Keithb,
I would concur with Honor that these scenarios are a little extreme. Fence Sitter may be right that some are using this as a hammer for bigotry, but I would hope that it isn't too prevelant. But I appreciate your follow-up quesitons because it does highlight that I haven't really explained the entire context of what I see. A few thoughts before I get to your scenarios:
1. Subjectivity. If we assume the existence of a God and the ability to communicate with him or her, then there are likely both objective and subjective results from these communication experiences. Some truths are based on appropriateness of time and place during our individual journeys to the Tree of Life. E.g., truth may usually reflect God’s desire for us not to take human life, but for my men in harm’s way on the Pakistani border, it may be an appropriate time to move the selector switch off Safety. There is also the need for God to prepare events from multiple perspectives. In Jerusalem on the eve of destruction, there were many prophets receiving revelation as to how to react. Some were asked to stay and go down with the ship. Others went into exile in Babylon, while Jeremiah winds up in Egypt, and Lehi is asked to leave for a new Promised Land. Roughly the same set of circumstances, different answers in revelation. In another example, President Faust has stated the view in his biography that the brethren believe that God would want good Latter-day Saints in both major US political parties. I believe God would communicate that desire to those who ask in faith, resulting in what may appear to be contradictory or subjective sets of revelation. (Don’t tell Droopy!) In a similar vein, I also believe God will inspire good men and women to join other faith systems if that is appropriate for that time and place in their journey. In another example, I believe Martin Luther King, Jr. was prepared by God. Oddly enough, I also believe that he wouldn’t have been positioned for success as a member of the LDS church during the civil rights era. I think he was inspired to become a pastor. And if he had asked in prayer at some point if he should have joined the LDS Church, I could see the answer being no. I don’t judge others for where they think they should be based on revelation. I simply hope I am where I’m supposed to be.
2. Assumptions. One issue that can cloud our perception of what is revealed and what isn’t are the natural assumptions we bring to the table. If I am leaving for work and feel inspired to bring my son with me that day, I might start making assumptions about why I was inspired to do so. Was it because of something that would have happened had he stayed at home? Was it because I just needed to spend more time with him? I would naturally start making assumptions about why I felt inspired to take this action. But this is really guess work and may or may not be the real reason. The assumptions are not part of the revelation but may influence how I interpret the revelation. Baggage.
3. Objectivity and validation. While some revelation is subjective and tailored to us individually, and I also bring to the table natural assumptions about revelation, if communication is reliable at all, then there has to be a way to sort through it. I think the pattern is shown in D&C with Joseph returning over and over again asking clarification about previous revelation both to himself and to others (scriptural passages). And so I frequently return and seek clarification. Another way to find clarification is to work in groups. We do this in bishoprics and presidencies and High Priest groups all the time. And we do it with our spouses. In simply my personal experience, it is very rare for us in these instances to believe we have received different guidance on the same subject, but even those few times are great learning experiences to work through. And we many times have experiences where a group-setting coincidence is unlikely. For example, while in one bishopric, the bishop and I (as first councilor) had pretty much decided on a scout position simply through what seemed like common sense. The person wanted to be there, his son was in that group, and he had over twenty years of experience with this sort of thing. We agreed to pray about it separately that night for confirmation (which we both expected) and to meet again the next day. Unexpectedly, we both felt prompted in separate prayers not to call him but to call a sister who had no experience in scouting and no connection to the kids in the group. And moving the sister from her current position would be difficult. It didn’t follow the path that we expected, but we both felt prompted about it. So we met and prayed together and both felt very strongly that it was the right thing to do. When we called her, she said she had also felt prompted about the calling, which would have been unexpected or unlikely in her position. I've had similar experiences with my wife over issues with kids, etc.
So to answer your specific scenarios, I would say that in most of these I would simply ask for validation myself for the claims presented to me. If I felt that they were wrong (which I probably would in these extreme scenarios presented), then I would discuss it with my mother and daughter, etc. and see if we could pray about it together or go back separately for clarification. I have some experience with this from the few instances it happened in Church presidencies and the one time in twenty years of marriage where my wife and I thought we had received different guidance for the same issue. Just I was able to resolve this in these instances through discussing it, talking about our assumptions and then going back for clarification, I would argue that I could do it in the scenarios presented as well. Although there might not be enough time in the case of my neighbor. I might have to call 911 before I ptay about it.
Cheers.