It happens that "revealed religions" often (a) have gaps in what's revealed, (b) can have what's revealed be reinterpreted, (c) it can be found that there was a misunderstanding.
Monsters under the bed? Unless it's been "revealed" that there are or aren't monsters under the bed, the question stands.
If it can be shown that the exegesis leading to the revelation in the preceding paragraph is or might be faulty, then the question stands for at least some people. This might be mere indecision; it might be people coming to different decisions over minor points.
If monsters are found under the bed, then it will be determined that there was a flaw in the understanding--the revelation was accurate, but the understanding of what it meant was flawed.
Been in all three, done that. (a) is frequent. (b) is fairly common, and things can move from "we know this" to "perhaps we don't." And (c) happens, and when it does one of several things happens, depending on the importance of the doctrine and its rigidity: some accept the change, some deny the change and become schismatics (if the minority) or those who accept the change leave (and become heretics), and some just leave that tradition altogether. You also get differences when a "late" revelation happens and is/isn't accepted by different portions of the community.
Take the Worldwide Church of God. It's gone, so it's safe.
Whether to observe Thanksgiving was left open to personal choice.
Whether to have a poor tithe every 3 years or one year in 7 was a matter of revelation for some and not for others. Same for duck: I knew people who wouldn't eat duck, I knew people who would. Birthday observance and make-up were other squishy doctrines--depending when you joined, depending who you listened to, you had different attitudes.
At some point, the organization changed when it observed Pentecost. Did you count 50 days from a starting point and start Pentecost at the end of day 50, or did you count 50 days and that day was Pentecost? Which day did you start the count from? That produced a small schism because most people didn't follow the argumentation either way. A couple of years later it was decided that people could easily divorce, another change in "revelation". There was immediately a large schism. Later changes included eliminating tithing, saying pork was fine for human consumption, and changing the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday and altering what it meant to "observe" the Sabbath--so work on Saturday was fine, it wasn't the Sabbath, and work on Sunday was fine because Sabbath observance wasn't strict. These also produced schisms. However, in each case people also accepted the changes and the rationale for them--most people for the first changes, but as they piled up, then it became more of a problem for the organization.
In other words, your claim is falsified. It's quite possible for people in revealed religions to make choices about how to answer such questions. In fact, many have to on a routine basis. Take the Episcopalians--a revealed religion, which split over gay rights.
= new reply since forum marked as read