Personal Revelation or Biblical Revelation? (Latter Day Saints, doctrine, experience, scriptures)

[cardero]

Personal Revelation or Biblical Revelation

Which of these two takes precedence?

In a world filled with many experiences and observations, what does one do when their faith does not match the reality of the the world around them?

In the example of modern day revelators who claim to be inspired by God, how does one reconcile the differences of what they have understood from God and the previous writings before them?

Should one accept the new claims because they are more recent or should one stay with the biblical writings that they learned and grew up with?

If someone claimed to be a revelator for God and after understanding what they had offered, would you believe them or the bible? What would be your reason for this?

[wizanda]

Biblically, checking all languages in consideration always and any others that might be pertained to.....no where should anything be added to or changed to make it seem correct.....
That is my problem I read the Bible from scratch....fair enough sent from heaven with parts (Yeshua is one of my best friends)...yet still from a normal persons perspective, i can not and do not find any of it, as people presume to say....
murder is wrong........Balaam teachings are worse…….
Plus loads more, won’t be rude, yet personally feel insulted by the lies I keep seeing, that have no substantial evidence and then choose to tell me and others they don’t know for correctly relating the Bible…..
Its almost like deliberate corruption……….yet really unsure why, people must just not like God…….

[xexon]

The Bible is just a chronicle who people who had personal revelations themselves.

Personal.

Anything else is hearsay.


x

[wizanda]

What if they clearly link with keywords?....
Then when them same keywords are in other books also....then one divine author.......

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by cardero

Personal Revelation or Biblical Revelation

Which of these two takes precedence?

Personal revelation does to me.

In the example of modern day revelators who claim to be inspired by God, how does one reconcile the differences of what they have understood from God and the previous writings before them?

I'd say that you study the scriptures, think about them in the light of what these "modern day revelators" had to say, and then ask God if they were right or wrong. God has told us that if we rely on Him for wisdom and knowledge, He won't disappoint us.

Should one accept the new claims because they are more recent or should one stay with the biblical writings that they learned and grew up with?

To me, how recent or ancient a revelation may be is not a particularly reliable means of discerning its validity, although the number of times it may have been translated may be a point worth considering.

If someone claimed to be a revelator for God and after understanding what they had offered, would you believe them or the bible? What would be your reason for this?

If what that person taught contradicted the Bible, I would be hesitant to believe him. However, if he just provided additional insights into truths the Bible merely aluded to, I would have to do as I said before -- search the scriptures, ponder over what I'd read, and pray about it.

[Aqualung]

To say that one takes precedence is to imply that they contradict. One only has to choose between the two if there is a disagreement. I don't think that can ever happen.

[may]

Originally Posted by cardero

Personal Revelation or Biblical Revelation

Which of these two takes precedence?

In a world filled with many experiences and observations, what does one do when their faith does not match the reality of the the world around them?

In the example of modern day revelators who claim to be inspired by God, how does one reconcile the differences of what they have understood from God and the previous writings before them?

Should one accept the new claims because they are more recent or should one stay with the biblical writings that they learned and grew up with?

If someone claimed to be a revelator for God and after understanding what they had offered, would you believe them or the bible? What would be your reason for this?

that would depend if the revelation was inline with the bible .

[Sonic247]

It works out well for me because to me the Bible doesn't contradict what I see in the world, it makes it more clear. Just like how David said "thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path" and it is still relavent today.

[cardero]

Katzpur writes: Personal revelation does to me.

Yes, one of the interesting aspects of the Latter Day Saints is that they certainly do encourage personal revelation. Even though this is not the “Ask A Mormon” thread, I do have a question about this. What if this personal revelation perceived as an inspiration is contrary to one’s religious teachings? What if this revelation stands reasonable in light of what has been written before? Can this revelation be introduced to the organization’s superiors? What evidence can be introduced that this is indeed the Word of God and that it is a sound revelation? Will the revelation be respectively considered or will the revelator who brings it up be watched more closely and possibly be suspected of heresy? What are the options for a person who belongs to a religion that agrees with all the other religion’s doctrines but has a great deal of difficulty with the revelation that GOD revealed to them? I know that these may be difficult questions to answer without proper examples but I was wondering if you have ever known someone who has experienced this before in the LDS faith?

[Wandered Off]

Originally Posted by xexon

Personal.

Anything else is hearsay.

Agreed. Second-hand revelation is riddled with potential for risk and holds no advantage for a deity. It is nothing more than "Some guy said God told him to tell you..."