Missionaries

[TAO]

pcarthew has it right, I'm pretty sure (but haven't been on a mission yet myself, so I can't tell).

[Calm]

Why do so many of you assume that the only personal revelation that could be of interest to an investigator concerns them, and what they should do?

Perhaps it was the way you phrased it. Perhaps if you gave some more specifics about what type of revelation you were thinking about, comments would be more on target?

In the early days of the Church, there were many who went to Joseph Smith asking for what the Lord had to say about them, IOW asking for a revelation directed to them. Many even paid attention to these revelations and were blessed with spiritual growth and other things. We also have patriarchal blessings these days that can be personal revelations for others. Fathers' blessings can include revelation for their children, mothers can receive revelation for children as well. I believe we can all receive inspiration that gives us ways to identify others' needs and to help them meet those needs. I don't think there is really any limit on what can be revealed to us about others if first we prepare ourselves to be servants of the Lord and second, there is an actual need to be filled. I don't see the Lord giving us information about others solely to satisfy our curiosity.

The limit is on how we should use it. We, imo, should never used them to dictate to others what they should do (except perhaps for minors and others physically, mentally or emotionally dependent on us for care where we receive inspiration that may save them from harm) or use them to pressure others; they are a source of information, not domination; we can offer such revelation as inspiration we have received as guidance for another, but that it is the individual concerned that must decide what he or she wants to do with it, hopefully after seeking out his or her own revelation on the matter, much like Nephi sought further clarification of his father's vision about his family rather than just sitting around in bewilderment waiting to be told like Laman and Lemuel.

[Messenger]

It is a grammatical clarification based on doctrine. As in my earlier post, we cannot receive revelation for another individual. There is plenty of references already given. Also, we can not receive some types of information from on high directly to us. Example: We can not read another person's mind. Although my ex-wife would beg to differ. We do not know the exact time and date of the second coming nor would it be revealed to us. I'm sure there are other examples.

[Calm]

As in my earlier post, we cannot receive revelation for another individual.

Just asking for clarification here....do you mean in all cases?

If so, then I think the D&C is full of examples contrary to this (for example Sec. 4 given to JS for his father).

If you mean as missionaries, what is it about the stewardship of missionaries that is significantly different in your view than the stewardship of the prophet (and perhaps bishop, maybe mission president, father and mother) that they cannot receive revelation for others while other stewardships (such as the ones I've given) can?

Elder Dallin H. Oaks

“If a revelation is outside the limits of stewardship, you know it is not from the Lord, and you are not bound by it. I have heard of cases where a young man told a young woman she should marry him because he had received a revelation that she was to be his eternal companion. If this is a true revelation, it will be confirmed directly to the woman if she seeks to know. In the meantime, she is under no obligation to heed it. She should seek her own guidance and make up her own mind. The man can receive revelation to guide his own actions, but he cannot properly receive revelation to direct hers. She is outside his stewardship. . . .

So it would appear that we are bound by revelation received by others for us if we are in their stewardship (though I would agree we need to confirm such revelation if we have our doubts for sure and should confirm it on general principle so we do not grow overly dependent on others for our communication with the Lord). However, others may receive true revelation for us who are not stewards over us, but we are not bound by this revelation and have a right to reject it or confirm it ourselves.

http://institute.lds.org/manuals/eternal-marriage-student-manual/m1-mate-1g.asp

Edited April 15, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

http://www.lds.org/n...lation?lang=eng

5 A person is not given revelation to direct another person unless they have priesthood or family responsibility for that person.

This principle is described by Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as the principle of “stewardship in revelation.” This means that “only the President of the Church receives revelation to guide the entire Church. Only the stake president receives revelation for the special guidance of the stake. The person who receives revelation for the ward is the bishop. … When one person purports to receive revelation for another person outside his or her own area of responsibility … you can be sure that such revelations are not from the Lord” (“Revelation,” New Era, Sept. 1982, 46).

So the question is do missionaries have priesthood responsibility for those they teach?

============

My mother-in-law worked in the mission office as a typist and when her future husband's records came across her desk, she knew he was her future husband. Now that revelation was for her and while she had a choice to share it with him, he was not bound by it but would need to seek his own revelation if he cared to in order to confirm it. He (and she also) also had his agency to reject the revelation even though it was a 'true' revelation.

So I think we can receive revelations for others we don't have stewardship over when the fulfillment of that revelation involves ourselves in some way; we are affected by the revelation. We can also receive knowledge when we sincerely ask of the Lord and follow his instructions, but I think we need to be very careful with this type of revelation in sharing it and should mostly keep it to ourselves, perhaps sharing it only with our spouses and children if we feel so inspired to do so.

Before saying 'yea' or 'nay' on this question, I think we need to identify the type of revelation it is.

Edited April 15, 2012 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

I just had a wonderful visit with the missionaries tonight, and I have a question.

Is it possible for missionaries to receive personal revelation for investigators and potential converts in their jurisdiction?

They can receive their OWN revelation how to teach that investigator, but not revelation for the investigator as far as what the investigator should do in their personal life.

"God told me you should do such and such" is definitely a no-no

[Calm]

They can receive their OWN revelation how to teach that investigator, but not revelation for the investigator as far as what the investigator should do in their personal life.

"God told me you should do such and such" is definitely a no-no

Don't you think they might be inspired with a vision of what the investigator might become given certain choices though? I am not saying that they should then use such a vision to pressure the person or even share it with the person, but it could help them in their work to see what the future may hold.

[Messenger]

Just asking for clarification here....do you mean in all cases?

If so, then I think the D&C is full of examples contrary to this (for example Sec. 4 given to JS for his father).

If you mean as missionaries, what is it about the stewardship of missionaries that is significantly different in your view than the stewardship of the prophet (and perhaps bishop, maybe mission president, father and mother) that they cannot receive revelation for others while other stewardships (such as the ones I've given) can?

Elder Dallin H. Oaks

So it would appear that we are bound by revelation received by others for us if we are in their stewardship (though I would agree we need to confirm such revelation if we have our doubts for sure and should confirm it on general principle so we do not grow overly dependent on others for our communication with the Lord). However, others may receive true revelation for us who are not stewards over us, but we are not bound by this revelation and have a right to reject it or confirm it ourselves.

http://institute.lds.../m1-mate-1g.asp

Confirmation about who to marry is totally different in my mind. First, you may ask if the person you want to marry meets the Lord's approval. But that does not obligate the other person you wish to marry. Only if the other person prays and gets the same answer is that person obligated. The first person is still not gaining revelation FOR the second person.

The big difference here is that PERSONAL REVELATION is indeed PERSONAL, and not to anybody else. You are under no obligation to do anything another person says, even if they say they receive revelation about you and how YOU should act. Only if you receive PERSONAL REVELATION about it being true, otherwise it's meaningless and has no power on our soul.

People may suggest things to people that are within their stewardship, but unless that is confirmed by the spirit to the other person, its meaningless. Yes we are impressed to say things, guide other people, as we are directed, we are under no obligation to do what they say until its confirmed by the spirit.

The only things that blur the line a little are Patriarchs to receive revelation for another person, but again, its only a guide. Patriarchal blessings are meant for a guide for a particular person, and are still only true in as far as the person receives confirmation that they are. And, most do in fact, receive confirmation that they are true. We hear prophets speak, we listen to conference and even our home teachers. We all must have an understanding that when we are told to do something, that we should gain a testimony of it before we act on it. Every day we listen to ads on TVs, advice from friends and we filter it accordingly. The ultimate source is truth is God through personal revelation.

Further, I believe it is totally within a person's grasp to receive truth about things that are not within their stewardship. But I also believe that the information given in such an event or revelation are still personal and should not be shared. For example, I think its entirely possible for us to gain knowledge on why a passenger jet crashed, but we wouldn't be tasked from on high to tell individuals about it. We may even foresee events such as a divorce even before we are married. We may even foresee events before they happen in terms of disasters. But that message should only be sent to others within our stewardship, and then probably only directed to tell them to prepare for things such as an earthquake. When I was an emergency preparedness coordinator, I can tell you I did indeed receive very very specific information about the upcoming disasters in the branch where I was called to in Utah. Did I get up and tell the world about it? No. But I did tell those in my branch all about earthquake preparedness techniques. Those that felt the spirit of it, asked more questions, and no doubt were directed to prepare to those specifics. So yes, there are also times when we gain revelation about things that would affect the people in our stewardship, but its really not directly for them. If a home teacher were to tell me I need to get a divorce, I would probably see if the spirit was responding to that. If it did, then I would pray for more guidance. The difference here is that I am under no obligation to do anything the Home Teacher said until I received a personal revelation about it. And to be honest, I doubt that a home teacher would ever say that, because the marriage is not specifically within his stewardship, only the people within the marriage.

I've home taught a few people that later got divorced, and I never got revelation about that. But I did gain revelation that I suggest that they pray together. The difference is one is a suggestion, the other is not. And when the suggestion is confirmed, only then is it binding.

Edited April 16, 2012 by Messenger

[Antoni]

Elder Douglas L. Callister observed, “In the genius of the gospel plan, there ultimately only has to be one witness, but that witness must be you. The testimony of others may initiate and nourish the desire for faith and testimony, but eventually every individual must find out for himself. None can permanently endure on borrowed light.”

Thanks for posting this helpful quote.

[wenglund]

Yes. I received revelation for my investigators all the time. Usually it involved them getting baptized.

Same here.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I just had a wonderful visit with the missionaries tonight, and I have a question.

Is it possible for missionaries to receive personal revelation for investigators and potential converts in their jurisdiction?

Without a doubt...how else would a teenager know how to answer question they never though of on the spot. BTW, the reason I think this is so, is their total dependency on the Spirit. Older people tend to draw on experience, but they are out there to learn how to listen and lead. They are our future. Too many teenagers are listening to little more than music and each other. Which is the natural way of youth...so did I.

[wenglund]

I guess I am still not seeing a meaningful difference between "about" and "for" in terms of "personal" revelation. To me, a revelation is personal to me whether it is about me or for me.

Nor, for that matter, do I see that I am any more or less obligated whether a revelation is about me or for me, nor is it any less meaningful or meaningless if it is about me rather than for me.

I can see where it is often for the best that I receive, myself, revelations about me and for me, but I don't see that as a prohibition to other people, particularly those in authority and stewardship over me, to receiving revelations about me and for me. Indeed, there have been times when the revelations of others about me and for me, were for the best--particularly, those received by my parents while I was growing up.

Perhaps I see it this way because I am not looking at this issue through a black/white, absolutist lens.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 17, 2012 by wenglund

[mfbukowski]

The original post was probably over the top.

My point was that in the church we do not receive personal revelation for others, except in matters directly related to our stewardship. I find it really troubling that someone would tell me what I should do with my life based on what they tell me God revealed to them and not to me.

If giving me a calling is part of their stewardship, that is a different matter- in that case it is part of their stewardship to do that.

Edited April 18, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Flyonthewall]

Does a calling count?

[Messenger]

I guess I am still not seeing a meaningful difference between "about" and "for" in terms of "personal" revelation. To me, a revelation is personal to me whether it is about me or for me.

Nor, for that matter, do I see that I am any more or less obligated whether a revelation is about me or for me, nor is it any less meaningful or meaningless if it is about me rather than for me.

I can see where it is often for the best that I receive, myself, revelations about me and for me, but I don't see that as a prohibition to other people, particularly those in authority and stewardship over me, to receiving revelations about me and for me. Indeed, there have been times when the revelations of others about me and for me, were for the best--particularly, those received by my parents while I was growing up.

Perhaps I see it this way because I am not looking at this issue through a black/white, absolutist lens.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Face palm ..... Maybe revelation will help?

Edited April 18, 2012 by Messenger

[mfbukowski]

duplicate

Edited April 18, 2012 by mfbukowski

[wenglund]

Face palm ..... Maybe revelation will help?

[dialing back on the drama]...revelation already did help--particularly in terms of encouraging me to avoid the dangers of pride, which may take the form of fundamentalism and dogmatism. To me, the revelations I have received are contra-Pharasiac.

I recall an experience on my mission where my companion and I were asked by an active member husband to give a blessing of the sick to his inactive wife. During the course of that blessing it was revealed to me that I was to tell the husband to immediately take his wife to the hospital, which I did.

Now, you may think you are in a position to tell me that I couldn't or can't receive those kinds of personal revelations for other people, but I did. And, I acted on that revelation, and I believe I was right to do so, because I trust more in God than in you (some anonymous poster on the Internet). Sorry.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

[dialing back on the drama]...revelation already did help--particularly in terms of encouraging me to avoid the dangers of pride, which may take the form of fundamentalism and dogmatism. To me, the revelations I have received are contra-Pharasiac.

I recall an experience on my mission where my companion and I were asked by an active member husband to give a blessing of the sick to his inactive wife. During the course of that blessing it was revealed to me that I was to tell the husband to immediately take his wife to the hospital, which I did.

Now, you may think you are in a position to tell me that I couldn't or can't receive those kinds of personal revelations for other people, but I did. And, I acted on that revelation, and I believe I was right to do so, because I trust more in God than in you (some anonymous poster on the Internet). Sorry.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Now THAT's very different.

Nevermind.

But there's a distinction somewhere here I am missing or not describing well, but it really doesn't matter much- I think we agree and it's not worth hashing out the details of the distinction on which we would agree anyway once we worked out the wording.

What I am wary of I guess is someone using "unrighteous dominion" over another in the name of a revelation about which the alleged "receiver" was mistaken. We know that can happen, and that is what I was trying to bring up.

But it's not an important point really I guess.

[wenglund]

What I am wary of I guess is someone using "unrighteous dominion" over another in the name of a revelation about which the alleged "receiver" was mistaken.

I am wary of that as well. And, I am not questioning anyone's intents here. I believe we each are acting in good faith and desire what is best.

However, as I see it, if there is a prohibition, it is against "unrighteous dominion" or "sticking one's revelatory nose where it doesn't belong," rather than a blanket rule against receiving personal revelation for others. And, while I don't necessarily seek to receive personal revelation about or for others, I, personally, am not about to tell God what he can or cannot reveal to me on behalf of others. Doing so would, in my opinion, constitute "unrighteous dominion" or "sticking one's revelatory nose where it doesn't belong."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 18, 2012 by wenglund