Church Catalog releases John Taylor's 1886 Revelation

[Notatbm]

58 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Where is the evidence that Joseph had sex with any of them?

Google: Ugo Perego

They are “married” - it is safe to assume he had sex with several of them… to include the 14 year old and a few other guys wives. A hubby and wife have got to be out of their mind to let some other guy marry the wife. People who are ok with that program likely bought into consummation of the marriage as well. After all it would be ok with God if they did right? 

[Notatbm]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Where is the evidence that Joseph had sex with any of them?

Google: Ugo Perego

They are “married.” Thats what married people do or are you an exception?

[ZealouslyStriving]

28 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

They are “married.” Thats what married people do or are you an exception?

Apparently, you have only looked into this enough to make yourself look uneducated.

They were "sealed". What that actually entailed is up for debate.

How is it that a man that got his wife pregnant every time he came within 6 ft. of her didn't manage to father a single child with all the many women he was supposedly bedding?

Make that make sense.

[Notatbm]

36 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Apparently, you have only looked into this enough to make yourself look uneducated.

They were "sealed". What that actually entailed is up for debate.

How is it that a man that got his wife pregnant every time he came within 6 ft. of her didn't manage to father a single child with all the many women he was supposedly bedding?

Make that make sense.

I’m going to assume you are married and have kids. If that’s true, absent your or your (husband / wife’s ??  Don’t know if u are Male or Fem) personal testimony, what evidence exists y’all had sexual relations until someone was pregnant?  Did you write it in your journal, did you bragg to your friends? Did you take pics or make videos??? Doubt it just like the rest of us here. Being married in and of itself ( time and eternity in Mormonland) it is assumed married couples have sexual relations unless they are violating their covenant to multiply. 
 Anyone who believe JS didn’t have any sexual relations at all with any of these women is delusional. If I was married to them I’d have sex with them..  I mean we’re married so why not? 
 

This church used to make American Mormon couples who civilly married wait at least a year before they could be sealed . Why is that? The official narrative was to ensure the newly married couple understood the importance of the endowment and sealing before being sealed.  Funny thing is I went through the temple (our first endowment my wife as well) one week before we were sealed. No one cared if we understood a thing about it. 
 

the real reason for the one year wait ? The church just assumed the couple had been having pre-marital sex before getting civilly married. It’s a year of probation and how dare you get married civilly first.? With the exception of a new convert in the marriage, civil marriage in the us for Mormons is scandalous. Why?? Because they were fornicating You s automatically assumed 

[ZealouslyStriving]

26 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

I’m going to assume you are married and have kids. If that’s true, absent your or your (husband / wife’s ??  Don’t know if u are Male or Fem) personal testimony, what evidence exists y’all had sexual relations until someone was pregnant?  Did you write it in your journal, did you bragg to your friends? Did you take pics or make videos??? Doubt it just like the rest of us here. Being married in and of itself ( time and eternity in Mormonland) it is assumed married couples have sexual relations unless they are violating their covenant to multiply. 
 Anyone who believe JS didn’t have any sexual relations at all with any of these women is delusional. If I was married to them I’d have sex with them..  I mean we’re married so why not? 
 

This church used to make American Mormon couples who civilly married wait at least a year before they could be sealed . Why is that? The official narrative was to ensure the newly married couple understood the importance of the endowment and sealing before being sealed.  Funny thing is I went through the temple (our first endowment my wife as well) one week before we were sealed. No one cared if we understood a thing about it. 
 

the real reason for the one year wait ? The church just assumed the couple had been having pre-marital sex before getting civilly married. It’s a year of probation and how dare you get married civilly first.? With the exception of a new convert in the marriage, civil marriage in the us for Mormons is scandalous. Why?? Because they were fornicating You s automatically assumed 

Did you ever Google "Ugo Perego"? Do you understand DNA?

Your assumptions and what you would do mean little to this conversation.

[Notatbm]

Just now, ZealouslyStriving said:

Did you ever Google "Ugo Perego"? Do you understand DNA?

Your assumptions and what you would do mean little to this conversation.

I didn’t say he had kids. 

[Notatbm]

Just now, Notatbm said:

I didn’t say he had kids. 

Can you provide evidence from the church where they insist he didn’t have sec with any of his polygamous wives? Even the church had not come out and denied all sexual relations.

[ZealouslyStriving]

34 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

Can you provide evidence from the church where they insist he didn’t have sec with any of his polygamous wives? Even the church had not come out and denied all sexual relations.

Can you provide evidence other than your assumptions and what you would do?

I'll stick with the DNA, and the idea that most most of his sealings were dynastic in nature with any full consummation reserved for the next life- while not denying there may have been marital relations in a few. I highly doubt he engaged in intercourse with those to whom he was sealed whom had living faithful husbands. That is my assumption. 😀

Edited June 22, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving
their, there, they're

[BCSpace]

On 6/21/2025 at 4:23 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

Where is the evidence that Joseph had sex with any of them?

Temple Lot Case. Apart from those, most of the sealings appear to be purely sealings (dynastic).

[Teancum]

On 6/19/2025 at 7:46 PM, Tacenda said:

They're only human, so there ya go. Lately I'm not bothered, got more important things like this world we live in to worry about now. I wish all I had to worry about was church history. If only!  

That is right. They are only human. They are not special. They do not have any special communications from some God more than any other human has or does not have.

[Teancum]

On 6/15/2025 at 4:14 PM, rpn said:

Seems to me that it is not an unreasonable interpretation that when John Taylor wrote the revelation and died soon thereafter and Wilford Woodruff received the Manifesto eliminating plural marriage, God took John Taylor  home because he wasn't hearing what God wanted.   (Hence when son John W. Taylor won't let it go, he gets excommunicated.)   Our leaders are mere mortals after all.   Sometimes they make mistakes and taking them home in death is a solid way to stop the obstruction, so that the right teachings can move forward. 

Or Wilford Woodruff and the other LDS leaders where mistaken. Woodruff didn't last all that long after the manifesto did he?  Or more likely, Taylor was adamantly opposed to doing away with plural marriage and so he imagined up and revelation. Woodruff was in that camp I believe right up to the 1890 manifesto. But he realized that the US government was more powerful than the church and that the church would economically at least, be destroyed so he capitulated. Yet there was plenty of post manifesto plural marriage till finally, JFS threw down the gauntlet. The Church leaders, after all was said and done, wanted Utah to be a state. See, what an easy explanation. No god involved. Just humans slogging along.  If there was some god involved in all this he did a pretty sloppy job of it and was weaker than the might and power of the US government.

[Teancum]

On 6/15/2025 at 9:26 PM, JLHPROF said:

2) As far as accepting 1886 revelation AND the 1890 Manifesto as both true and valid we'd need to understand God's purpose in revealing both and the actions of those who received both documents from the Lord. Because they would understand the intent better than we do.

When did it become the apologetic way to approach the revelations these LDS Prophets and Apostles received in such a pedantic and tortured way?  Both Taylor and Woodruff could not be correct. But they could have both been wrong.

[Tacenda]

There is ongoing bad fruit falling from the polygamy tree. I think it was a mistake for JS to undergo, and his thinking that it needed to be restored at the time. I will reiterate many true believing scholars or folks, that our leaders are fallible and human. But sadly this happened, along with the blacks being denied the Priesthood for quite some time.  

Edited June 24, 2025 by Tacenda

[Teancum]

On 6/16/2025 at 12:53 AM, Calm said:

While that is possible, the man was 78 years old and had been through some very hard times in his life.  Death at that age would not be unusual or the least unexpected.  

Or maybe his life was protected until he could receive and record that revelation and only then did the Lord allow his mission to end.

If one starts using death as a sign that a prophet was making a misstep, why not assume Joseph had when the Lord had protected him before and since him every other president made it to their mid 70s and most late 80’s, early 90s, I believe?

Just pointing out the problems with that line of reasoning.  I do not actually believe Joseph was taken because he made a misstep and while I assume it is a possibility God did shorten some lives, but just saying it’s going to be our personal bias that will indicate who is most likely as age is an unlikely indicator given they lived longer than expected lives if one goes by typical stats for those who make it to their 20th birthday I am guessing…I have looked into it in the past but don’t have details at hand to demonstrate this, but AI puts a likely additional 35-40 years if one had made it to 20 up to 1950s.

I find it specious to say some LDS leader was about to lead the church astray so God took him. As you note, it could be applied in many situation.  My dad often joked, and not always in jest, that God took Harold B Lee because he was about to lead the church astray. I never liked that line of thinking.

[Senator]

On 6/21/2025 at 6:45 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

Can you provide evidence other than your assumptions and what you would do?

I'll stick with the DNA, and the idea that most most of his sealings were dynastic in nature with any full consummation reserved for the next life- while not denying there may have been marital relations in a few. I highly doubt he engaged in intercourse with those to whom he was sealed whom had living faithful husbands. That is my assumption. 😀

This "mostly" apologetic cracks me up!  Honey, there's nothing to worry about.  Nearly all my relationships with other women are non-sexual. Relax

Edited June 24, 2025 by Senator

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

There is ongoing bad fruit falling from the polygamy tree. I think it was a mistake for JS to undergo, and his thinking that it needed to be restored at the time. I will reiterate many true believing scholars or folks, that our leaders are fallible and human. But sadly this happened, along with the blacks being denied the Priesthood for quite some time.  

There is some bad fruit falling from the polygamy tree, definitely.  There's bad fruit that falls from the monogamy tree too though.  Lots of abuses, in both camps.  That doesn't mean that polygamy is of God.  Not at all.  But for me it does impact the parameters that I can use to judge whether it is or whether it isn't.  

In my view, the existence of bad actors in polygamy doesn't work as a standard for whether it's of God or not, because there are so many bad actors in monogamy that I would have to throw that baby out with the bathwater at the same time and for the same reasons.

Edited June 24, 2025 by bluebell

[Senator]

On 6/20/2025 at 5:49 PM, Calm said:

Verse 41 seems to suggest women can be married to more than one husband in the new and everlasting covenant if and only if God has appointed the second sealing/covenant.  If it was always adultery, then why would the bolded section be required?

 

Personally, red flags go a flyin whenever I'm presented with the ideology that something is wickedness, except when God tells me to do it.

[bluebell]

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

That is right. They are only human. They are not special. They do not have any special communications from some God more than any other human has or does not have.

I very much believe in the need for prophets and apostolic authority, and I also completely agree with this statement.  While prophets have unique responsibilities, they do not have, and have never claimed to have, special communications from God more than anyone else.

As moses said, "Would God that all of the Lord's people were prophets...."

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Senator said:

Personally, red flags go a flyin whenever I'm presented with the ideology that something is wickedness, except when God tells me to do it.

For me, it could be a red flag, but it also could be legitimate.  For example, I believe that sexual intercourse is wickedness (before marriage), except when God says it's not (after marriage).  But I see what you are saying, and I agree that a theology that gives us permission to do something we've been taught/believed before was wrong in His eyes is suspect.    

[Senator]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

For me, it could be a red flag, but it also could be legitimate.  For example, I believe that sexual intercourse is wickedness (before marriage), except when God says it's not (after marriage).  But I see what you are saying, and I agree that a theology that gives us permission to do something we've been taught/believed before was wrong in His eyes is suspect.    

How then do you differentiate? 

[Teancum]

52 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I very much believe in the need for prophets and apostolic authority, and I also completely agree with this statement.  While prophets have unique responsibilities, they do not have, and have never claimed to have, special communications from God more than anyone else.

As moses said, "Would God that all of the Lord's people were prophets...."

Really? LDS Prophets and Apostles DO NOT claim to have a unique revelatory relationship with God?  Are you really LDS?  How about you support that position. You are clearly mistaken.  Let's start with Joseph Smith.   You know, the one where Jesus says "This generation shall have my word through you."

[Teancum]

55 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I very much believe in the need for prophets and apostolic authority, and I also completely agree with this statement.  While prophets have unique responsibilities, they do not have, and have never claimed to have, special communications from God more than anyone else.

As moses said, "Would God that all of the Lord's people were prophets...."

By the way, we do agree that nobody has some more special access to some God if one exists. But we sure do not agree upon the idea that LDS GAs don't claim some higher  access to that God than the average joe.

[bluebell]

42 minutes ago, Senator said:

How then do you differentiate? 

I don't think there is a foolproof way to differentiate--there's always room for our biases and weaknesses to intercede--but in my limited experience it's a combination of the testimony of the Holy Ghost, the words and teachings of current leaders, and the teachings in the scriptures.  

That's three witnesses, and in the mouth of two or three witnesses.....

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

By the way, we do agree that nobody has some more special access to some God if one exists. But we sure do not agree upon the idea that LDS GAs don't claim some higher  access to that God than the average joe.

I don't have any experience with the bolded.  What does a claim like that look like?  Maybe I've seen it but just didn't recognize it.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Senator said:

Personally, red flags go a flyin whenever I'm presented with the ideology that something is wickedness, except when God tells me to do it.

It would make me very cautious about examining whether it was a personal desire or actual inspiration.  There have been inspirations that I have had that go against my natural instincts as well as training (BS in psych, nothing that authoritative given the variety of approaches in psych) that have imo proven to be correct, but nothing I found morally problematic.  The biggest one was stepping back and taking a more hands off, let her make her own decisions with my daughter when she was 12, I am very, very hands on as in being room mother every year, going in as teacher’s aide when my son got a lousy teacher to prevent her from screaming at the children as she was known to do…it worked quite well even though all she had me do was go xerox handouts the teacher never used), but my daughter  definitely over the years has shown it hits her as pressure and not support and she freezes under pressure.  I was constantly worrying I was failing her as a parent not being more pushy with the useful stuff, but now I know it would have been worthless for her in many ways because of her health restricts her.

I sincerely don’t know how .i would respond to something I found morally reprehensible.  I do find it shocking I was apparently as successful as I was holding back on my usual approaches with my daughter.  That spiritual experience was very short, but drilled through me so deeply it overrides my doubts…which is very remarkable given how I respond to doubts in other areas of my life.

Edited June 24, 2025 by Calm