "If your experience doesn't match the counsel of your leaders, you'd better not say anything, even if you're right - even if you really did have such a revelation."

Quite different than how I am thinking. Not even close. I’ve already shared my opinion, and clarified it, and nothing more is useful to be said than: this is an inaccurate interpretation of how I think or feel.

I honestly do find it odd how so many are so ready to assign to others what it is they think or feel. Strange.

Edited September 15, 2010 by ryanh

[MarginOfError]

There is only one question left to ask MoE, this one a simple yes or no.

"Have you stopped beating your wife?"

I repeat: "Damned if you do, damned if you don't."

[MarginOfError]

Exposing your fraud? If the accusation that such was my motive wasn’t so serious to me, it would be funny. I have never for a moment considered that your recounting of your experience was a fraud. Go back and read my first post that apparently caused you and Wingnut to feel like you were attacked. The two last paragraphs were not intended to be a reflection of your personal example - but generalities. That could have been clearer. I had three points in my mind 1) your experience isn’t best example for the reasons I stated, 2) exceptions do exist, and 3) in general, one has to be careful in considering the validity of their exception.

It wasn't the two last paragraphs that were a cause of concern. It was the first four, repeated below for convenience:

MoE, your opening example of the garments troubles me as a vanguard for the idea of revelations for personal exceptions.

Just because the Lord is merciful, and will bless us beyond measure despite our various imperfections in actions and thought does not automatically justify the correctness of such actions and thought.

Who is to say that because of the excess of faith it would take to wear garments despite difficulties that could accompany such a choice, would not have provided for even greater blessings and experiences, including protection in the event of unfortunate circumstances such as a capsize?

I think what makes the example most uncomfortable to me is the temporal considerations seemingly trumping spiritual considerations. What does it really matter - these temporal considerations? They are but dross in the end.

so, pretty much, you don't like my choice of example because 1) my thoughts and actions were imperfect, 2) I couldn't demonstrate that my decision led to greater blessings than the opposite decision would have provided, and 3) because I considered all the wrong reasons. Oh...and on top of that, it didn't fit the generalities you discussed in your last two paragraphs.

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

Edited September 16, 2010 by MarginOfError

[john doe]

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.

So, are you saying that GAs don't receive revelation for the general church population? That we shouldn't listen to them unless they are sociologists? Where, is your formula, do you place inspiration for those whom you are called to serve?

[john doe]

Just a reminder folks, this forum is for genial discussion of the gospel. If you can't write and be civil, the mods will have to step in and sort things out. And nobody is ever happy when that happens. Let's try to be as nice to others as possible, even if you disagree with them.

[Suzie]

So, are you saying that GAs don't receive revelation for the general church population? That we shouldn't listen to them unless they are sociologists? Where, is your formula, do you place inspiration for those whom you are called to serve?

Where did I say all of those things? If that's your interpretation then you need to re-read my post.

[Suzie]

But ultimately, I'm curious about why we expect people to defend themselves on these matters? What is it about this that brings out the judgmental and critical side in us where if someone, say a guy like MOE, admits that he felt a confirming revelation that it was acceptable to remove the Garment for this trip--why do we question that.

Because for most people, MOE is just a guy on lds.net. The thing would be completely different if you hold a certain position, etc. Nobody would have challenged anything you shared in your first post.

[john doe]

Where did I say all of those things? If that's your interpretation then you need to re-read my post.

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.

Nowhere did you mention the role of receiving revelation or inspiration for those they are called to serve, which is why I asked about it.

[Therauh]

Being an almost convert it makes me wonder and it's about the only thing that does. How so many who have recieved the Holy Spirit or say they have, find so many ways to find fault and misinterpret what each other says and disagree so often.It's my understanding the Holy Spirit is supposed to teach or lead us into all truth.So if one has the Holy Spirit and it does work in them how can they falter and why so much disagreement?

A problem with forums is that some come to judge and almost all at somepoint who offer their experiences or view will be judged.

So who's right and who's wrong? Who's using the spirit and who isn't?Not really looking for answer to these but

Does the GA tell you to rely on them or The Holy Spirit within you and are you using it?

I believe I'll still join this church cause I believe in it tho it may take me awhile but

Please remind me after I get baptised and before I get confirmed

To ask for a double portion.

Edited September 16, 2010 by Therauh

[Suzie]

Nowhere did you mention the role of receiving revelation or inspiration for those they are called to serve, which is why I asked about it.

I mentioned in the first line they may be inspired leaders but they still men (a fact). So I am not really sure what your point is?

[john doe]

I mentioned in the first line they may be inspired leaders but they still men (a fact). So I am not really sure what your point is?

And then you basically blew them off as 'just men' without any real knowledge of human behavior. I'm curious how much stock you put into inspiration and revelation from God that these 'men' receive on your behalf.

[Moksha]

Because for most people, MOE is just a guy on lds.net. The thing would be completely different if you hold a certain position, etc. Nobody would have challenged anything you shared in your first post.

Being just a guy is an important position on LDS.net. Works for MOE and Just-A-Guy as well.

As Walt Whitman would say, "I speak the pass-word primeval, I give the sign of democracy, I will accept nothing which all cannot have their counterpart of on the same terms."

[jayanna]

Yes, because no one who has ever worn their garments faithfully, when when it might have endangered their life, has ever died because of it.

Hi wingnut! I would like to share a bit of experience I have had with that situation, while I do firmly believe in keeping my temple garments, and take them very very seriously, I have been in a situation when they had to be removed.

It was when I had to be defibrillated.

Was I wearing them before? yes

Did I put on new ones as soon as I could move? yes

Was it necessary to remove them? the medical staff certainly seemed to think so, they prabably would have caught on fire, and could have mucked up the electrical shock.

On the other hand, I also know of someone whose life was saved b/c of them, and have many experiences when faithfully continuing to wear them was pivotal in facing worldly tests...but I'm still glad that EMT's can cut through them like butter. (my smiley just got zapped)

[carlimac]

If I were to translate what I felt into English, I think what I was told amounted to, "Do you really think that I care?"

This seems pretty uncharacteristic of our Heavenly Father. I don't think He's quite this casual about the commandments He's given us. He might not care if we sing one hymn or another, or if we go to the temple today or tomorrow. But I'm quite sure He does care if we keep our temple covenants.

Was I too cautious? No. absolutely not. Any time I go out into a wilderness area, I do so with the knowledge that I am as prepared as I can be for whatever disaster I might face. And I will continue to do so as long as I have a family to support and other families are trusting the health and safety of their children to my care.

I don't know all the details of your particular trip. I understand it was in Canada. But my husband has been on numerous canoe trips to the Boundary Waters in MN ... up near the Canadian border, way off the grid, no cell phone contact, with groups of boy scouts, with at least 5 other temple endowed men, all with children and families, in October (brr!!), for up to a week. All of these men wear their garments the whole time. So it seems in talking with other experienced outdoorsmen that your decision to go without your garments may be a bit extreme. Besides that, I don't get why you wouldn't want the "sheild and protection" the garment has to offer. Why couldn't you just take your wet things off when you got to shore? Not sure what difference one layer of clothing is going to make if you're completely wet anyway. Have you tried mesh? And how about those big zip-lock bags for your stuff? It usually keeps extra clothes dry.

If you want to talk the heart of the matter, let me ask this...If I had said I felt the opposite inspiration--that the Lord absolutely wanted me to wear the Garment, and then I had done so--would you have asked me all those same questions? Would you have even thought to try to challenge me to consider what I thought I had felt if it had been more in line with the revelation you would have expected me to receive?

No I wouldn't have asked because it would have been a non-issue. Why would I challenge the fact that you had followed a commandment?

How honest are we with ourselves about that? How often do we question the revelation and inspiration others have felt because it doesn't coincide with our expectations? Why do we think that the answer is going to be the same for every person?

I think we do this quite often! Should we? I suppose not but you did ask us to discuss this. As far as I know, this particular example you have given has to do with some pretty direct instruction within the temple. I don't think we should be messing with temple covenants. But if it doesn't bother you...oh well. That's your decision.

There are lots of gray areas in our church where we have been taught correct principles and need to just govern ourselves. Even in wearing the garment we have to make decisions- for instance it's pretty hard to give birth with them on (but I know someone who did. Baby came incredibly fast.) But what this boils down to is that we sometimes give in too easily. We need to be more like Nephi and trust that the Lord will provide a way for us to accomplish what He's instructed us to do.

I have rarely felt any such thing. In the instance of the canoe trip, I am certain that the blessings and protections of honoring my temple covenants were afforded me, even though I didn't wear the Garment. And the Lord taught me some very valuable and important lessons along the way. In fact, I'd compare the feelings and emotions I had coming away from that trip to the feelings and emotions I've had after serving in the temple.

Just wondering why you mention this. Do you feel the Lord was validating your decision by allowing you to have inspirational experiences?

In answer to your OP- in some cases, yes personal revelation can trump counsel but it's probably not a good idea to make a habit of it.

Edited September 16, 2010 by carlimac

[Suzie]

And then you basically blew them off as 'just men' without any real knowledge of human behavior. I'm curious how much stock you put into inspiration and revelation from God that these 'men' receive on your behalf.

Well, first of all I don't know how I "blew them off" as "just men" neither I said they don't have a real knowledge of human behavior (again, your interpretation is way off and we are going in circles) It seems like you are bothered at the fact that they are human. I mentioned being inspired yet it doesn't seem to be enough for you. So I would say that's your personal issue really, not mine.

[Suzie]

In answer to your OP- in some cases, yes personal revelation can trump counsel but it's probably not a good idea to make a habit of it.

How can someone make a "habit" out of personal revelation?

[Wingnut]

How can someone make a "habit" out of personal revelation?

And wouldn't that actually be a good habit to be in? :)

[Suzie]

And wouldn't that actually be a good habit to be in? :)

Hahaha Soooo TRUE!

[Wingnut]

Hahaha Soooo TRUE!

In all fairness, you truncated Carlimac's statement when you asked the question. Yes personal revelation is a good habit to have, but using it as an excuse to set aside general counsel on a regular basis probably isn't a good thing.

[Suzie]

In all fairness, you truncated Carlimac's statement when you asked the question. Yes personal revelation is a good habit to have, but using it as an excuse to set aside general counsel on a regular basis probably isn't a good thing.

Well, of course it is wrong to use it as an excuse however when personal revelation comes..it comes, I don't think we should try to stop it in any way (again, considering we are NOT doing it for the purpose of using it as an excuse).

[carlimac]

In all fairness, you truncated Carlimac's statement when you asked the question. Yes personal revelation is a good habit to have, but using it as an excuse to set aside general counsel on a regular basis probably isn't a good thing.

I'm pretty sure you knew what I meant- making a habit out of letting our own "personal revelation" trump commandments or GA counsel. By the way it was about 3:30 AM so if I made any sense at all that was a good thing.

[Wingnut]

I'm pretty sure you knew what I meant- making a habit out of letting our own "personal revelation" trump commandments or GA counsel. By the way it was about 3:30 AM so if I made any sense at all that was a good thing.

Well, I don't necessarily agree with the rest of that particular post of yours. I just wanted to be fair in the quotation and meaning for that particular part. :)

[carlimac]

Well, I don't necessarily agree with the rest of that particular post of yours. I just wanted to be fair in the quotation and meaning for that particular part. :)

Didn't figure you would.

[mrmarklin]

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 people 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.

Edited September 17, 2010 by john doe
please don't use the term 'sheople' for people you disagree with