In 2012, I attended a fairly small devotional (a few hundred people) in Asia in which E. Oaks was the keynote speaker. I enjoyed Jake’s Q&A with E. Bednar a while ago, and I thought I’d share some of the insights from my devotional with an apostle. This is the second time I’ve heard E. Oaks speak in person, but the other time was at the Tabernacle in a multi-stake conference in Utah with thousands of people in attendance. The only other apostles I’ve heard speak are E. Benson (before he became prophet) in Hershey, Pennsylvania (also with thousands of members across the state in attendance), and E. Nelson (in the MTC). I also happened to sit behind E. Oaks at a very funny production at the Shakespearean Festival a few years ago. Apparently, E. Oaks is a magnet and I am steel.
When E. Oaks first came in, everyone stood, and he quickly and in a very friendly, self-deprecating way motioned for us to sit down. He also greeted a visiting dignitary (I wasn’t sure who it was but it seemed like a prominent figure from another religion because he had on some sort of ceremonial looking hat) very enthusiastically and with some awkward bowing.
When E. Oaks spoke he explained that when they go out to these kinds of meetings, they don’t prepare their remarks in advance. They speak on topics as prompted, often not knowing why. I’ll share some of my own thoughts I had on the topics he chose for this meeting. Since all of his topics were bloggernacle staples, I thought they would be of interest for further discussion here. I want to be clear that these notes are my personal recollections of what he said, mingled with what I heard. Recording of these sessions is not allowed, and if someone else were to share their impressions, they would doubtless recall things that didn’t make an impression on me. That’s the nature of the beast.
Our respect for authority
E. Oaks talked about the respect people showed when he entered the room, and he said that our respect should be for the office and never for the man. To illustrate his point, he brought a young boy up front and placed his own jacket on him. The boy looked silly with the too big sleeves hanging off the ends of his arms. E. Oaks said that the jacket represented the mantle of the callings we hold in the church (or our job titles at work) and that the mantle is always bigger than the man or woman. He repeated this a couple of times for emphasis. He said that no matter what calling we hold, for as long as we hold it, we are always striving to grow into it. And he said that in the case of some callings, like apostle, you will strive the rest of your life to do so because that’s how long the calling lasts, but you will never fully fit it. The mantle will always be bigger than the person.
I liked that he focused on the humility all of us should feel in filling callings, and also the image of our imperfect leaders (and selves) as a child trying on their dad’s clothing was a great metaphor that would give us some patience with leaders and ourselves.
Women and the priesthood
He tackled this topic without much transition from the prior topic. He said that many people wonder why women haven’t been given the priesthood. He made a joke that the wise ones don’t want it (I could hear the “Grrr” of my FMH friends in the back of my mind). He quickly said we don’t know why God hasn’t chosen to give women the priesthood, and that because we don’t know, it would be speculating to try to guess why (not that it stopped him!).
He talked about the importance of equality in our current society, and that equality has been a blessing to us. He spoke with passion about women receiving equal pay for equal work when they are equally qualified and perform equally to men in the same jobs. He said this was one of the important outcomes of the focus on equality in society. He added that he has lived through 3 generations, and this generation has placed a premium on equality compared to prior generations. He cautioned that equality is important, especially not discriminating against people or treating them unfairly, but that at the same time God doesn’t always give every gift to every group of people or every individual person.
He then spent a bit of time wandering down the alley of equating motherhood as a gift given to women with priesthood as a gift given to men. He talked about the creative powers of women to create and sustain life during pregnancy and that even outside of that in his own personal experience women are more creative generally than men are (is he talking about scrapbooking? telling lies? being better dancers?). (Equating motherhood with priesthood is not an argument feminists appreciate for many reasons, and I am no exception. To name a few: not all women give birth – including E. Oaks’ current wife who married in her mid 50s for the first time, childbearing is not something that occurs during the majority of a woman’s life, and reducing womanhood to fertility feels like appreciating women for their value to men, not their intrinsic value as people). E. Oaks seemed tentative in these remarks, and he seemed to be aware he was speculating (from my perspective anyway). He talked about roles differing by sex and there being some inherent differences in the sexes that it is not in vogue to admit today because anything that appears to be in any way unequal is not acceptable to people in our current society. He said that the brethren are very aware of that, and that they do discuss it.
While I wasn’t a huge fan of what I perceive as sexual stereotypes, I also think it’s important to give credit where it is due. Both the opening and closing prayers were given by women, and of 5 speakers, 3 were men and 2 were women. E. Oaks quoted from Sis. Hallstrom’s talk repeatedly during his remarks and also referred to Eliza Roxcy Snow as his favorite voice in Mormonism several times, also quoting his favorite line of poetry from the the Eliza Snow hymn “How Great the Wisdom and the Love” (verse 6):
How great, how glorious, how complete
Redemption’s grand design,
Where justice, love, and mercy meet
In harmony divine!
I have to agree – it’s a great hymn, and a very elegant description of the atonement. Go, ‘Liza!
While we’re speculating on priesthood, I think a sociological argument can be made that priesthood service ties men to families and makes them feel needed in ways that they otherwise might not. In Spain, most men would spend their evenings in the bar with other men leaving the women at home to raise the kids, but when they joined the church, they became more family-centric and spent time serving others and supporting their families because it was their priesthood duty. Women already had a family-centric existence in that culture. If women also had the priesthood, it would reduce their reliance on men for those things. A role separation model may be more effective at creating family bonds (creating mutual reliance and respect for each other), improving the way men treat their families and others, and provide more support to children on the whole across large groups of people. Obviously, that’s more of an 80/20 principle – suitable to 80% of society, but not others.
In this sociological model, both motherhood and priesthood are duties and service provided to others, not gifts God gives to an individual. But E. Oaks didn’t say that. It’s my own slightly more palatable spin on what he said.
The nature of revelation
For his last topic, E. Oaks wanted to correct the “overstatement” or assumption that he had heard (he shared a specific example) that prophets speak to God face to face every day. He listed different ways that revelation happens: impressions, a feeling in the heart, answers to prayer, visions in the night or the day, and lastly, face to face discussions with heavenly beings. He also made it clear that all of these, including directly visiting with heavenly beings do happen in modern times, but that those encounters are much less frequent than simply following the spirit through impressions and so on, and certainly not daily. He was listing them more or less in order of frequency from most common to rarest. He said that well me!ning individuals make “overstatements” like that, not for evil intentions, but because they take something that is infrequent and portray it as common.
E. Oaks also looked up a scripture to share on his iPad, and he mentioned that Pres. Packer had made them all get iPads which has been a much more convenient and light way to carry his scriptures with him, although he confessed it was the only app he had on it still. I thought it was great that they are getting up on technology, and surprising that Pres. Packer was leading the pack!
So, was any of this surprising to you or just same old%rC same old? Some thoughts for discussion:
- How do you feel about the “mantle” analogy? Do you think this would help to reduce the awe people have for authority (including their own)?
- What do you think of the views shared on women and the priesthood? Is this explanation cold comfort? Do you feel there is a valid reason women don’t have the priesthood?
- Do you like that E. Oaks was correcting overstatements about the role of prophets? (personally, I thought this was a great clarification for a place like Asia with a lot of deference for authority plus a lot of converts).
- How did this devotional compare with other devotionals you’ve seen with apostles?
- Do outlying areas like Asia get more direct access to apostles than more Mormon-dense areas in the US (that are outside of Utah)?
- How does this compare to more recent messages by E. Oaks and others?
Discuss.
**This post is nearly 5 years old, but I was talking with someone about it, and noticed that it was lost in our site refresh a few months ago. Here it is again, with some topics that still feel relevant.
If the man’s teachings under the mantle are antithetical to your happiness, if the man takes actions under the mantle that are aimed at tearing down the happiness and well being of yourself and others like you, how does one respect the mantle but not the man? Such a respect is meaningless.
I was thinking about this article to-day, and especially at how Elder Oaks described motherhood as a gift given to women while the priesthood is a gift given to men. Now maybe I’m feeling particularly snarky lately, and maybe my thoughts go to the extreme and absurd because of it, but I’ve never heard of men suddenly being “gifted” with the priesthood after being raped, whereas woman can easily become pregnant through such an act. And no, not all women get to become mothers in this lifetime. But theoretically, all women, whether inside or outside the church, whether righteous or not, can become mothers. Only those righteous men in the church can get the priesthood, however. Now, who is considered more important inside the church? Priesthood holders. Equal gifts? I don’t think so!
But it’s good to hear that the brethren are aware of this inequality and that they do discuss it. It’s also good to hear him talk about how they get revelation and how they don’t talk to God face to face every day. Although naturally sometimes we wish it were more often. 🙂
Thanks for sharing this, Hawkgrrrl. 🙂
I guess that if male priesthood really does equate to female motherhood, then perhaps what is really being said is that the Lord’s timetable for female priesthood is the same as the Lord’s timetable for male motherhood. I suppose we men better get agitating for a revelation on reproductive equality …
Tobia: Personally I think motherhood and fatherhood are the same gift. I think what he means (and the thinking of his generation) is that motherhood is a “responsibility” given to women (whereas men generally get to outsource that to women) and priesthood is a “responsibility” given to men (whereas women are exempt and therefore don’t do the work associated with that). Or something like that. Their generation is very wrapped up in duty and responsibility in ways that subsequent generations are not.
ydeve: It’s a valid question for sure, although I also want to note that every person is more than one story (and more than the sum of the stories we know). For example, I’ve heard some very kind-hearted stories about E. Packer and some very self-deprecating stories about E. Oaks. Oaks was also in favor of civil unions for gay people before the “fight” turned to gay marriage. For whatever reason “marriage” tipped him over the edge.
A thought experiment for you because you make a valid point about the mantle vs. the “(wo)man”: does Trump denigrate the office of POTUS to the extent that the office no longer deserves respect? Does the office of Catholic priest in general no longer deserve respect because of the pedophile scandals? I mean, I’m not sure really. I think there’s a default to respect certain offices, and individuals can lose respect while in that office if they fail to live up to it. But does that mean that the office no longer has “default” respect? I suppose at some point it does.
ydeve: I understand where you are coming from. Let me expand on that a little bit, though. There’s more to every person than one story or one stance. Also, in the case of E. Oaks, he was pro-civil unions before the debate turned to gay marriage, and for whatever reason, the term marriage turned him. He’s pro-equality for women, and yet somehow equates motherhood with priesthood. So people are complex. As to your question about the (wo)man vs. the mantle, I see what you are saying. I suggest a thought experiment to see if the mantle ever deserves inherent or default respect. Has Trump denigrated the office of POTUS to the point that the office doesn’t deserve default respect? Does the office of Catholic priest deserve no inherent respect due to the pedophilia scandals? Have racist cops denigrated their office to the point that the authority of the police should be questioned rather than accepted? I’m not sure, personally. At some point, I would certainly say that the denigration of the office is such that the default is no longer to “respect” but rather to “suspect.”
Tobias: Yes, that distinction between needing to be qualified to become a priesthood holder vs. the fact that crack whores can be mothers is an important miss in this line of logic. I think there’s a generation gap between our apostles and how they view a duty or responsibility as a “gift” and how subsequent generations view duty and responsibility. Both motherhood (and fatherhood, the obvious corollary to motherhood) and the priesthood are things that benefit others rather than the holder (aside from the administrative aspects of priesthood that give men a voice and representation in decision making that women don’t have). But coming from his perspective, he seems to be saying that women outsource that role to men whereas men outsource domesticity to women. For my part, I would say I’d be happy to let them wash their own dishes if we could have some policies and interpretations of the gospel that make sense for women (using women’s input) and aren’t just a continued support of status quo patriarchy. No men are going to clamor to do more housework, that’s for sure. It’s a crummy job nobody wants.
In contemporary scientific and philosophical discussions, one of the most common “logical flaws” is the argument from authority. The other side of the same coin is the ad hominem attack or attacking the messenger instead of the message. We agree while navigating in these areas not to indulge in these thinking patterns or we face scorn and loss of credibility.
It is my long experience that when I hear anyone, especially an attorney question my opinion with one of these tactics that it is an admission, conscious or not, that they do not have a stronger logical case than mine. It is an act of desperation, an indirect concession that my position is stronger or more accurate and that my opinion will prevail if I can stay focused and state it repeatedly and clearly.
At church one must set such logical thinking aside. The mantle is greater than the man, as if either one or both is greater than rational truth. Is there a “femantle” for the empowerment of the female? Or must they go about naked in this matter? Perhaps they are to wear only chains instead.
Immediately after posting the previous entry I received a revelation, to look up the definition of the word mantle:
1- a coat or piece of clothing
2- a symbol of authority
3-a covering or outer layer
synonyms for #3: cover, veil, cloak, curtain, shroud, swathe, wrap, blanket,
verb forms- conceal, hide, disguise, mask, obscure, surround, enshroud.
Perhaps we have been confusing the definition of the mantle of the Priesthood for all these many years. Does not definition #3 just as accurately reflect the history of the exercising of the Priesthood as definition #2 which is I believe the common meaning in church talks?
And the mantle must be greater than the man- because his wickedness knows no bounds and must be covered or mantled.
Diametrically opposite to the fundamental message of Christ:
Repent, confess, be forgiven.
Be open and genuine.
Wash, don’t hide uncleanness or unworthiness.
Compassion, know the truth, serve.
I will never again be able to think of the word mantle in the same way. What a twisted word.
I like that Elder Oaks discussed (obliquely) the fallibility of priesthood leaders, but this always leaves me in an unsettling place: leaders are fallible, but God won’t let them get the big stuff wrong, so the things they’re getting wrong are not important to the Lord? That opens up six other cans of worms. Or that individual’s personal growth and learning into the mantle are more important than the harm they may inadvertently cause to others? That would imply that those in leadership *are* more important. But that doesn’t match what we’re generally taught about our Heavenly Parents, unless we take a very sinister interpretation of Elder Oaks’ points on equality.
And if leaders are given a mantle to essentially get revelation the same way I do, through inspiration, then what claim can their inspiration possibly have over me? As a confirmed member, the church teaches that I have a right to the constant companionship and guidance of the Holy Ghost, so that ought to cover me for my personal needs. I then only need church leaders for capital R Revelation, because I’m always going to take my own inspiration over someone else’s. And the church doesn’t clearly delineate between policy, inspiration, and Revelation (see Nov 5 for instance), sooooo…
What I mean by all this is that of course the resurrected Christ isn’t lounging around the Church Office Building, and I’m glad when leaders frankly admit that. But if Revelation is truly rare, what purpose do the general authorities serve other than as an administrative body? And why must they claim certainty on such a broad range of issues?
The logical fallacy of equating priesthood and motherhood is one of my least favorite things and was an issue for me long before my faith transition began. It falls flat for the previously mentioned reasons (worthiness, universality, intrinsic value of women, etc) and then some.
I find the assumption that fatherhood plus something is equal to motherhood alone deeply problematic. It devalues fatherhood. Yes, some men suck as fathers. That doesn’t mean fatherhood itself is less valuable. Some women are terrible mothers. That hasn’t stopped us from praising motherhood as an institution. If the problem is that men aren’t engaged fathers, the solution is to engage fathers, not to smother male parenthood in a layer of church administration.
It also freezes women out of the adminstrative side of the church, muting our voices and listening only when what we say is about children. It demands that woman’s entire identity be Mother, but does not similarly require that man be only Elder or Deacon.
This explanation used to be cold comfort. It has become gasoline.
This is a topic where the General Authority will never be able to please those who disagree with the policy. Yet he is powerless to provide information that he does not have and admits that anything he says is some type of speculation. Yet all that those who criticize this policy or that policy are engaging in speculation also.
My only advice to those who wish for some type of policy change would be to follow the example of Cornelius the Centurion. as detailed in chapter ten of the Acts of the Apostles. According to those verses, it was the prayers of Cornelius and his household that led to the vision given to Peter prompting him to take the gospel message to the Gentiles. I believe that faithful and devoted “agitating” with the Lord will produce much better results than anything else we can do.
Glenn
Oh don’t worry, I agitate plenty with the Lord. But I also believe that we rarely get answers to questions we aren’t asking, so I urge my fellow humans to consider as well. God’s not going to come down and smack the first presidency with a two by four to tell them to change a policy. They must, as Oliver was told in the Doctrine and Covenants, study it out in their minds and their hearts and ask the Lord if it be right. So I’m going to keep raising the issue out loud to increase the odds of them asking.
But then again, the Lord just might do that. Peter wasn’t the one doing the praying about the subject. The problem with the “studying it out in their own minds” scenario is that if they have done so and the answere was negative, there are those who will not allow them that :stupor of thought” and then let them forget the whole thing. (Would love to insert a smiley here.)
I personally would have no problem with a revelation that would allow women to hold the Priesthood. I (hope) I want what God wants for me and for His other children. That is the trick, to learn what He wants for us. Sometimes what He wants and what we want diverge significantly.
Glenn
But what if your stupor of thought is my 40 years in the wilderness with Moses because the ‘chosen people’ aren’t ready to listen to the Lord yet? Look at the situation that developed around race in the 20th century church: folk doctrines sprung up around a policy, making it harder and harder to change. It eventually took capital R Revelation to undo the policy and over 30 subsequent years before the church publicly disavowed the folk doctrines that justified it. And that capital R Revelation occurred after an exhaustive seeking process by Spencer W Kimball. He didn’t ask in a vacuum; there was great public pressure first.
Elizabeth makes a great point. We have such a culture of defending everything church leaders say or do (or don’t say or don’t do) that we’ve got a very fertile ground for folk doctrine.
I enjoyed this post and the discussions in the comments.
Elizabeth, you call it folk doctrine, but numerous prophets have said that the priesthood ban originated from God, not man. And the same “theory” was taught as the doctrinal reason for the ban’s existence. If what is consistently taught by numerous apostles and prophets under the mantle of their office is later dismissed as manmade policy and theory upon later revelation, how are we to trust that what they insist now is God’s doctrine is what they say it is instead of merely folk doctrine and policy?
“This post is nearly 5 years old, but I was talking with someone about it, and noticed that it was lost in our site refresh a few months ago. Here it is again, with some topics that still feel relevant.”
Yes, I thought I recognised it. Have I really been bouncing around the blogs for that long. How time passes. I still, it’s the same questions have no satisfactory answer.
I hope “we don’t know why God….” is on the way out. I think it’s beneath us all – leaders and members – to not be more real about the process.
Good question, ydeve. I can’t answer all of it, but I can share that I partly based my assertion that the explanations for the priesthood ban were folk doctrine on the gospel topic essay “Race and the Priesthood” at LDS.org. Quoting from there, “Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.” Regarding the momentum these folk doctrines added to policy, “Nevertheless, given the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent, Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy.”
So how do we trust that we’re not being taught folk doctrine today? I don’t know. I think it’s quite likely that we are. And I’m not sure how to reconcile that.
Sorry. I meant, beneath us all to *be* so unreal about the process and forces at work when considering change.
(I’m not in favor of ordaining women as things are presently organized. And that boils down to “I don’t know why, but I’m not in favor of it.” I think that’s what they really mean to say, too. Let’s be more real!)
Shout out to the other Mike . Since there is another Mike, my name heretofore shall be Miguel. I have always been irritated by the practice of standing for G.A’s when they enter a room. If Elder Oaks was truly self humble, he would end the practice with an announcement in Conference. I was a little surprised that he said people had modern day visits with Heavenly Beings. Based on my readings, it is clear that no one is being visited by someone from the other side. G.A’s seemed to have tried to downplayed this expectations these days.
Elizabeth St Dunstan
“What I mean by all this is that of course the resurrected Christ isn’t lounging around the Church Office Building, and I’m glad when leaders frankly admit that. But if Revelation is truly rare, what purpose do the general authorities serve other than as an administrative body? And why must they claim certainty on such a broad range of issues?”
Personally, I think it’s so that when they speak or advise, people do what they say. It’s not like the Catholic church where a bishop, cardinal or even the pope will speak but people will do what they want or feel is right. Leadership is in large part based on trust and being a GA and especially a member of the 12 gives you automatic credibility.
I think there are lots of people who think the Q12 don’t have credibility and ignore what they say. Just sayin’
I think you also misjudge Catholics. Some follow the bishops/cardinals the same way Orthodox Mormons do. Some Catholics follow authority in a very Mormon way.
“I think you also misjudge Catholics. Some follow the bishops/cardinals the same way Orthodox Mormons do. Some Catholics follow authority in a very Mormon way.”
No argument there, MH. I was just thinking about Catholics response to their church’s teaching on contraception. The other issue is to try and define “some” and “lots”.
MH: “I think there are lots of people who think the Q12 don’t have credibility and ignore what they say. Just sayin’” Another way of looking at this is that I think EVERYONE cherry picks (whether intentionally or not) which of the Q12 they most listen to. I know that when Pres. Uchtdorf speaks, IMO he really gets the gospel, and his interpretations of things simply speak to me in a way that some of the others don’t. Some of them have hobby horse topics I’m not interested in. Some of them have said things I know to be false (whether gospel related or otherwise) that has made me wary of their talks. Those who are most ardent about stating we need to follow the Q12 100% are often just talking about the most strident voices among the Q12 who can be very divisive. Everyone applies their own understanding to what they hear.
Mike – men get a mantle, women get a veil.
Instead if men spending their nights in bars they spend their nights fulfilling callings and attending the temple while wife is stuck home with kids. This is my life and it sucks.
Nope, it does suck. I’m so sorry both for you, your wife and your children. We all need to vote with our feet on the demands that are made of us.Our children have no ability to make these choices, but suffer the consequences. Enjoy your children, church will still be there when they leave home, and you can share the experience of your family throughout their lives. The family that plays together stays together.
How great, how glorious, how complete
Redemption’s grand design,
Where justice, love, and mercy meet
In harmony divine!
Now if only we understood it completely. I agree that the “grand design” is probably complete; I think the purpose of prophets and apostles is, or should be, mostly to help us understand that grand design more completely. NOT to provide us with the goodthink and newspeak for every issue that comes up in current events. A couple of thoughts come to mind here, for which I will go out on a limb and be thankful that I am commenting late, which means it’s less likely that one of you will saw the limb off behind me.
Note: Language is an imprecise instrument, for E. Oaks or for me. My attempt to formulate some thoughts should not be read as my having made decisions or conclusions, only that I’m thinking.
First, it seems from context that when church leaders say “motherhood,” they mean more than just “the biological functions of gestation and parturition.” That somewhat blunts the “biological” criticism of those remarks; I don’t buy the equivalence of “PH/MH” but it seems to me that some women who can’t physically bear children are pretty good mothers, whether adoptive or foster or attitudinal, and some women who have no problem conceiving and delivering are not good mothers. That seems to me to be the angle that most of those talks/comments come from, in fine in fondo. My issue with that, and I don’t think that I’m alone, is that we’re really talking about parenthood, not “motherhood” per se. Men can be, and are, good nurturers and bad, attentive and not, present and absent. Calling the positive sides of those equations “motherhood” simply reinforces the old gender stereotypes of Kinder, Küche, Kirche.
Which may be what the speakers have in mind, consciously or otherwise. Which leads us full-circle, I suppose.
Second, I do think there is some truth that in some cultures (and the Sicilian one in which I served my mission is one), Church service can provide an impetus for men who would otherwise be “out with the guys” to spend more time with the family. However, in a church built on volunteer leadership and the nuclear family, it seems to me that such a commitment would be necessary whether or not priesthood were involved. I should be with my family because I have one, I love them, and the gospel helps me recognize their importance, not because I hold the priesthood.
I am also aware of cases of marriages in trouble because men are always busy with callings and church work. I don’t think there’s ever just one thing that ends a marriage, but that can be a big straw for a stressed camel to bear.
As far as the questions ydeve and Elizabeth St Dunstan are discussing, I have no answers. I speculate, however, that church leaders, like all of us, sometimes feel inspired and make pronouncements and are incorrect, as they clearly did about race exclusion. There are surely scriptural examples of that – Moroni’s letter to Pahoran, leaders in Acts who wanted to circumcise converts and keep the Jewish dietary laws come to mind. I’m sure those leaders felt that they were acting by inspiration, and they were wrong – and the fact that their stories are included in the scriptures is, I hope, instructive. Even if it leaves us pondering Elizabeth’s Big Questions, her May 23d Six Cans of Worms: “ if leaders are given a mantle to essentially get revelation the same way I do, through inspiration, then what claim can their inspiration possibly have over me? As a confirmed member, the church teaches that I have a right to the constant companionship and guidance of the Holy Ghost, so that ought to cover me for my personal needs. I then only need church leaders for capital R Revelation, . . . But if Revelation is truly rare, what purpose do the general authorities serve other than as an administrative body? ”
Well, the church does need some kind of administrative body. And many people desperately want someone to tell them how to think about things; seeking your own path and your own inspiration is hard. So hard that a third of our siblings chose to abandon that plan altogether. We’re never going to settle this dilemma and be rid of the tension between personal revelation and prophetic leadership, not as a church body. All we can do is seek our own accommodations with the Spirit.