I'm also of the faith and of course we don't describe it that way in most church discourse because it'd lose one of the most valued functions: framing human experience in a sacred narrative and privileging LDS participation and perspective.
Probably not correct to chalk all transcendent experiences up to that, and sometimes church discourse also steers towards real effort in genuinely engaging fine points of recognition, cultivation, and (occasionally) limits of extra-rational faculties and their integration into overall efforts at perception and understanding (and I consider this a helpful formative part of my development), but frequently we behave in a way that doesn't take the topic seriously as much beyond a vehicle for institutional affirmation & sacralized participation, and that's leaving alone times when we discount or even outright discard that study-it-out-in-your-mind step.
But hey, I get it, maybe keeping revelation yoked to a few valued goals is reasonable enough, because the quality of self-reported holy spirit guidance is best case bell-curve shaped and the lower 50% slopes crazy. Pretty sure every Latter-day Saint has heard some crazy stuff passed off as personal revelation (from either a kooky ward member or that handful of leaders that you're not sure the call was quite right on) and learns how to talk around that. Maybe it's better to have a low ceiling with a high floor.
