Conflicting Answers To Personal Revelation

[Brian 2.0]

I brought up something as an aside in the Book of Abraham post to explain where I was coming from and it seems to derail the thread, so I'm starting it here and hoping to get back to the point in the Abraham thread.

Basically... I expressed my struggle becuase it seems to me that the methodology of a personal witness from God that something is true or untrue seems to be unreliable because multiple people using that same methodology can come up with different answers.

I immediately got responses that other religion don't use that methodoloy, which seemed odd. I used a Islamic terrorist as an example and that's all that was talked about, so I'll bring it a little closer to home, really close to home.

Do not members of fundamentalist sects of Mormonism that still believe in Polygamy believe they are receiving personal revelation from God that they are doing what God wants and that their current prophet is the prophet?

What about a faithful member of the church who prays and feels that the Church's policy on Homosexuality is wrong?

[Vance]

Do not members of fundamentalist sects of Mormonism that still believe in Polygamy believe they are receiving personal revelation from God that they are doing what God wants and that their current prophet is the prophet?

I don't know, but I would assume so. Otherwise they might just leave that church.

But you would have to ask them.

What about a faithful member of the church who prays and feels that the Church's policy on Homosexuality is wrong?

I don't think "prays and feels" is a guarantee of anything.

[altersteve]

Nobody should ever believe something based solely on a "feeling." Personal revelation is far more than that.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Burning_in_the_bosom

http://en.fairmormon.org/Holy_Ghost/Similar_experiences

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I don't think "prays and feels" is a guarantee of anything.

I would point out that it is a simplification of what the LDS actually believe. I know some times we as LDS speak in these terms. So I don't fault the OP.

[Damien the Leper]

Reason (including intellectualized faith) and revelation must work together.

Also, as my brother once told me...if I do not receive affirmation on something the church taught, it's not because my faith is poor or that I don't honor the prophetic callings of our GAs. It's because God has chosen not to affirm.

[Duncan]

Reason (including intellectualized faith) and revelation must work together.

Also, as my brother once told me...if I do not receive affirmation on something the church taught, it's not because my faith is poor or that I don't honor the prophetic callings of our GAs. It's because God has chosen not to affirm.

that's silly

[Hamba Tuhan]

Basically... I expressed my struggle becuase it seems to me that the methodology of a personal witness from God that something is true or untrue seems to be unreliable because multiple people using that same methodology can come up with different answers.

As the scriptures indicate, part of our education in this life is to learn to recognise and understand the voice of the Spirit. Genuine revelation from God is reliable because it speaks to outside reality--in most instances verifiable if we act on it. This is why faith without works shrivels up and dies. As we act on what we trust to be divine communications, we learn to filter out the voice of God from all the other voices we hear, including our own, precisely because the information which comes from God works reliably.

[Tarski]

It is simple.

The (usually inchoate) epistemology implicit in the notion of a private inner witness from the Holy Ghost just can't be made to work.

Knowledge has to make reference to publically available evidence and norms of rationality--at least in principle. You have to have good reason to say you know something.

It is no wonder that contradictions arise between different people's revelations. The number of religions and diverse metaphysical beliefes that arise because some body somewhere had a kind of inner mystical experience is huge.

Good methods converge. Bad methods diverge.

Thus we do have some good reasons to deny this notion of personal revelation as it is normally concieved.

In some sense then, what we know is that it doesn't work.

It is amazing that people just can't apply this lesson to their own relgion.

Edited January 27, 2012 by Tarski

[CV75]

it seems to me that the methodology of a personal witness from God that something is true or untrue seems to be unreliable because multiple people using that same methodology can come up with different answers.

It may seem unreliable, but the otehr consieration is whether the user is reliable. For whom does faith not work?

[Damien the Leper]

that's silly

You're silly.

[Duncan]

You're silly.

i'll get you at recess!

[ERayR]

What about a faithful member of the church who prays and feels that the Church's policy on Homosexuality is wrong?

The problem is asking the wrong question. It is not your or my perogative pray for revelation for the Church. The question should not be the Churches stand but what should be your stand.

Edited January 27, 2012 by ERayR

[Damien the Leper]

The problem is asking the wrong question. It is not your or my perogative pray for revelation for the Church. The question should not be the Churches stand but what should be your stand.

I agree. What God reveals to you is meant for you alone. If God decides to reveal to individuals that a negative perspective on homosexuality is wrong for them...then that is for them alone. It does not make God any less God...He is just better at knowing what we each can individually handle than the GAs who speak to the general church audience.

[Damien the Leper]

i'll get you at recess!

Not unless I get you first!

[selek1]

The problem is asking the wrong question. It is not your or my perogative pray for revelation for the Church. The question should not be the Churches stand but what should be your stand.

I agree. What God reveals to you is meant for you alone. If God decides to reveal to individuals that a negative perspective on homosexuality is wrong for them...then that is for them alone.

This post deliberately misrepresents ERayR's point.

It is not the job of every passing ark-steadier and itching-ears political activist to receive revelation for the Church as whole.

That responsibility rests with the GA's you so blithely dismiss.

The only question a faithful member of the Church must ask himself (or herself) is whether or not that revelation is in keeping with both Gospel precedent and revelation from the Spirit.

The faithful member must then decide whether to acknowledge their God-granted authority or to reject that authority.

It does not make God any less God...He is just better at knowing what we each can individually handle than the GAs who speak to the general church audience.

Once again, this assumes a dichotomy between God's will and that will as expressed by his anointed servants. Such an assumption flies in the face of Scripture and the Lord's direct statement:

D&C Section 1:38

38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my ^aword shall not pass away, but shall all be ^bfulfilled, whether by mine own ^cvoice or by the ^dvoice of my ^eservants, it is the ^fsame.

Disregarding the wise council of the Lord's anointed in favor of the whims and fads of faddish political correctness is fraught with peril. In every such instance, presuming that you know better than the Lord's annointed is playing with fire. Behold:

D&C Section 1:14

14 And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people;

Edited January 27, 2012 by selek1

[ERayR]

This post deliberately misrepresents ERayR's point.

It is not the job of every passing ark-steadier and itching-ears political activist to receive revelation for the Church as whole.

That responsibility rests with the GA's you so blithely dismiss.

The only question a faithful member of the Church must ask himself (or herself) is whether or not that revelation is in keeping with both Gospel precedent and revelation from the Spirit.

The faithful member must then decide whether to acknowledge their God-granted authority or to reject that authority.

Once again, this assumes a dichotomy between God's will and that will as expressed by his anointed servants. Such an assumption flies in the face of Scripture and the Lord's direct statement:

D&C Section 1:38

Disregarding the wise council of the Lord's anointed in favor of the whims and fads of faddish political correctness is fraught with peril. In every such instance, presuming that you know better than the Lord's annointed is playing with fire. Behold:

D&C Section 1:14

Thank you selek1 you understood perfectly.

valentinus you may disagree with the GAs but you better make sure you are right. Even "if" you think you are remember Gods rebuke of David when he taunted an apostate King Saul.

Edited January 27, 2012 by ERayR

[Hamba Tuhan]

Good methods converge. Bad methods diverge.

An interesting point considering how frequently and loudly critics of the Church like to accuse members of 'groupthink' and behavioural conformity.

One of the things which really struck me as a fulltime missionary was how little teaching we actually had to engage in once the conversion process really took off in a person's life. So often, we would show up prepared for a discussion on a topic which the investigator had already been tutored in by the Spirit during the intervening time. A couple of examples: We arrived to teach CS about the Plan of Salavation, and, before we could begin on that topic, she informed us that, whilst reading in the Book of Mormon and praying, it had come to her that we must have lived with God before we were born, that we were literally His offspring, and that the purpose of life here was to learn to choose the difference between good and evil. LB at the beginning of the discussion on the Restoration informed us that she'd realised over the weekend that Christianity had fallen into apostasy due to a loss of revelation and the only way to fix such state of affairs would be if God again spoke to prophets. Every single discussion we had with EB--who had earlier investigated not only various Christian sects but also Islam, Hinduism, and Rastafarianism (from which she still had awesome dreadlocks), to name a few--followed this pattern. We would come in, introduce the topic, let her teach all the principles in detail, bear witness that what she had taught was true, and close with prayer.

When I was doing my masters research, I attended a branch so remote that it belonged to neither a stake or district. Membership consisted of two families (headed by two brothers), a single brother from another island, and me. The deceased father to the two brothers had been in the military and had met missionaries whilst serving in the capital. After converting, he'd retired to his home village and, before passing away, had shared the gospel with his sons, who, over many years, had helped their wives also join the Church. Missionaries had never served in the branch. No one but me had ever seen a General Conference. No one received the Liahona. Contact with the local mission office (2,200km away) consisted almost exclusively of an annual shipment of lesson manuals. Our little branch chapel was a stilt house in the centre of a coconut grove; our chapel, the main room of the house, its walls adorned with faded prints from the primary manuals. We had no electricity, no running water, and no musical instruments of any kind. A nursing dog carried her pups up the steps into the chapel for each week's sacrament meeting and departed again after the closing prayer.

It took me three weeks to finally locate the chapel since neither family in the branch had a telephone. My first Sunday there was Fast Sunday, and our branch president began the main part of the service by sharing his testimony. It sounded precisely like mine. No one external had taught him to say those things, but he'd learnt them somewhere. By the time all fourteen of us had shared our personal testimonies, it was obvious to me the explanation of this great convergence.

Edited January 27, 2012 by Hamba Tuhan

[Duncan]

An interesting point considering how frequently and loudly critics of the Church like to accuse members of 'groupthink' and behavioural conformity.

One of the things which really struck me as a fulltime missionary was how little teaching we actually had to engage in once the conversion process really took off in a person's life. So often, we would show up prepared for a discussion on a topic which the investigator had already been tutored in by the Spirit during the intervening time. A couple of examples: We arrived to teach CS about the Plan of Salavation, and, before we could begin on that topic, she informed us that, whilst reading in the Book of Mormon and praying, it had come to her that we must have lived with God before we were born, that we were literally His offspring, and that the purpose of life here was to learn to choose the difference between good and evil. LB at the beginning of the discussion on the Restoration informed us that she'd realised over the weekend that Christianity had fallen into apostasy due to a loss of revelation and the only way to fix such state of affairs would be if God again spoke to prophets. Every single discussion we had with EB--who had earlier investigated not only various Christian sects but also Islam, Hinduism, and Rastafarianism (from which she still had awesome dreadlocks), to name a few--followed this pattern. We would come in, introduce the topic, let her teach all the principles in detail, bear witness that what she had taught was true, and close with prayer.

When I was doing my masters research, I attended a branch so remote that it belonged to neither a stake or district. Membership consisted of two families (headed by two brothers), a single brother from another island, and me. The deceased father to the two brothers had been in the military and had met missionaries whilst serving in the capital. After converting, he'd retired to his home village and, before passing away, had shared the gospel with his sons, who, over many years, had helped their wives also join the Church. Missionaries had never served in the branch. No one but me had ever seen a General Conference. No one received the Liahona. Contact with the local mission office consisted almost exclusively of an annual shipment of lesson manuals. Our little branch chapel was a stilt house in the centre of a coconut grove; our chapel, the main room of the house, its walls adorned with faded prints from the primary manuals. We had no electricity, no running water, and no musical instruments of any kind. A nursing dog carried her pups up the steps into the chapel for each week's sacrament meeting and departed again after the closing prayer.

It took me three weeks to finally locate the chapel since neither family in the branch had a telephone. My first Sunday there was Fast Sunday, and our branch president began the main part of the service by sharing his testimony. It sounded precisely like mine. No one external had taught him to say those things, but he'd learnt them somewhere. By the time all fourteen of us had shared our personal testimonies, it was obvious to me the explanation of this great convergence.

wow, that's amazing!

[Damien the Leper]

This post deliberately misrepresents ERayR's point.

It is not the job of every passing ark-steadier and itching-ears political activist to receive revelation for the Church as whole.

That responsibility rests with the GA's you so blithely dismiss.

The only question a faithful member of the Church must ask himself (or herself) is whether or not that revelation is in keeping with both Gospel precedent and revelation from the Spirit.

The faithful member must then decide whether to acknowledge their God-granted authority or to reject that authority.

Once again, this assumes a dichotomy between God's will and that will as expressed by his anointed servants. Such an assumption flies in the face of Scripture and the Lord's direct statement:

D&C Section 1:38

Disregarding the wise council of the Lord's anointed in favor of the whims and fads of faddish political correctness is fraught with peril. In every such instance, presuming that you know better than the Lord's annointed is playing with fire. Behold:

D&C Section 1:14

I was kinda hoping you would catch that. I knew what I was doing, of course.

I DO NOT reject the apostles and prophets of the church. But as I am moved and called by God...I must go. If that is on a different path than the GAs then that is God's purpose for me. I believe in a God who deals directly with me and gives direction and insight to my journey. But that is my journey alone. The church doesn't set the standard path...God does so directly for each child created by His divine love and power. The GAs are there to provide the best guidance according to even their limited knowledge and experience. Do I believe they will lead us astray? No. But I do believe they, just like the rest of us who are subject to our humanity, are going to mess it up once in a while. Joseph Smith is a great example of how human imperfection can plague, burden, and strengthen the body of Christ throughout the Restoration Movement.

I won't apologize for my often chaotic rhetoric that more than likely looks like heresy to the orthodox believers. It's how I am able to constantly experience God's love for me and God's need for me to continually be thinking and remain uncomfortable in my faith.

I ask that you be patient with me and I will do my best to not misrepresent traditional beliefs and positions. I find that I just don't understand orthodoxy and am often confused by the doctrine and rhetoric. Please don't fault me for that. I'm human and I'm trying to learn.

Grace and Peace to you Selek.

[Damien the Leper]

Thank you selek1 you understood perfectly.

valentinus you may disagree with the GAs but you better make sure you are right. Even "if" you think you are remember Gods rebuke of David when he taunted an apostate King Saul.

I would like to be more vulnerable for a moment. I ask that you just consider my feelings and reflect on why I feel the way I do as opposed to being offensively or defensively critical.

I am not worried about being 'right'. I probably should but I'm not. I'm more worried about whether I'm right with God. I mean no disrespect but being right with God does not directly corellate to being right with the church. The church is a little lower on the list to be right with...with God being at the top.

With that said...I am insecure in the knowledge that God loves me. I'm not looking for pity or empathy. But I wonder why God loves me. What's the point? I worry that I will never be worthy of such a Father's love. It's no secret that I'm gay. We've discussed the issue to the point of frustration and exhaustion. But I would be lying if I said that I was confident in that part my identity. Often I reflect on what could have possibly gone wrong for me to be in this position. As I severely and sorely reflect on this and what the church teaches, I would again be lying if I said that I didn't often consider extreme methods to relieve me of the burden of NOT knowing.

I know that to the faithfully minded that my logic is poor but it's mine nonetheless.

[selek1]

I was kinda hoping you would catch that. I knew what I was doing, of course.

Roundabout or not, at least you can admit you were hitting us for reactions.

The church doesn't set the standard path...

False. While God DEFINES the standard path, the Church acts as guide and gatekeeper. The Church teaches where the boundary lines are. That's what the entire "iron rod" metaphor is all about.

Any deviation from that path isn't caused by God, but by our own stubborness, pride, intransigence, and foolishness.

I ask that you be patient with me and I will do my best to not misrepresent traditional beliefs and positions.

If by "being patient" you mean "don't contradict my errors or false teachings" then you're out of luck.

If by "being patient" you mean "don't taze me, bro!" we can probably come to an accomodation.

Edited January 27, 2012 by selek1

[Damien the Leper]

Roundabout or not, at least you can admit you were hitting us for reactions.

False. While God DEFINES the standard path, the Church acts as guide and gatekeeper. The Church teaches where the boundary lines are. That's what the entire "iron rod" metaphor is all about.

Any deviation from that path isn't caused by God, but by our own stubborness, pride, intransigence, and foolishness.

If by "being patient" you mean "don't contradict my errors or false teachings" then you're out of luck.

If by "being patient" you mean "don't taze me, bro!" we can probably come to an accomodation.

I don't mean not argue against me but may be ask me why I arrived at my thought process and or conclusions before arguing against them and i will do my best to grant you the same courtesy.

Don't give up on me, Selek. I'm human, I'm young and I'm still learning.

[Brian 2.0]

As the scriptures indicate, part of our education in this life is to learn to recognise and understand the voice of the Spirit. Genuine revelation from God is reliable because it speaks to outside reality--in most instances verifiable if we act on it. This is why faith without works shrivels up and dies. As we act on what we trust to be divine communications, we learn to filter out the voice of God from all the other voices we hear, including our own, precisely because the information which comes from God works reliably.

Thanks Hamba, that's the very informed answer from a believer and one that thankfully doesn't deny that others are getting what they think to be revelation. As CV75 mentioned, the other consideration is the user in why there are different answers to revelation. And I know you said it's a lifelong process to filter our the other voices we hear, including our own... and I guess that's why it seems unreliable to me becuase that process of filtering is a VERY difficult task.

[Brian 2.0]

I agree. What God reveals to you is meant for you alone. If God decides to reveal to individuals that a negative perspective on homosexuality is wrong for them...then that is for them alone. It does not make God any less God...He is just better at knowing what we each can individually handle than the GAs who speak to the general church audience.

I should restate myself... I'm speaking less about the church's official policy or stand, I understand the proper channels for that type of revelation. I guess in this example I was thinking more along the lines of "Is homosexuality a sin?"

What to make of someone who truly feels that God has let them know for them, in their life, that taking part in a homosexual lifestyle is okay?

Could God reveal to someone that homosexual acts are sins, and to another reveal that they are not?

Edited January 27, 2012 by Brian 2.0

[altersteve]

Could God reveal to someone that homosexual acts are sins, and to another reveal that they are not?

No. That would make God a liar.