Revelation and the Church, Part One: A Grain of Salt

While I was growing up, my Dad always asserted that we should take everything a member of the Quorum of the Seventy said “with a grain of salt.” I have applied that perhaps too liberally in my life. I particularly remember one moment from my mission. A member of the Seventy came to visit and decided that he wanted to celebrate the idea of baptism by having a sort of celebratory baptismal party in the backyard of the Stake President - a billionaire who had built his home to model the Guatemala Temple. 

For the next few weeks, all the missionaries were encouraged to push their investigators to be baptized on the very specific date chosen by the Seventy and Stake President so that we could invite tons of people to what sounded to me like a “spectacle of baptisms.” If I had been writing a newspaper article, that’s what I would have entitled it.  

However, I personally believed that pressuring my investigators to do anything involving covenants was a terrible idea. I also didn’t like the thought of a sacred event becoming an exhibition, so I stubbornly told my companion that we weren’t going to participate. I also called my Mission President and let him know my thoughts, to which he responded something like:

“I have half a mind to agree you with you, Sister. But it’s a member of the Seventy. My hands are tied on this one.”

My poor companion, who I think wanted to support the other missionaries, was good enough to go along with my plan to boycott the ceremony. And while I don’t blame anyone for going or participating, I’ve always felt perhaps too strong a sense of pride in my decision to avoid it. 

Over the years, I have had multiple similar experiences in which I have had to accept that I very often disagree with decisions and comments made by people in leadership positions in the Church. Of course, at the same time, I have faith in the doctrines and principles of the Gospel and will eagerly declare my conviction that Joseph Smith saw Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ in the Sacred Grove and that he translated the Book of Mormon by the power of God. 

So, what to do about the rest?

I’m a pretty philosophical person by nature - almost obsessed with truth-seeking and discovering. Naturally, then, my experiences have forced me to reflect on the balance between sustaining and following leaders of the Church and recognizing that no one has a monopoly on truth - not even the Prophet - and, of course, no one is perfect. 

In April 2018 General Conference, President Nelson stated:

“In coming days, it will not be possible to survive spiritually without the guiding, directing, comforting, and constant influence of the Holy Ghost.”

I loved that quote for a number of reasons, one of them being that it seemed like one of the greatest checks on a church structure that is dependent on imperfect people. I have thought to myself that if I could hone and perfect my own conduit to heaven - my personal ability to recognize and receive personal revelation, it would make it easier to discern truth and error wherever they presented themselves. 

And sometimes, perhaps more than we would like, this happens over the pulpit. It happens in Church Meetings everywhere. I don’t know anyone who hasn’t sat through a Fast and Testimony Meeting and cringed just a little bit at what was being said. I’ve felt that way often. Chastity lessons from the Bishop. Training in Stake Conference. And yes, during sessions of General Conference. 

Don’t get me wrong. I’m well aware that there is a lot I don’t know. But I don’t think there is anything unusual, unnatural, scary, or even dangerous about recognizing, admitting, and accepting that sometimes what is said by someone called in a specific calling or office in the Church just isn’t true. When that happens, I just make a mental note to pray about it later (if I haven’t already)  and then I move on and listen to whatever else they have to say. I would be lying if I pretended that sometimes I don’t just disregard what they said altogether. 

However, one of the things I’ve learned is that what I hear and what others hear from a specific message is often different. A talk that I ignore or dislike might actually have held great meaning for someone else. I’ve actually been fascinated by how different messages are gleaned from the same words. It has made me realize the necessity of extending an open-minded compassion and empathy even to people I initially disagree with. It’s possible that their message wasn’t for me. It’s possible that they made a mistake. And it’s possible that I just didn’t understand or that I was actually wrong. That has definitely happened before. 

Either way, it has been helpful for me to listen with spiritual ears and see even leaders as children of God trying to make their way along the covenant path same as me. We are, in the end, equal in the eyes of God - specifically in terms of our equivalent need to rely on Him for salvation. We are all imperfect. 

So, what is the purpose of Church leadership? Why are we told to follow the Prophet, knowing that he is imperfect? 

This blog isn’t the place for a lengthy summation of my thoughts on hierarchy (maybe later) or an exhaustive explanation of Church organizational structure, but I will try to provide a few thoughts related to revelation and doctrine. 

First off, I don’t think Heavenly Father expects us to blindly accept anything. Certainly, we will not always have a perfect knowledge and that’s faith. But I think our obligation, in terms of obedience, has less to do with unquestioned acceptance of every word spoken over the pulpit and more to do with our consistent desire to know and do the will of God. If our focus is on how to love God more and serve Him better, we will draw closer to Him. Then, it’s often the case that we’ll find true messages in every well-intentioned talk given from the heart. Point is, if obedience really is the first law of Heaven, I think that has more to do with our personal relationship with our Heavenly Parents (and our love for them) and less to do with what one leader of the Church said. The good news is that those often overlap. 

Second, I personally don't think the Lord reveals his will to the Church through the words of one man standing at a pulpit alone. Even Church declarations, such as President Joseph F. Smith’s vision of the Spirit World, were ratified by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve prior to publication. Decisions always have to be unanimous. What I mean to say by this is that when the Lord has a message for the entire Church, it seems He reveals it through the Prophet, who confirms it with the First Presidency and the Twelve, and then it is delivered to the Church, who similarly pray and ratify that decision for their own lives. That’s the pattern. And it doesn’t happen that often. At least not compared to the number of statements made that do not fit that pattern. 

Furthermore, I think we can disagree, doubt, discuss, be true to ourselves, and still patiently wait on the Lord and respect the callings He made and the people He put in those callings. We can continue to seek personal revelation regarding questions that we have and also vocalize those concerns. Hubris here is the enemy. Meekness and charity are our friends. If my motive is a determination to love and serve God, He will teach me how to act, what is true, and what to do.

I think our salvation depends a lot more on the love we show to God and our neighbor than it does on all the traditions, policies, or culture of the Church. 

So, I’ll conclude with a simple, blunt statement, lest my opinion is still unclear: 

General Authorities are not perfect. Conference talks are not doctrinal canon. You don’t have to agree with everything said. If we want to know what is true and learn the will of God, we can ask Him. In the end, receiving and recognizing personal revelation from the Lord is the key to the truth. It is our relationship with our Heavenly Parents and our love for them that matters most.