Second, I hope, at least to some extent, that Roberts finds the basis for his decision making not In his religious upbringing- though difficult to separate from the person, I understand- but rather on his strict interpretation of the constitution, hopefully as an originalist. I would hope this of any jurist on the Supreme Court, Catholic, LDS, Jewish, or atheist for that matter, and in fact for any court, though wishful thinking it may be.

That said, have you considered procedural theories in the church ? These always limit (institutional) revelation prior to the fact thereof, especially as to who is qualified to recieve a revelation. Here are a few obvious features that strike me as compelling:
1.For example, revelations to the highest councils for obvious reasons never have an acknowledged source in the institutional ranks below or outside the church institution itself (which also includes the canonized lineage of prophet figures);
2.no binding revelations have their source in a woman;
3. decisions made at every level are to be assumed revelatory or inspired.
4. revelations have limited jurisdictions of authority in the church (unless your the prophet);
5. revelations have a half-life or shelf life i.e. who worries about toeing the line to Elder Richard L Evan’s revelations of yesteryear?;
6. revelations must be submitted to a sustaining by common consent (as a body and individually in the case of callings and particulary in the case of marriage proposals).

Nothing particularly new here but what we get in procedural revelation is less the rule of law than the rule of man (procedurally inspired).