Acting On Personal Revelation

[thatjimguy]

As not to derail a thread, I have a question about how to properly go about moving forward with personal revelation.

 

Example: It is 1975. You have an overwhelming feeling that the priesthood ban needs to be lifted. 

 

From what I understand, the apostles were split among the idea of it. This mean some were right, some were wrong. 

 

The rank and file membership, of course, probably had split views on the subject. Some right, some wrong. 

 

This means, of course, that some common members had certain revelations that even eluded some apostles. 

 

The rank and file membership have no keys to change policy, but what can they do to act upon the information that would not be considered disrupting the church, but yet move forward with it?

[Duncan]

the rank and file members don't have the authority to change anything churchwide-it's as they say "Not my monkey, not my Circus". So, if I was alive in 1975 I would do nothing about it but love God and all my neighbours and let the Leaders of the Church deal with it

[ksfisher]

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/two-lines-of-communication?lang=eng&query=two+lines+of+communication

Elder Oaks talk from the October 2010 conference is a good place to start. It's one of my favorites.

[JLHPROF]

 

The rank and file membership, of course, probably had split views on the subject. Some right, some wrong. 

 

This means, of course, that some common members had certain revelations that even eluded some apostles. 

 

The rank and file membership have no keys to change policy, but what can they do to act upon the information that would not be considered disrupting the church, but yet move forward with it?

 

1. The rank and file have no right to change policy, demand revelation for the Church or act politically or socially to force a Church change.  It's God's Church and change comes top down, not bottom up.

 

2. I think the majority of the rank and file had feelings on the matter, but I sincerely doubt the presence of much that could be called "personal revelation" on the subject.  I say this because I don't believe God would reveal to 5% of the membership that the ban was going to be lifted before he would reveal it to the prophet that has been praying on the issue.  It would put them in the position of being out of harmony with the leaders of the Church, and could cause some apostasy.  I very much doubt that God had revealed the end of the ban, although many members probably felt like it was time (kind of like OW).

[Mystery Meat]

As not to derail a thread, I have a question about how to properly go about moving forward with personal revelation.

 

Example: It is 1975. You have an overwhelming feeling that the priesthood ban needs to be lifted. 

 

From what I understand, the apostles were split among the idea of it. This mean some were right, some were wrong. 

 

The rank and file membership, of course, probably had split views on the subject. Some right, some wrong. 

 

This means, of course, that some common members had certain revelations that even eluded some apostles. 

 

The rank and file membership have no keys to change policy, but what can they do to act upon the information that would not be considered disrupting the church, but yet move forward with it?

 

Disagree with your 1975 analogy. You say some were right, some were wrong. Perhaps, but not in the way you think. I propose that we don't know who was right and who was wrong. People who oppose blacks getting the priesthood now are definitely wrong. But IF (and that is a big if) the Lord instituted the ban, the timing may not have been right in 1975 to lift the ban, and so those advocating may have been the ones who were wrong.

 

Obedience is the first law of heaven, not being right. Follow the prophet. Always.

[Ahab]

Surely you could get personal revelation from God to help you to deal with that situation if you had found yourself in it at that time.

And however you dealt with it God would be the ultimate judge of your actions and you would then have to deal with that.

[Senator]

You have every freedom to hold and even share your own testimony of things you believe you've received by way of revelation. However, any declaration must be underscored with the acknowledgement that you will nonetheless wait upon the wheels of revelation to those who are in stewardship to make such change in the church.

Edited August 7, 2014 by Senator

[thatjimguy]

Many of you mention how the rank and file have no keys to make policy...I mention that clearly in the question. 

 

My question has ZERO to do about forcing the church to change. Please do not make it appear that is part of my question.

 

It is about acting on it, talking about it, expressing it without disruption. 

 

Please go along these lines. Please avoid assuming it is about attacking or undermining the church. 

Edited August 7, 2014 by thatjimguy

[Ahab]

Many of you mention how the rank and file have no keys to make policy...I mention that clearly in the question.

My question has ZERO to do about forcing the church to change. Please do not make it appear that is part of my question.

It is about acting on it, talking about it, expressing it without disruption.

Please go along these lines. Please avoid assuming it is about attacking or undermining the church.

You're always free to share your thoughts and revelations with others and others are also free to either accept your ideas or dismiss them while also being free to share their thoughts and revelations.

Not sure what you are thinking might be a problem. No need for anyone to worry about others not agreeing with them, just being aware that God will judge each one of us on how well we did.

[thatjimguy]

You're always free to share your thoughts and revelations with others and others are also free to either accept your ideas or dismiss them while also being free to share their thoughts and revelations.

Not sure what you are thinking might be a problem. No need for anyone to worry about others not agreeing with them, just being aware that God will judge each one of us on how well we did.

 

No problem at all, the thought has been in my head for awhile about how people handle it. Obviously, recent events are rather disruptive, so no question there. But I do not know what the proper way to express ones views in LDS society would exactly be. I know that you can't at church in most official forms. But could you say anything in public and not  be considered against the church? I would consider any personal revelation about it a prompting of sorts, which are meant to be acted upon. 

[CV75]

As not to derail a thread, I have a question about how to properly go about moving forward with personal revelation.

 

Example: It is 1975. You have an overwhelming feeling that the priesthood ban needs to be lifted. 

 

From what I understand, the apostles were split among the idea of it. This mean some were right, some were wrong. 

 

The rank and file membership, of course, probably had split views on the subject. Some right, some wrong. 

 

This means, of course, that some common members had certain revelations that even eluded some apostles. 

 

The rank and file membership have no keys to change policy, but what can they do to act upon the information that would not be considered disrupting the church, but yet move forward with it?

Considering how this post is framed, the first thing to do is to not assume that because they have a revelation, others are wrong. Those without the same revelation simply haven’t the revelation.

 

The second thing to do is not establish judgment, enmity or contention between those with the revelation and those without it. Related to this, is not to impose the revelation on others as if it were binding (that is the province of keys). Related to this, is not to assume that those without the revelation need to be corrected, or try to correct them.

 

The third thing to do is not conflate an intellectually derived conclusion that fits with political, social or scientific norms with spiritual revelation and keys to receive revelation.

 

The most important thing to do is to move forward by treating others with the charity and Christ-like behavior that personal revelation is designed to engender in us.

[CV75]

It is about acting on it, talking about it, expressing it without disruption. 

 

I would consider any personal revelation about it a prompting of sorts, which are meant to be acted upon. 

Personal revelation is usually about what you should do from within to become more Christlike and then to provide a witness of Christ to those within your stewardship, through instruction, service, example, etc.

 

Personal revelation shared in testimony meeting is intended to be carried by the Spirit to the hearts of receptive hearers to edify them. Personal revelation shared within a stewardship is to do that too, and like scripture, can be profitable to that audience "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." But great care should be taken not to misuse the personal revelation under conditions the Lord would not approve (new wine/old skins, pearls before wine, meat before milk, etc.) or in any degree of unrighteousness (pride, ambition, control/dominion/compulsion, etc.).

[Ahab]

No problem at all, the thought has been in my head for awhile about how people handle it. Obviously, recent events are rather disruptive, so no question there. But I do not know what the proper way to express ones views in LDS society would exactly be. I know that you can't at church in most official forms. But could you say anything in public and not be considered against the church? I would consider any personal revelation about it a prompting of sorts, which are meant to be acted upon.

I think I know what you mean. I'm a preacher at heart and I like thinking that I can say things to help motivate other people to do something that I believe they should do. I'm a little less forceful than I used to be, though. Now I prefer sharing my thoughts and feelings in tidbits, just a little bit here and a little bit there every once in a while instead of getting caught up in a passionate argument that might make the one I'm talking to a little bit too contentious or defensive. Not much good comes from those moments usually. People don't like to be prodded or pushed to where they should go, so I have to try to make it so they will appreciate what I'm trying to tell them and to see why it would be good for them to accept the idea. Not because it's my idea, though, but because it's a good idea and because they can appreciate what is good when they are ready to accept it. Kinda like in the parable of sewing good seeds. I don't picture the farmer getting mad at the dirt. Some seeds are just not as fruitful in some places as others. And the soil needs to be worked continuously so that at least it will have had the chance, even multiple chances, to produce. Edited August 7, 2014 by Ahab

[ERayR]

As not to derail a thread, I have a question about how to properly go about moving forward with personal revelation.

 

Example: It is 1975. You have an overwhelming feeling that the priesthood ban needs to be lifted. 

 

From what I understand, the apostles were split among the idea of it. This mean some were right, some were wrong. 

 

The rank and file membership, of course, probably had split views on the subject. Some right, some wrong. 

 

This means, of course, that some common members had certain revelations that even eluded some apostles. 

 

The rank and file membership have no keys to change policy, but what can they do to act upon the information that would not be considered disrupting the church, but yet move forward with it?

 

The title of the thread was about personal revelation.  You start off with an incorrect premise that personal revelation was binding on the Church as a whole.  To be binding on the Church as a whole it must first be received by one who is authorized to receive it for the Church as a whole then accepted by the Church as a whole. 

 

GIGO.

[JLHPROF]

Many of you mention how the rank and file have no keys to make policy...I mention that clearly in the question. 

 

My question has ZERO to do about forcing the church to change. Please do not make it appear that is part of my question.

 

It is about acting on it, talking about it, expressing it without disruption. 

 

Please go along these lines. Please avoid assuming it is about attacking or undermining the church. 

 

It is your statement that they have received personal revelation on a topic outside their authority.  I don't believe that happens.  God would not grant the hypothetical personal revelations you refer to.  He would not tell members that the time had come for blacks, (or women) to receive priesthood ordination in a personal revelation because that would be out of order, and God operates according to order.

 

To the other side of your question, what if they believed (revelation aside) that the time had come for such an ordination, then the only "acting" upon it they should do is pray to God about it.  They have no recourse to "act" outside their authority.

[The Nehor]

As not to derail a thread, I have a question about how to properly go about moving forward with personal revelation.

 

Example: It is 1975. You have an overwhelming feeling that the priesthood ban needs to be lifted. 

 

From what I understand, the apostles were split among the idea of it. This mean some were right, some were wrong. 

 

The rank and file membership, of course, probably had split views on the subject. Some right, some wrong. 

 

This means, of course, that some common members had certain revelations that even eluded some apostles. 

 

The rank and file membership have no keys to change policy, but what can they do to act upon the information that would not be considered disrupting the church, but yet move forward with it?

 

Prepare yourself for the change. That's about it.

[thatjimguy]

It is your statement that they have received personal revelation on a topic outside their authority.  I don't believe that happens.  God would not grant the hypothetical personal revelations you refer to.  He would not tell members that the time had come for blacks, (or women) to receive priesthood ordination in a personal revelation because that would be out of order, and God operates according to order.

 

To the other side of your question, what if they believed (revelation aside) that the time had come for such an ordination, then the only "acting" upon it they should do is pray to God about it.  They have no recourse to "act" outside their authority.

 

According to that, any LDS who lived in the 1970's could never feel that something was a bit off or had a feeling of hope or confirmation that something would change? I would agree that keys and authority don't go down to up, but information is free. So is praying about something to feel the truthfulness of it. Could you pray about the ban and feel comfort knowing it would change and soon?

[thatjimguy]

The title of the thread was about personal revelation.  You start off with an incorrect premise that personal revelation was binding on the Church as a whole.  To be binding on the Church as a whole it must first be received by one who is authorized to receive it for the Church as a whole then accepted by the Church as a whole. 

 

GIGO.

 

I don't know about binding, but I would doubt receiving such information with the idea to keep it to yourself would be in order, unless specifically instructed to do otherwise. We hear too much about following promptings that I would believe sitting on such information would be the way to go.

[Ahab]

According to that, any LDS who lived in the 1970's could never feel that something was a bit off or had a feeling of hope or confirmation that something would change? I would agree that keys and authority don't go down to up, but information is free. So is praying about something to feel the truthfulness of it. Could you pray about the ban and feel comfort knowing it would change and soon?

Sure. I'll use another example since the priesthood ban was outside the scope of my experiences with the church, even though I was alive then.

I remember thinking for a long time after I joined the church how strange it seemed to me that young men had to wait until they were 19 years old to go on a mission, and women had to wait until they were 21. And I remember thinking that should and would change so that men would be able to go at 18, right after high school, and that women would also be able to go sooner too. It took quite a while for it to happen, but it did happen, although I still think it is strange that women can't go at 18 and must wait until they are 19, and I expect that some day they will also be able to go at 18.

I know it's not my place to actually change the rules, but I won't be surprised when someone else does.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Ahab

[Kind Debater]

1. The rank and file have no right to change policy, demand revelation for the Church or act politically or socially to force a Church change.  It's God's Church and change comes top down, not bottom up.

 

This makes sense if it's true that, as Grant said, "The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray."

OTOH, there have been some "bottom up" changes. The apostles of the early church included fishermen and a former tax collector, not rabbis. Whether you agree with the Protestant Reformation or not, it did force the Catholic church to address some of its corruption. And if there was a massive apostasy and the LDS church is the true church, 1) what happened to "God's mouthpiece" in the early church and 2) God didn't bring LDS reforms about by working with existing church leaders in America.

So is it the LDS view that "The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray" applies only from the time of Smith onwards?

[thatjimguy]

Considering how this post is framed, the first thing to do is to not assume that because they have a revelation, others are wrong. Those without the same revelation simply haven’t the revelation.

 

The second thing to do is not establish judgment, enmity or contention between those with the revelation and those without it. Related to this, is not to impose the revelation on others as if it were binding (that is the province of keys). Related to this, is not to assume that those without the revelation need to be corrected, or try to correct them.

 

The third thing to do is not conflate an intellectually derived conclusion that fits with political, social or scientific norms with spiritual revelation and keys to receive revelation.

 

The most important thing to do is to move forward by treating others with the charity and Christ-like behavior that personal revelation is designed to engender in us.

 

 

Well, I certainly mean no malice to anyone. I am just wording it the way I would speak. I am not using the words "right and wrong" to be mean, just as a simple statement. 2+2=4 is right =5 is wrong. No offensive intended. But, after reading your "third thing", I can see easily how we speak quite differently and you might not "get me".

Edited August 8, 2014 by thatjimguy

[Glenn101]

I seriously doubt that anyone prior to 1978 had a personal revelation that the Priesthood ban was supposed to be lifted. That is the province of the General authorities and specifically the one holding the keys of the Kingdom to receive such revelation. Remember the story of Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery?? Read Section 128 of the Doctrine and Covenants again.

 

I will quite one verse which I think that we might all think about and pray about concerning this or any other matter which involves revelation for the church and personal revelation.

 

Glenn

[Guest]

As not to derail a thread, I have a question about how to properly go about moving forward with personal revelation.

 

Example: It is 1975. You have an overwhelming feeling that the priesthood ban needs to be lifted. 

 

From what I understand, the apostles were split among the idea of it. This mean some were right, some were wrong. 

 

The rank and file membership, of course, probably had split views on the subject. Some right, some wrong. 

 

This means, of course, that some common members had certain revelations that even eluded some apostles. 

 

The rank and file membership have no keys to change policy, but what can they do to act upon the information that would not be considered disrupting the church, but yet move forward with it?

There were some spirited debates...it is not a dictatorship. The ban you speak of had been on President Kimball's mind for many, many years before the change. This still happens today.

[wenglund]

Without a doubt, and at all costs, verbally steady the ark.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mystery Meat]

 So is it the LDS view that "The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray" applies only from the time of Smith onwards?

 

No, this is not the LDS view. The LDS view is that for nearly 1800 years there hadn't been a mouthpiece on earth to lead the people astray. We believe the Lord's mouthpiece will not lead people astray, but we also believe that from the death of the original twelve apostles until Joseph Smith there was no mouthpiece on the earth. People were living in a state of apostasy for nearly 1800 years. Once the Lord restored His priesthood through Joseph Smith, the earth once again had a Prophet of God on the earth and does so til this day.