“He treated my communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil, that there were no such things as visions or revelations in these days; that all such things had ceased with the apostles, and that there would never be any more of them.” (1:21)
Though our church encourages personal revelation, and I know of DC 28:2, I’ve sometimes felt frustrated over the question I titled this post. A guy in the group I ran, I think said it best. He said something like, “Why do we tell people to pray to get answers, when so often we act as though the right answer is prescribed (what leaders have declared)? If the person has no freedom to get a different answer, then why even bother to go through the prayer process?” (He was only expressing a frustration, not a cynical or bitter rejection of the church).
Leader’s did make a statement on gay marriage that members can differ, but that seemed to create some confusion over what the EXACT policy on differing is, and I think we can agree that “follow the brethren and local leaders” is quite important. And I do think there is also a norm of looking askance at a member saying he or she got a different answer.
I HAVE had what I considered kind and helpful discussions with local church leaders on these issues, and that is appreciated. Of course, we do allow for personal revelation, so we’re different than the Methodist minister talking to Smith after his visions, but I have heard talk from leaders similar to what the guy in the group noted: as though leaders are saying “you are only allowed to receive these handful of prescribed answers. Otherwise your answer isn’t real, is deception, etc.”
And at times like that I do feel some frustration. I mentioned on the last comment of the first post in this series that I’ve come to the point that I don’t give ultimate authority to others to interpret my spiritual experiences. Yes, those experiences can be confusing and I do appreciate insights from others. Yet like I said in that comment, I don’t find it very helpful if the guidance is something like, “I declare your spiritual expertise invalid because it doesn’t fit MY (the advice giver’s) theology.”
I noted in an earlier post that I see such absolute claims of knowledge of God’s thoughts and policies as problematic. In my experience, our human understanding of God and his purposes is less clear than such certain people will state, so if such a person or even leader makes such a declaration to me, then I think of the point I made in my last comment: I’m the one who experienced it. I’m happy for advice, but don’t tell me what I did or did not experience, since I experienced it, not you. Though this process can be confusing, it does remind me of verse 25, especially the end about not wanting to deny what he’d seen/experienced.
So I do find claims that only prescribed experiences and answers are allowed frustrating. Does God really need to follow OUR (humans’) rules if he wants to talk to us?
Comments
16 responses to “What Spiritual Experiences Are We Allowed to Have?”
If we receive revelation that differs from general counsel then the wise thing to do is keep it to ourselves. We should never openly pit our personal revelation against the general revelation that the apostles receive for the church. In most cases personal revelation should remain with the individual who receives it.
Part of the problem is confusion between opinion and revelation, and this by members and leaders at all levels. An apostle, seventy, stake president, or anyone else may offer a thought (or espouse a doctrine) with most sincere intention of being helpful to others, but many (sometimes the speaker included) will attribute the thought to revelation when there really was no revelation at all.
I wish we could overcome this cultural weakness. I wish we could accept the teachings of church officers as counsel from fellow sojourners who are trying to be helpful, without automatically describing those teachings as revelation. Part of the problem with this weakness among us is a tendency to then use that teaching as a rhetorical club with which to rhetorically smite the head of our neighbors.
If a priesthood leader ever does get revelation, he cannot impose his new learning on others — he can only share it through persuasion, patience, long suffering, brotherly kindness, and so forth. I wish for a church culture where thoughts are shared more with these principles in mind.
Last thought: remember when President Nelson said that every member needs to get his or her own revelation? Well, as I recall, in the very next conference Elder Renlund undid that, by strictly limiting a member’s privilege of receiving revelation. I am content to say that both men shared their own thoughts with sincere desire to be helpful, but I also noted how Elser Renlund sort of countermanded what President Nelson taught — but of course, others will say Elder Renlund merely refined what President Nelson taught, and both talks were revelatory direct from the courts of heaven.
Jack, the question of what to DO with the revelation is a bit of a different one than the focus of the post.
ji, good point about the tension between Pres. Nelson’s encouragement and Elder Redlund’s caution. There are points in tension of wanting the members to have experiences, but worry over having the wrong ones.
Sure, there may be institutional proprieties and taboos to be considered, but I don’t think the Lord or any of us are hedged up in scope of spiritual experience.
Stephen,
I agree with comet. Every latter-day saint may receive as much as our preparations allow–with the provision that we guard it carefully (as per Alma 12: 9).
I think you’ve addressed the point I wanted to make, Comet and Jack, that I agree with and the ji noted. God will give us what He sees fit, but I also meant the question in terms of how church leaders feel about the members’ personal revelation. Elder Renlund’s talk did highlight limiting the scope of personal revelation in terms the leadership authority. If one keeps a differing revelation entirely to oneself, then I suppose that negates any tension, but I do think that’s a bigger issue to discuss.
For instance, what if the one with the differing prompting feels prompted to selectively tell a few others?
Exactly. The limits on what’s “allowed” are not on personal revelation, but on what we do with the revelation we receive. This is consistent with the principle I suggested earlier that God wants to maximize the revelation his people receive while minimizing the harm from the mistakes we will inevitably make.
Lorenzo Snow is a good example: when he received the Snow Couplet by personal revelation, he only shared it with his sister Eliza and with Brigham Young. It was only when Joseph Smith taught the same doctrine several years later, making it revelation to the Church, that Snow shared it more broadly.
I do believe God reveals truths to individuals that he has not yet revealed to the Church, possibly even errors in current Church practice that he has not yet corrected. If you think you’ve received that kind of revelation, believe it and rejoice in it! But that is personal revelation for your benefit. We may share our personal revelation with others who will also benefit from it and can be trusted to keep it private, when prompted by the Spirit. Now, circumstances vary and I don’t want to judge individual situations, but in general I’d say that if someone is arguing with your personal revelation you probably shouldn’t have shared it with them.
As a practical matter, I do think that people who think they have received this kind of revelation are often mistaken. (They can’t all be right, because they contradict each other.) But following the guidelines we’ve been given for handling personal revelation will make it a fairly harmless mistake. The adversary may use it to try to separate us from the Church and its leaders, and that’s the thing we should be on guard against.
I like this series of posts Stephen – I think everyone in the church struggles to some degree with interpreting their own spiritual experiences. And I agree that we aren’t required to cede interpretive control of our own spiritual experiences to others.
I do think there are good reasons to give more weight to “institutional revelation” if it conflicts with our own though. First, it’s a collaborative process among multiple smart, spiritual people (First Presidency and the Q12), whereas our own personal revelation generally isn’t. Maybe we share our thoughts with a few likeminded friends and family members, but that’s not nearly as involved as the deliberative processes of the church’s governing councils. Second, I’m willing to credit the members of First Presidency and the Q12 for trying harder to live worthily of the Spirit’s companionship than I do (or at least as hard).
For me, those two facts do provide a pretty strong interpretive presumption in favor of the doctrine the church teaches, even when I may believe I’m receiving different revelation. To your point, it’s very tricky to know what exactly a spiritual impression is saying. And that applies equally to my revelation as well as others. It’s not fair for someone to use revelatory ambiguity to diminish revelation from church leaders while simultaneously believing that their own is crystal clear.
The above doesn’t apply as well to local leaders. But I suspect that most of the angst surrounding personal revelation that differs from institutional revelation comes at the church-wide level (LGBTQ issues, abortion, female ordination etc.).
That’s a good rule of thumb, RLD. Personal revelation should probably only be shared in correct contexts, and using it to try to “compel” others to agree with you who otherwise would not isn’t the right context.
Good points about these conflicts and working out other rules of thumb, Josh. Some promptings can end up feeling quite persistent. I’ll post more about all this.
From the title I was expecting an essay on why modern latter-day saints are leery about speaking in tongues.
“What spiritual experiences are we allowed to have?”
The problem is right there in the question, the verb “allowed” and the unwritten but necessarily implied “disallowed.” In our church culture, it seems were are very interested in judging everyone else’s spiritual experiences. I think a person’s spiritual experiences are largely for him- or herself.
But, if someone wants to influence or change the thought or behavior of another, or the practices of a group, he or she cannot claim higher office, the priesthood, or the imprimatur of the private revelation — that would be dominion or compulsion — rather, if change in another is appropriate, it must be done by persuasion, patience, long-suffering, kindness, and so forth. This applies at all levels and in all directions, from a father or mother in a family to the president of the church. Thus, if the Lord gives a revelation to anyone, that person must use persuasion, patience, long-suffering, kindness, and so forth to bring other persons to agreement, and not the fiat of the revelation. D&C 121. For formal church matters, the president of the church will seek the common consent of the church body. At least, that’s how I see it.
Feel free to give your thoughts on the gift of tongues if you’d like, John.
I think that DC 121 is ALWAYS the best way to proceed no matter what position one holds in the church. In my experience, persuasion isn’t the chief mode of discourse in our leadership culture, but I think it would be really nice if we could move in the direction. “Only by persuasion” is a challenging and time consuming way to lead, but I do appreciate it when things are done that way.
And I don’t recall church leaders seeking common consent much either. That’s challenging too.
Stephen, I’m writing aspirationally — I believe we, as a church culture, could and should do better in this regard — I believe our God expects it from us — I think maybe we’ve wholly adopted the western corporate manager concepts, with perfect executives, important senior managers, semi-discardable junior managers, and wholly-discardable rank-and-file, and where direction and taskings flow downward and results and reports flow upwards — I hope for something more egalitarian, where every putative “leader” serves and ministers to the sheep, where every man matters, and where D&C 121 is a reality among us. Using “rank” in priesthood matters is a form of dominion or compulsion, and is contrary to persuasion, patience, long-suffering, kindness, and so forth. Or, at least, that’s how I see it.
Well said, ji. Leadership structure is hard to avoid in this world, but sometimes I wish our leadership culture was more like DC 121 than the “world.”
Didn’t the General Relief Society president get everyone’s shorts in a twist a year or two ago by acknowledging she ignored prophetic counsel extant when she was finishing law school and went ahead and passed the bar and plunged full speed ahead into a successful legal career – all the while other women in similar circumstances were being threatened, guilted, etc., into following prophetic advice to stay home because any other inspiration contrary to prophetic guidance was obviously from the wrong source – cuz she’d received her own revelation
That incident left a terrible taste in the mouths of every woman who had been “persuaded “ that her inspiration couldn’t be inspired since it was contrary to prophetic counsel, and had abandoned lifetime dreams at the whim of old men born in the 19th century
Apparently that long standing teaching —- applied wide, far, and strictly for ages – was wrong… the true doctrine was what our Ma used to tell us “use the brains the good Lord gave you!!”
Texas, I think all or almost all of the sisters who serve in general presidencies disobeyed counsel, specifically President Benson’s counsel — and yet, today, their message to today’s sisters is exact obedience to the prophet. I am unable to reconcile the dissonance (I don’t want to call it hypocrisy…), except to say that general conference speakers try to be helpful by sharing their own messages (they do not “channel” the Lord), and listeners have to discern which portions of which talks might be applicable to them. At least, that’s how I manage to understand.