Climbing Our Temporal Rameumptoms

[frank_jessop]

Yes, I have. I've heard (and read) everything presented here, and more.

Are you sure you want to go down that path again? Have you not "reviewed the thread(s) on this board discussing ... priesthood and race?"

I have read through portions of discussions on the race and the priesthood essay. In my view the majority of those involved in the discussions view the race and priesthood essay as indicating the ban was racist and/or born out of racism. That most who comment on the race and priesthood thread view the ban as racist, I was just curious if you realized how many might think you are describing them as uncharitable. Edited April 23, 2014 by frank_jessop

[awyatt]

What to do then? If you intermingle with other members who are "absolutists" at church, who take every word from the general conference as unquestionable and concrete doctrine (as if from the very mouth of God) how do you deal with that?

You are going to run into "black and white thinkers" (absolutists) anywhere. When I run into them at Church (and I do), I politely say "thanks for your thoughts on that" and excuse myself. I've learned long ago that you can't teach someone unless they want to be taught. And, in a Church venue, you can only teach someone who wants to be taught when both teacher and student are attended by the Spirit. Trying to prove my point-any point--to an absolutist is the quickest way to drive the Spirit away, for me.

 

If I am not able to have that perspective (while still sustaining them as the organisation's leaders) is my only option to bite my tongue.

This is, of course, a different scenario--when the absolutist is your leader. I've been in situations (more than once) where I did not believe that someone called to be my leader was "called of God." In other words, I believe that the person was called by man, not by God. Those are hard. In those situations I fall back to the state of "waiting and seeing, but still sustaining." The only person on earth who would know my suspicions/feelings would be my wife. The only person off earth who would know would be God, as I would plead with Him for a witness and for a change in my heart to be able to sustain those people.

It also doesn't hurt to know that all such leaders are called temporarily. This, too, shall pass. And as it passes, I am in a position to learn patience and humility.

 

I'm trying to work out how to be part of a faith-group who (in the majority) see the prophets as speaking "as if God is speaking" when I believe the prophets are speaking as inspired men. Articulating inspired ideas in their own, imperfect and culturally influenced ways.

In my view, someone speaking the words of God can do so using their own, imperfect and culturally influenced ways. And, because of the position they hold, God will sustain and support them still. That is the difference between the mantle and the man. I believe that if we are to sucessfully interact with the Church in the long run, we need to understand how the mantle works.

[canard78]

I guess here's the problem.

 

Grandma Kettle, raised in the Kentucky from the early 1800's, writes in her journal "The negro was meant to be a slave.  It's their lot in life."

 

Elder Jackson tells you that he is a "prophet, seer and revelator".  You believe that he has a special communication with the God of the Bible.  You look to him as having the authority to act and speak for God on the Earth today.  He stands at the pulpit in a Church meeting and says "The negro was meant to be a slave.  It's their lot in life." He goes on to explain that this is God's will, and supports that explains that the scriptures teach this.

 

If the two are functionally equivalent to you, then great.  But hopefully you can understand why they might be considered quite different (and in very important ways) to other people.

 

Nevo and cinepro... saying succinctly what I spend long paragraphs saying more wordily.

[canard78]

I do understand. But I also understand that such problems have more to do with our perceptions of the relationship between prophets and God than it does with anything else.

 

 

You are going to run into "black and white thinkers" (absolutists) anywhere. When I run into them at Church (and I do), I politely say "thanks for your thoughts on that" and excuse myself. I've learned long ago that you can't teach someone unless they want to be taught. And, in a Church venue, you can only teach someone who wants to be taught when both teacher and student are attended by the Spirit. Trying to prove my point-any point--to an absolutist is the quickest way to drive the Spirit away, for me.

 

This is, of course, a different scenario--when the absolutist is your leader. I've been in situations (more than once) where I did not believe that someone called to be my leader was "called of God." In other words, I believe that the person was called by man, not by God. Those are hard. In those situations I fall back to the state of "waiting and seeing, but still sustaining." The only person on earth who would know my suspicions/feelings would be my wife. The only person off earth who would know would be God, as I would plead with Him for a witness and for a change in my heart to be able to sustain those people.

It also doesn't hurt to know that all such leaders are called temporarily. This, too, shall pass. And as it passes, I am in a position to learn patience and humility.

 

In my view, someone speaking the words of God can do so using their own, imperfect and culturally influenced ways. And, because of the position they hold, God will sustain and support them still. That is the difference between the mantle and the man. I believe that if we are to sucessfully interact with the Church in the long run, we need to understand how the mantle works.

 

I agree with a need to adjust our perspectives of what a prophet is and how he speaks.

 

It's becomes somewhat challenging when the current manuals and prophets' talks in General conference continue to push the message that when a prophet speaks it is as if God is speaking.

 

For example:

 

God communicates to the Church through His prophet... When a prophet speaks for God, it is as if God were speaking... The Lord will never allow the President of the Church to lead us astray.

 

Gospel Principles  (currently taught to new members, used in family home evening lessons and used recently as P'hood/RS material for 2 years).

 

The only safety we have as members of this church is to … learn to give heed to the words and commandments that the Lord shall give through His prophet. … There will be some things that take patience and faith. You may not like what comes. … It may contradict your political views … your social views … interfere with … your social life. But if you listen to these things, as if from the mouth of the Lord Himself... (etc)

 

April 2014 General Conference

 

Are these not pushing the idea of a prophet speaking as if God were speaking? Isn't that the paradigm we need to move away from?

[canard78]

And not to detrail the thread, but with all respect to Canard, I'm pretty sure it will be Liverpool FC at the top of the rameumpton this year.

 

If the alternative is Manchester City or Chelsea then I'll go for Liverpool every time. My team isn't even close to being in that race. It's more outside on the hill in the humble clothes.

[canard78]

I have the sense that our revered leaders of the past taught truth and led people into righteousness and salvation far more frequently than they erred.

 

I see danger in using instances of past errors as justification for cherry picking and rejecting what today's prophets have to say, based on one's own socially influenced attitudes.

 

To put it more concisely there's a far more urgent danger of rejecting what the prophets say that is true than there is of accepting the occasional thing that may be wrong.

 

So are you suggesting that we take the rough with the smooth, because there's much more smooth than rough?

 

To use an historic example (given we'll never be able to agree on what might be a current example):

 

Was it better for people to accept everything the 1940s first presidency taught, with no attempt to triage, because that meant that even though they were taught some racist attitudes, it also mean that they accepted a much wider and more valuable range of teachings by having a complete acceptance of all of the messages being taught?

[canard78]

Scott writes:

 

 

 

It's like that statement that paraphrases Mark Twain:

 

"Eat a live frog first thing in the morning and nothing worse will happen the rest of the day."

 

The response, of course, is:

 

"To you, or the frog?"

 

In this situation, this question is also there. Accepting the priesthood ban caused a tremendous amount of pain for black members of the church. It caused very little for the majority of white members. Of course the problem was compounded when members of the church decided that the past views were wrong, and worked to change that perception, and then were called out for not following the prophet (who was expressing his personal and incorrect views in the past). Attempts to silence members by claiming that they must be disloyal or apostate to take a different view from what the prophet has said are also terribly detrimental to the church.

 

The real problem is in simply accepting what the prophets say (right or wrong). We should all strive to have a relationship with the spirit that allows us to receive personal revelation, and then we should act on that personal revelation. We should be aware that there is no past teaching that isn't subject to modification or change in a church that believes in ongoing revelation. And at times we have to try and distinguish between what is revealed truth, and what is simply historical tradition - and to jettison what is merely tradition.

 

It's all too easy to forget that there was 100+ years of a small minority of black members subjected to the bigotry and racism that taught them they were less faithful in the pre-mortal life, carried the mark of Cain and should not consider any romantic advances on their white, pure-blood, fellow-members.

[canard78]

“The Church Today” section of the Race and Priesthood article offers a good model for how the faithful can deal with negative reactions to past practices, leaders, etc. “Today, the Church disavows…” “Church leaders today unequivocally condemn…” “Since that day in 1978, the Church has looked to the future…” “The Church proclaims…”

We all choose how we spend our wherewithal, and I would think that living in the present by the gifts and covenants we have before us and the hope we have in Christ is far more profitable (personally and for the interest of moving the Church forward) than recycling negative feelings and finding reasons to justify or nurture them with a negative critique of dead Church leaders’ lives.

There is plenty of information out there that we can be caught off guard by or choose to be hurt by, but nothing that isn’t more than offset by the healing reality of the Restored Gospel. The same holds true whether the offense (real or imagined) is past or current; Christ truly heals all, whether we get "our just due" (whatever one stipulates that to be) or not.

 

So we disavow and unequivocally condemn the racism of the past (even if that racism comes from prophets and apostles).

 

What, therefore, are the implications for prejudices or cultural attitudes from current leaders? What do we do when a current leader teaches a principle as being "doctrine" but we reach a personal conclusion, in prayer and study, that it is not God's doctrine?

[canard78]

It's the tone that bothers me. I'm fine with strong disagreement. But using the label "cherry picking" is not disagreement. It is an unfair disparagement of someone's motives. Saying that someone "rejects what today's prophets have to say, based on one's own socially influenced attitudes" is not disagreement. It is an ad hominem attack, and quite a disingenuous one considering that in this thread you've asked others to consider the social influences at play in the mistaken views that Brigham held.

 

FWIW, I am also bothered by the attitude I see sometimes that members can quickly dismiss what our current leaders say because past leaders have been wrong. But in my experience, that view is the exception, not the rule. Most of the members I know who disagree with current leaders on some point or another (i) agree with the vast majority of the current teachings, (ii) minimize the disagreement as much as possible, (iii) avoid trumpeting the disagreement, and (iv) come to the disagreement through a sincere and long-fought wrestle. Their disagreement is anything but "cherry picking" and it comes from a desire to follow truth, not society.

 

 

It's a problem. I've discussed this at length with my very kind and supportive branch president. He accepts that different people will reach different conclusions. But when those conclusions are not in-line with the majority and the consensus he encourages the conclusion to be kept to oneself as much as possible.

[awyatt]

If we limit ourselves only to the language of the day, BY still supported attitudes towards black people that were prejudiced, lacked equality and based on bigotry.

They are only prejudiced by the standards of later days, not of his day. They were only based on bigotry based on later understandings of what bigotry entailed.

 

They were also based on a false reading of the bible/book of abraham and a massive serving of cultural assumptions of his era.

They weren't considered "false readings" in Brigham's day, else Brigham wouldn't have read them that way. We understand them as false readings, but that is based on our understanding, not his.

 

Can we simply excuse a prophet of prejudice, inequality and bigotry because those attitudes were common in that era? Perhaps... but in doing so we also need to adjust our perspectives either of what a prophet is or how often he is a prophet when speaking as a prophet.

Bingo! I think you've hit the nail on the head here.

 

Having said all that... my blog post that you reference in your post wasn't about Brigham Young. I don't mention him once.

I know. But Jana's was. And Brigham is the one most quoted by many others when they want to make the point that he couldn't *possibly* be called of God because he was a (in their estimation) a racist even in his day. They never stop to consider that perhaps—just perhaps—it is their understanding of what a prophet is that is in error.

After all, the scriptures are full of people called with divine callings, as prophets, who we would consider despicable scoundrels by today's standards. And yet God still sustains them in their callings and they are prophets nonetheless.

 

Instead of Brigham Young I limit all of my sources to people who made statements that are racist and all of them were made after the word was coined in 1936. ... So given they are all after the word came into use, are you comfortable calling President George Albert, President J. Reuben Clark, President David O. McKay, Elder Mark E. Peterson and Elder Delbert L. Stapley racist?

Were their attitudes simply representative of their time and culture? Were they simply manifesting the environment they were raised in? That black people carried the curse of cain, were less faithful in the pre-mortal life, that their desire to have equal rights was not ordained of God, that any marriage between races was "repugnant" and against God's doctrine? Are all of these attitudes inspired of God or are they culturally influenced perspectives.

 

No, I'm not comfortable calling them racists, either. The reasoning is explained (perhaps not clearly) in my blog post by bringing up my grandfather who was born in 1903 in the back woods of Tennessee. What I don't mention is that he was never a member of the Church, and he lived to be 97 years old. His casual use of language and attitudes that many would consider prima facia evidence of his being a racist are not, I believe, easily applied. I believe it is the same with anyone brought up in that time and locale, as I witnessed it many times over on family reunions in Tennessee.

Today we often fail to understand how utterly different societal norms were, even 60 years ago. Even 40 years ago. The world was a different place, and those people—most of them past retirement age—didn't consider themselves racist or the holders of racist ideas. It is later generations that consider them such and judge them as such. (Often harshly.)

 

It's not presentism that bothers me. It's evidence of attitudes that are heavily influenced by the culture and assumptions of the day that are still presented as a prophet acting as a prophet. Or at least thinking he's acting as a prophet. ... So this is not about presentism and is instead about trust and confidence. If there is evidence of a prophet saying things which he considers to be revealed doctrine but which are later disavowed as unacceptable racism don't we have a problem?

 

It seems to me that at least the possibility of "disavowal" falls squarely within the boundaries of the concept of "continuing revelation." I think it is entirely possible for prophets to be mistaken and to be corrected by later prophets. Were that not so, it seems odd (to me) that Joseph would have penned the 9th Article of Faith.

 

If prophets think they are being prophets but are actually only sharing their sincere opinions that are influenced by their earthly environment instead of heavenly messages doesn't it break the prophetic model?

If the prophetic model breaks (and in this instance I think it does break), doesn't that rather undermine a major pillar of our church?

You say that as if there is only one "prophetic model" to break. Yet the scriptures teach us that prophets can be all over the board when it comes to this or that issue of their day, and the Lord sustains them all. If God plans on supporting His prophets, who am I to say He is wrong? My desire in such situations is to figure out *why* God is sustaining the prophet(s) and what I can learn from that.

 

If I've come across as being prideful, that's not my intention.

I believe that. You strike me as a thoughtful, sincere person who is seeking God and wants to do His will. In any Christian faith tradition of which I know, there is a word for that: a disciple. I applaud that.

I'd love to sit down and share a meal with you some time. Any chance you are along the Wasatch Front?

[canard78]

I understand that you are (as you say) speculating, but I don't share your assessment. It certainly hasn't worked out that way for the Communities of Christ who have ordained blacks since day one and have been ordaining women since 1985. They've had neither a black or female prophet as of yet, and there is no evidence that in leading their culture they've experienced 10x growth.

 

So are you saying that if they had included a ban on blacks and women they would now be 15mn strong just like us?

 

I'm not sure the CoC is a fair comparison, especially when you would probably consider them to be not lead with keys, authority and revelation?

[canard78]

To that I would just add a question: If I can allow that the erroneous attitudes of Brigham Young (whom I respect and admire) to some degree stemmed from his social environment, why is it so heinous for me to suppose that the same thing happens today to some extent with people who reject teachings of the prophets?

 

But why is it that when I reach a conclusion that a current prophet's attitude is erroneous that I'm the one that is wrong? If a member in the 1800s had reached the conclusion that BY's attitude towards the origin of the ban/endogamy was wrong... would they be influenced by their social environment or would they be the enlightened ones? If they didn't agree with BY on the race issue, would they be cherry-picking?

[canard78]

Let's say that from 1830 to 2014 the Church became the prophetically inspired vanguard for Emancipation and the civil rights movement.

Let's suppose Joseph, Brigham, and the rest had answered to the higher call than that of the predominant culture.

How would the Restoration and subsequent coming out of obscurity have been different?

 

Then at least they would have been prophetically inspired rather than culturally limited.

[canard78]

I understand that you are (as you say) speculating, but I don't share your assessment. It certainly hasn't worked out that way for the Communities of Christ who have ordained blacks since day one and have been ordaining women since 1985. They've had neither a black or female prophet as of yet, and there is no evidence that in leading their culture they've experienced 10x growth.

 

 

So are you saying that if they had included a ban on blacks and women they would now be 15mn strong just like us?

 

I'm not sure the CoC is a fair comparison, especially when you would probably consider them to be not lead with keys, authority and revelation?

Edited April 23, 2014 by canard78

[Disciple?]

I'm not sure I understand you.  When judging peoples' attitudes and comments about those of other races, how should they be judged?

 

I don't judge past racist comments harshly because they were made in the past.  I judge them harshly because they are wrong (whenever they were made).   Certainly, it can be argued that people who grew up in racist cultures should be held to a different (i.e. lower) standard because of the culture they grew up in.  But when someone claims to be in communication with an omniscient source of morality and wisdom, I hold them to a higher standard, not a lower one, regardless of when or where they are living.

 

The point is that when people look back at our treatment of gays they will say the same thing. Namely, that people who grew up in anti-gay cultures should not be held to a different standard. Similarly, in Brigham Young's era he thought the right and holy thing to do was ban blacks from the Priesthood. Looking at it from our perspective - Presentism - it seems downright horrible. Which it is, nevertheless, if we can have empathy for people in that era it was not horrible -- rather, par for the course. So, it is important to remember, one day we will be judged by somebody on their own rameumptom. If we wish our literal children to judge us with empathy; we must teach them by example how it is done. There is no better way to teach them by using the example of early Latter-day Saints views in-regard to blacks and such.

[canard78]

They are only prejudiced by the standards of later days, not of his day. They were only based on bigotry based on later understandings of what bigotry entailed.

 

They weren't considered "false readings" in Brigham's day, else Brigham wouldn't have read them that way. We understand them as false readings, but that is based on our understanding, not his.

I understand that. The problem and challenge is that this means that while it's not fair to criticise him based on our values (presentism) it is however fair to draw the conclusion that he (like other prophets) can reach erroneous conclusions based on his cultural influences. It means that we change what we believe a prophet can reveal.

I've realised that a prophet's ability to deliver revelation and our own ability to receive revelation is framed by our willingness to receive it. That if we keep asking the wrong questions, or don't ask the questions at all, that we will keep getting no answer.

As such, today, it's possible that a prophet is in the same situation. Teaching things that are not really revealed or, if they are, have been heard in the confines of his own cultural assumptions. Equally what I hear and am willing to consider is also framed by my cultural expectations.

If, for example, a prophet around 600BC said "go and kill the people in your neighbouring city" then the followers of that prophet would quite possibly reply "how soon and with what weapon?" If President Monson had issued that instruction earlier this month I would have replied: "No way, I'm not even going to consider it."

 

Bingo! I think you've hit the nail on the head here. 

I know. But Jana's was. And Brigham is the one most quoted by many others when they want to make the point that he couldn't *possibly* be called of God because he was a (in their estimation) a racist even in his day. They never stop to consider that perhaps—just perhaps—it is their understanding of what a prophet is that is in error.

After all, the scriptures are full of people called with divine callings, as prophets, who we would consider despicable scoundrels by today's standards. And yet God still sustains them in their callings and they are prophets nonetheless.

 

No, I'm not comfortable calling them racists, either. The reasoning is explained (perhaps not clearly) in my blog post by bringing up my grandfather who was born in 1903 in the back woods of Tennessee. What I don't mention is that he was never a member of the Church, and he lived to be 97 years old. His casual use of language and attitudes that many would consider prima facia evidence of his being a racist are not, I believe, easily applied. I believe it is the same with anyone brought up in that time and locale, as I witnessed it many times over on family reunions in Tennessee.

Today we often fail to understand how utterly different societal norms were, even 60 years ago. Even 40 years ago. The world was a different place, and those people—most of them past retirement age—didn't consider themselves racist or the holders of racist ideas. It is later generations that consider them such and judge them as such. (Often harshly.)

I suppose that rests on your definition of "racist." It's a hot word today and carries implications. In the simple form it is a form of considering oneself superior to another race. It doesn't have to be a word of hatred. There was certainly an attitude of black people being inferior (even if it was as marriage material for daughters). Is that racism then or now? I suppose that could become semantics.

 

It seems to me that at least the possibility of "disavowal" falls squarely within the boundaries of the concept of "continuing revelation." I think it is entirely possible for prophets to be mistaken and to be corrected by later prophets. Were that not so, it seems odd (to me) that Joseph would have penned the 9th Article of Faith. 

You say that as if there is only one "prophetic model" to break. Yet the scriptures teach us that prophets can be all over the board when it comes to this or that issue of their day, and the Lord sustains them all. If God plans on supporting His prophets, who am I to say He is wrong? My desire in such situations is to figure out *why* God is sustaining the prophet(s) and what I can learn from that.

I suppose I mean it has broken my prophet model. The one I was raised with and believed. Perhaps it's a good thing and part of the maturation process. It does however mean that the new model delivers a conclusion of prophets today being something very different to what I was raised to think they were.

 

I believe that. You strike me as a thoughtful, sincere person who is seeking God and wants to do His will. In any Christian faith tradition of which I know, there is a word for that: a disciple. I applaud that.

I'd love to sit down and share a meal with you some time. Any chance you are along the Wasatch Front?

Thank you. Unfortunately it would be a long trip. I live in UK (hence the overuse of "U"s in my words). I was lucky enough to share a branch in Shanghai with Jeff Lindsay for 18 months. We worked close to each other and met for dinner several times. He was a positive influence in helping me at least start considering "the other hand" in many of these questions.

If ever I'm back in the States I may take you up on the offer.

[canard78]

(It's ridiculously late here in UK, I need some sleep and then to work, I'll be gone at least 24 hours before being able to resume this conversation).

[Buckeye]

It's a problem. I've discussed this at length with my very kind and supportive branch president. He accepts that different people will reach different conclusions. But when those conclusions are not in-line with the majority and the consensus he encourages the conclusion to be kept to oneself as much as possible.

 

I've heard the same counsel, even to the point of keeping one's views from one's spouse, children, and family. 

[CV75]

So we disavow and unequivocally condemn the racism of the past (even if that racism comes from prophets and apostles).

 

What, therefore, are the implications for prejudices or cultural attitudes from current leaders? What do we do when a current leader teaches a principle as being "doctrine" but we reach a personal conclusion, in prayer and study, that it is not God's doctrine?

First, realize that the article mentions racism in all its forms.

Then, just as you would point out specific, problematic “prejudices or cultural attitude” in another person, start the questions of what to do about it with, “What should I do…” not “What should we do…”

For me, it’s an “If’ not a “When,” since I can’t come up with an example of a current leader teaching a principle as doctrine which I have concluded through prayer and study is not God's doctrine.

It really doesn’t matter if the problem is with “prejudices or cultural attitude” or any other issue – if one has concluded through prayer and study is not God's doctrine, and he wants to do something about it, he remembers that faith is a principle of action. Faith in the conclusion and the witness defines the action and God will not fail him; having to ask what to do means: a) faith or sufficient faith is lacking, or b) the conclusion and witness is false and dos not merit faith in it after all.

So the question would be how to develop faith in a bona fide spiritual witness or how to recognize belief in a false conclusion or witness. From my experience, faith in a bona fide spiritual witness is part of the gift of the witness (one has to move forward with it, not stop and undermine it). Also from my experience, belief in a false conclusion or witness causes me to question what to do about it.

There is some suffering to be had in being ahead of one's time. When he is right, he suffers as Jesus did and implements those coping tools; when he is wrong he is left to his own genius.

[rameumptom]

I would just like to point out two things:

 

1. I have more right than anyone else to climb upon my own Rameumptom.

 

2. I have not given anyone else permission to climb on my back.

[Scott Lloyd]

I would just like to point out two things:

 

1. I have more right than anyone else to climb upon my own Rameumptom.

 

2. I have not given anyone else permission to climb on my back.

I should have seen this coming.

[canard78]

First, realize that the article mentions racism in all its forms.

Then, just as you would point out specific, problematic “prejudices or cultural attitude” in another person, start the questions of what to do about it with, “What should I do…” not “What should we do…”

For me, it’s an “If’ not a “When,” since I can’t come up with an example of a current leader teaching a principle as doctrine which I have concluded through prayer and study is not God's doctrine.

Have you considered that many people also might not feel their leaders teach things contrary to God's doctrine because their cultural attitudes are in line with the teachings of the prophets culturally influenced expression or teaching?

I'm comfortable with a God who teaches people in different ways. I'm not going to tell you that your conclusions are wrong, for you, nor that you shouldn't be fully accepting of the words of the prophets if that's what you feel God has taught you to do.

It really doesn’t matter if the problem is with “prejudices or cultural attitude” or any other issue – if one has concluded through prayer and study is not God's doctrine, and he wants to do something about it, he remembers that faith is a principle of action. Faith in the conclusion and the witness defines the action and God will not fail him; having to ask what to do means: a) faith or sufficient faith is lacking, or b) the conclusion and witness is false and dos not merit faith in it after all.

So the question would be how to develop faith in a bona fide spiritual witness or how to recognize belief in a false conclusion or witness. From my experience, faith in a bona fide spiritual witness is part of the gift of the witness (one has to move forward with it, not stop and undermine it). Also from my experience, belief in a false conclusion or witness causes me to question what to do about it.

There is some suffering to be had in being ahead of one's time. When he is right, he suffers as Jesus did and implements those coping tools; when he is wrong he is left to his own genius.

Interesting logic. I like your use of the third person to make this advice less confrontational.

I don't follow the logic. I do believe I've had several answers to prayer. I've studied it out and sought confirmation. It's the best I can do. I accept that the same issues that affect other people also affect me. We all frame the questions we're willing and able to ask based on the information and cultural influences around us. As such I recognise that I have framed the questions, just as everyone frames their own questions. Given I believe the answers have come through divine guidance I put as much trust in them as my faith allows.

Why do I hesitate? Isn't that natural and human? I believe it's natural. Perhaps it's a faith challenge. I'm very aware of the implications of my conclusions and hesitate to take the next implicit steps of those conclusions. Does that mean the answer was not divine? Given the manner, the location and the experience of the answer I conclude it is not. If it was then the confirmation of the divinity of the Book of Mormon, the sanctity of the temple experience, the feelings of forgiveness or the love of God should also all be dismissed. They sit in the same group of experiences and the same intangible, illusive category of believing the heavens have answered.

To hesitate is not proof of a "false-read." Did Moses have a false read? Did Nephi have a false read? Did Jonah? Did Jesus? All had moments of hesitation. Moments when the implications of their divine guidance caused them to take a moment's pause and ask a question of themselves and the heavens. There was no sin in this. Was it a lack of faith or was it a moment of considering the implications of their divine guidance?

[CV75]

Have you considered that many people also might not feel their leaders teach things contrary to God's doctrine because their cultural attitudes are in line with the teachings of the prophets culturally influenced expression or teaching?

I'm comfortable...

Of course; this is why I reframed your question to the singular pronoun. In addition, I don’t know the specifics of the revelations you’ve received so I won’t comment on them. You asked a question that to applies to things generally and so I’ll share some general principles and my own experience with personal revelation (and non-revelation).

Interesting logic. I like your use of the third person to make this advice less confrontational.

I don't follow the logic. I do believe I've had several answers to prayer. I've studied it out and sought confirmation. It's the best I can do. I accept that the same issues that affect other people also affect me. We all frame the questions we're willing and able to ask based on the information and cultural influences around us. As such I recognise that I have framed the questions, just as everyone frames their own questions. Given I believe the answers have come through divine guidance I put as much trust in them as my faith allows.

Why do I hesitate? Isn't that natural and human? I believe it's natural. Perhaps it's a faith challenge. I'm very aware of the implications of my conclusions and hesitate to take the next implicit steps of those conclusions. Does that mean the answer was not divine? Given the manner, the location and the experience of the answer I conclude it is not. If it was then the confirmation of the divinity of the Book of Mormon, the sanctity of the temple experience, the feelings of forgiveness or the love of God should also all be dismissed. They sit in the same group of experiences and the same intangible, illusive category of believing the heavens have answered.

To hesitate is not proof of a "false-read." Did Moses have a false read? Did Nephi have a false read? Did Jonah? Did Jesus? All had moments of hesitation. Moments when the implications of their divine guidance caused them to take a moment's pause and ask a question of themselves and the heavens. There was no sin in this. Was it a lack of faith or was it a moment of considering the implications of their divine guidance?

And of course hesitation is natural and human (which isn’t necessarily a good thing for resolving your question); but a study of what the prophets and even Jesus did (if one wants to consider His desire to remove the cup in the Garden of Gethsemane a form of hesitation) offers a key about faith in and the correctness of spiritual conviction and how the Lord wants us to act in the light of answered prayers. In my experience, correct revelation received with proper faith is really a change of heart and so after a brief “adjustment” the correct action cannot help but carry more weight than the initial hesitation.

The hesitation might also be a manifestation of a stupor of thought, and fighting hesitation by reestablishing an incorrect thought might only indicate one’s personal persistence and willfulness, creating a vicious cycle. And then “the better angels of our nature” may be the source of our hesitation too, keeping us out of trouble! In any case, I think a persistence of hesitating behavior indicates that something is wrong, either with one’s faith or the revelation—and most likely the latter since from my experience the “better angels” typically prevail.

So I don’t know (and am not trying to divine) if your revelations are right or wrong, or if what you are doing or hesitating to do with them are right or wrong, but I have confidence from experience that if I were to come across them, the Lord will guide me as to what to do.