Church Catalog releases John Taylor's 1886 Revelation

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

believe that sexual intercourse (except when married) is wickedness

I wouldn’t label it wickedness as I class wickedness as more destructive, intentional sin.  I  do believe it is sinful because I believe sexual intimacy is so useful for reinforcing bonds of commitment and love, but there needs to be more than just an emotional connection that is always going to fluctuate in intensity over time as the foundation.  Marriage contracts help provide an additional level of commitment and security, which allows for more willingness to give to each other imo.  I think getting sexually involved prior to making commitment is like taking college courses before going to high school.  Just not going to get the same benefit as you would with the stronger foundation and for many, it may be setting one up for failure.  And failure is more damaging (in the case of college you have lost tuition and damaged your GPA; withrelationships, it may lead someone to be less open and more self protective the next time, etc.)

Failure of relationships is typically a strong stressor for most people as well.

There is also the additional security marriage gives to kids which is very, very important imo (not saying it is always of primary importance, that abusive marriages need to stay together for the kids kind of thing; the care of children should have a massive amount of weight as part of our decisions, even for those who decide they don’t want children imo).

Edited June 24, 2025 by Calm

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Teancum said:

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."

God also commands, through Joseph Smith, that we should personally ask all things of God.  He also declares through Joseph Smith that by each one of us seeking Him we would receive "revelation upon revelation" and "knowledge upon knowledge" and that we must study things for ourselves and then go to Him directly for guidance.  T

Outside of the Doctrine and Covenants, Joseph Smith taught people how to receive personal revelation "A person may profit by noticing the first intimation of the spirit of revelation; for instance, when you feel pure intelligence flowing into you, it may give you sudden strokes of ideas, so that by noticing it, you may find it fulfilled the same day or soon; (i.e.) those things that were presented unto your minds by the Spirit of God, will come to pass; and thus by learning the Spirit of God and understanding it, you may grow into the principle of revelation, until you become perfect in Christ Jesus"

Prophets and apostles claim to have a unique stewardship, but not a unique revelatory relationship with God.  Their stewardship is for the church and to help usher in the kingdom of God, but we retain our stewardship over ourselves, and prophets and apostles have spend a lot of time imploring us to personally "hear Him".  In fact, Pres. Nelson has devoted much of His stewardship trying to convince the membership that without a personal relationship with God, we will not spiritually survive what is coming.

 

[OGHoosier]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Prophets and apostles claim to have a unique stewardship, but not a unique revelatory relationship with God. 

This is a fantastic point that I think has been sublimated by the ways we talk about the prophets and apostles, and have since the 1950s. The presiding high priest (the title given to the President of the Church in D&C 107:65-66) is to the church as the bishop is to the ward, and is no more or less human, but it seems like the expectations for the two offices are very different. 

 Matthew Bowman wrote a fantastic piece for Wayfare on the conjunction of the roles of prophet and priest and the consequences of our weighting the "prophet" side over the "priest" side: https://www.wayfaremagazine.org/p/the-prophet-and-the-priest?utm_source=publication-search

Edited June 25, 2025 by OGHoosier

[Notatbm]

7 hours ago, Teancum said:

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.

Esp in respects to hey I received a revelation from the Lord! We need to have a vote to decide if we are going to obey him. 
 

the leadership is pathetic… full of excuses and no one is in charge… no one

 

[Notatbm]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

God also commands, through Joseph Smith, that we should personally ask all things of God.  He also declares through Joseph Smith that by each one of us seeking Him we would receive "revelation upon revelation" and "knowledge upon knowledge" and that we must study things for ourselves and then go to Him directly for guidance.  T

True…, but then we have apostles who say this:

To illustrate his point, Mr. Oaks told a story about some church members whose LDS parents claimed to have received a revelation which stated that they no longer were required to tithe or attend church. When asked to comment, Mr. Oaks said, “Well, I don’t question your parents’ revelation, but they got it from the wrong source.” [-1:21:20]

Edited June 25, 2025 by Notatbm

[Notatbm]

6 hours 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.

I think the church would agree for example that if a member was to file fraudulent disclosures with the government along with affirmations they are true would be evil and a violation of not only many tenets of Mormon teachings but a violation of the ten commandments as well. It is not being honest with your fellow man and can and should result in the revocation of a temple recommend. 
 

when the church does it.? Good to go. This matter is closed. 

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, bluebell said:

God also commands, through Joseph Smith, that we should personally ask all things of God.  He also declares through Joseph Smith that by each one of us seeking Him we would receive "revelation upon revelation" and "knowledge upon knowledge" and that we must study things for ourselves and then go to Him directly for guidance.  T

Outside of the Doctrine and Covenants, Joseph Smith taught people how to receive personal revelation "A person may profit by noticing the first intimation of the spirit of revelation; for instance, when you feel pure intelligence flowing into you, it may give you sudden strokes of ideas, so that by noticing it, you may find it fulfilled the same day or soon; (i.e.) those things that were presented unto your minds by the Spirit of God, will come to pass; and thus by learning the Spirit of God and understanding it, you may grow into the principle of revelation, until you become perfect in Christ Jesus"

Prophets and apostles claim to have a unique stewardship, but not a unique revelatory relationship with God.  Their stewardship is for the church and to help usher in the kingdom of God, but we retain our stewardship over ourselves, and prophets and apostles have spend a lot of time imploring us to personally "hear Him".  In fact, Pres. Nelson has devoted much of His stewardship trying to convince the membership that without a personal relationship with God, we will not spiritually survive what is coming.

 

Remember when Hiram Page and his peep stone?  And how fast Joseph received a "revelation" that essentially said that Joseph was the only person to receive revelation for the church?  Do the LDS GAs constantly teach that we should "follow the brethren" and that they cannot lead us astray? Did Bruce McConkie scold Eugen England and tell England that it was McConkie's job to declare doctrine stating "It is my province to teach to the Church what the doctrine is. It is your province to echo what I say or to remain silent." https://www.eugeneengland.org/a-professor-and-apostle-correspond-eugene-england-and-bruce-r-mcconkie-on-the-nature-of-god

Can a person receive a revelation that contradicts what church leaders state? What happens to them if they do so?  How about numerous talks a where GAs equate the words of LDS Prophets and Apostles and if you disagree with them then it is the same as disagreeing with Jesus? I agree with you that the church teaches we all are entitled to revelation but only in our own space and stewardships. One cannot openly disagree with LDS GAs and be considered to be in good standing in the church. So sure, revelation for you personally but if it disagrees with church leadership one needs to be quiet about it.  I am sure you are familiar with Benson's 14 Fundamentals in Following The Prophet?  This talk has been referenced a number of times in General Conference over the number of years so it still seems popular. What are your thoughts on that talk?

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/ezra-taft-benson/fourteen-fundamentals-following-prophet/

Like I have said before, it seems you and I grew up and participated in a different church. 

 

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, Notatbm said:

True…, but then we have apostles who say this:

To illustrate his point, Mr. Oaks told a story about some church members whose LDS parents claimed to have received a revelation which stated that they no longer were required to tithe or attend church. When asked to comment, Mr. Oaks said, “Well, I don’t question your parents’ revelation, but they got it from the wrong source.” [-1:21:20]

I'm not really sure how this is supposed to counter my previous post.  Were you thinking that I was suggesting that prophets and apostles teach that all personal revelation is always true and correct and that we can never be lead astray by it?  

[bluebell]

42 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Remember when Hiram Page and his peep stone?  And how fast Joseph received a "revelation" that essentially said that Joseph was the only person to receive revelation for the church?  Do the LDS GAs constantly teach that we should "follow the brethren" and that they cannot lead us astray? Did Bruce McConkie scold Eugen England and tell England that it was McConkie's job to declare doctrine stating "It is my province to teach to the Church what the doctrine is. It is your province to echo what I say or to remain silent." https://www.eugeneengland.org/a-professor-and-apostle-correspond-eugene-england-and-bruce-r-mcconkie-on-the-nature-of-god

 

I do remember it.  Do you remember that the issue was that Hyrum Page was receiving revelation for the church and that that was why he was shut down so fast?  If he had been receiving personal revelation, even if it was from a bad source, it would have been a completely different issue.

But no church can survive where everyone is claiming to speak for God for the church, and all saying contradictory things.  That would very obviously be chaos and confusion.  I think it would be more of a red flag if God was ok with that as it would be setting His children up for a lot of confusion and pain. 

It's reasonable that God would tamp that down pretty quickly.  

The episode between Joseph McConkie and professor England on whether or not God is still progressing or is not all knowing sounds kind of awesome.  I would have loved to have been there during that lecture. I think that Elder Bruce R. McConkie's response was a big misstep and I appreciate that President Kimball (the prophet at the time) stepped in to let Elder McConkie know that he needed to make sure that people knew his talk on the 7 deadly heresies (his rebuttal to Prof. England's views) was his opinion only and not doctrine-

President Kimball was not doctrinaire, and he felt a need to interfere in doctrinal matters only when he saw strong statements of personal opinion as being divisive. Elder McConkie’s talk at BYU on “The Seven Deadly Heresies” implied he had authority to define heresy. . . . President Kimball responded to the uproar [caused by the devotional] by calling Elder McConkie in to discuss the talk. As a consequence, Elder McConkie revised the talk for publication so as to clarify that he was stating personal views and not official Church doctrine.

Quote

 

Can a person receive a revelation that contradicts what church leaders state? What happens to them if they do so?  How about numerous talks a where GAs equate the words of LDS Prophets and Apostles and if you disagree with them then it is the same as disagreeing with Jesus? I agree with you that the church teaches we all are entitled to revelation but only in our own space and stewardships. One cannot openly disagree with LDS GAs and be considered to be in good standing in the church. So sure, revelation for you personally but if it disagrees with church leadership one needs to be quiet about it.  I am sure you are familiar with Benson's 14 Fundamentals in Following The Prophet?  This talk has been referenced a number of times in General Conference over the number of years so it still seems popular. What are your thoughts on that talk?

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/ezra-taft-benson/fourteen-fundamentals-following-prophet/

Like I have said before, it seems you and I grew up and participated in a different church. 

 

Not for the church they can't.  Prophet's have a unique stewardship over the church.  We can disagree with them and do whatever we want but if we are mislead there will be consequences, of course.  Not punishments but natural consequences from moving away from God and following a different voice.   But, our leaders don't stand alone.  "As Elder Boyd K. Packer explained in a devotional address at BYU in 1991, safety lies in the motto, “Follow the Brethren, not the Brother." (A great quote I found in your link about Prof. England).

Our leaders certainly aren't perfect.  But the safety is in following them (as a group) in conjunction with the scriptures and the revelations of the Holy Ghost.  With three witnesses, we are much less likely to go astray.  We also are very much allowed to disagree with them, as long as we aren't trying to do so authoritatively.  Your link about the public disagreement between Elder McConkie and Prof. England is a perfect example of that, as Prof. England never lost his standing in the church.

[Teancum]

25 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I do remember it.  Do you remember that the issue was that Hyrum Page was receiving revelation for the church and that that was why he was shut down so fast?  If he had been receiving personal revelation, even if it was from a bad source, it would have been a completely different issue.

But no church can survive where everyone is claiming to speak for God for the church, and all saying contradictory things.  That would very obviously be chaos and confusion.  I think it would be more of a red flag if God was ok with that as it would be setting His children up for a lot of confusion and pain. 

It's reasonable that God would tamp that down pretty quickly.  

The episode between Joseph McConkie and professor England on whether or not God is still progressing or is not all knowing sounds kind of awesome.  I would have loved to have been there during that lecture. I think that Elder Bruce R. McConkie's response was a big misstep and I appreciate that President Kimball (the prophet at the time) stepped in to let Elder McConkie know that he needed to make sure that people knew his talk on the 7 deadly heresies (his rebuttal to Prof. England's views) was his opinion only and not doctrine-

President Kimball was not doctrinaire, and he felt a need to interfere in doctrinal matters only when he saw strong statements of personal opinion as being divisive. Elder McConkie’s talk at BYU on “The Seven Deadly Heresies” implied he had authority to define heresy. . . . President Kimball responded to the uproar [caused by the devotional] by calling Elder McConkie in to discuss the talk. As a consequence, Elder McConkie revised the talk for publication so as to clarify that he was stating personal views and not official Church doctrine.

Not for the church they can't.  Prophet's have a unique stewardship over the church.  We can disagree with them and do whatever we want but if we are mislead there will be consequences, of course.  Not punishments but natural consequences from moving away from God and following a different voice.   But, our leaders don't stand alone.  "As Elder Boyd K. Packer explained in a devotional address at BYU in 1991, safety lies in the motto, “Follow the Brethren, not the Brother." (A great quote I found in your link about Prof. England).

Our leaders certainly aren't perfect.  But the safety is in following them (as a group) in conjunction with the scriptures and the revelations of the Holy Ghost.  With three witnesses, we are much less likely to go astray.  We also are very much allowed to disagree with them, as long as we aren't trying to do so authoritatively.  Your link about the public disagreement between Elder McConkie and Prof. England is a perfect example of that, as Prof. England never lost his standing in the church.

Fair enough and a good summary. But Benson's talk is still troubling to me in that it gives the Prophet a lot more authority than it seems the Prophet should have. We know Benson was very political and rather extreme to the right, IMO. Heck, I remember as a kid in the 60s my dad complaining about Elder Benson and his far right John Birch Society activism.  And my dad was pretty conservative in his political views. If I recall, in the President Kimball biography by his son, it seem President Kimball was not happy with Benson's 14 fundamentals of the Prophet talk but never did anything publicly about it,.  

[stelf]

Some of these responses are just wild to me. Am I crazy or was I taught to sing "Follow the prophet, he knows the way" or was that just for fun?

[bluebell]

46 minutes ago, stelf said:

Some of these responses are just wild to me. Am I crazy or was I taught to sing "Follow the prophet, he knows the way" or was that just for fun?

Who is advocating to not follow the prophet?

[Notatbm]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm not really sure how this is supposed to counter my previous post.  Were you thinking that I was suggesting that prophets and apostles teach that all personal revelation is always true and correct and that we can never be lead astray by it?  

Not trying to counter, just saying that despite the GA leadership telling us we can get our own revelation, they are not shy about saying “yea that’s nice, your revelation is fake.” 
 

Revelation a member received is just as valid as the revelation they received in the past about blacks and the priesthood (ban) or the salamander letter for example. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

The General Authorities are given the keys to direct the Church. Do they do it perfectly? No. If they open or close a door (so to speak) that they shouldn't have, the Lord will deal with them in His time and His way- but either way they have the keys. My job, just as the ancient Israelites, is the take my sacrifice to the Temple, even if "Eli's sons" are up to no good.

Edited June 25, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Notatbm said:

Not trying to counter, just saying that despite the GA leadership telling us we can get our own revelation, they are not shy about saying “yea that’s nice, your revelation is fake.” 
 

Revelation a member received is just as valid as the revelation they received in the past about blacks and the priesthood (ban) or the salamander letter for example. 

You're right.  They do take their roles seriously.  Agreeing with every revelation that comes along would be counterproductive to their roles and responsibilities.  And it would also be kind of weird in a church that believes in the existence of literal truth.  Agreeing that everyone is right regardless of what they believed God was telling them would make a prophet and apostle completely useless.  

If a person was convinced of the truthfulness of their revelations, and those went against the doctrines of the church, then the person would need to separate themselves from the church.  But if their revelations were from God, then no harm would come from doing so.  Ultimately, we are all responsible for ourselves.

Besides all that, you seem to feel comfortable telling the GA leadership that their revelations are fake.  It would be weird to hold it against them for doing the same thing.

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, Teancum said:

Fair enough and a good summary. But Benson's talk is still troubling to me in that it gives the Prophet a lot more authority than it seems the Prophet should have. We know Benson was very political and rather extreme to the right, IMO. Heck, I remember as a kid in the 60s my dad complaining about Elder Benson and his far right John Birch Society activism.  And my dad was pretty conservative in his political views. If I recall, in the President Kimball biography by his son, it seem President Kimball was not happy with Benson's 14 fundamentals of the Prophet talk but never did anything publicly about it,.  

President Kimball seemed to by the type of leader that allowed people to work in their stewardship without a lot of oversight, even when he personally didn't agree with their message.  Which is probably ironic given the nature of the topic and some of the charges leveled in the thread about prophets and apostles trying to keep everyone on a short leash.   

(Here's the quote that supports your assertion about his feelings on this talk--“Spencer [Kimball] felt concern about the talk, wanting to protect the Church against being misunderstood as espousing ultraconservative politics or an unthinking ‘follow the leader’ mentality.” He probably had some of the same concerns with the talk that you have)

[teddyaware]

9 hours ago, stelf said:

Some of these responses are just wild to me. Am I crazy or was I taught to sing "Follow the prophet, he knows the way" or was that just for fun?

You must be new to this discussion board. There are a fair number of participants here who are bitter former believers who’ve left the church but find themselves unable to make a clean break by walking away and kindly leaving their former spiritual home and family alone. Paradoxically, these same former believers often find that they need to come here to nourish their unbelief by engaging in a steady diet of attacks on the restored gospel, attacks which amount to a twisted inversion of the process by which true believers nourish and strengthen their faith in the restored gospel by bearing faithful witness to its truthfulness. As a consequence, this is not exactly the best place to engage in testimony strengthening dialogue. But on the positive side, it’s at least a place where one can experience firsthand the principle of opposition in all things in action.

 

Edited June 26, 2025 by teddyaware

[The Nehor]

On 6/24/2025 at 3:27 PM, Senator said:

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

I’m just emotionally cheating. It is fine.

[The Nehor]

12 hours ago, Teancum said:

Fair enough and a good summary. But Benson's talk is still troubling to me in that it gives the Prophet a lot more authority than it seems the Prophet should have. We know Benson was very political and rather extreme to the right, IMO. Heck, I remember as a kid in the 60s my dad complaining about Elder Benson and his far right John Birch Society activism.  And my dad was pretty conservative in his political views. If I recall, in the President Kimball biography by his son, it seem President Kimball was not happy with Benson's 14 fundamentals of the Prophet talk but never did anything publicly about it,.  

President Kimball did eventually call President Benson out and lambasted him for his political obsessions. He held back for a long time though. Elder Benson had all kinds of crazy schemes and several times was angling to be a third-party presidential candidate. He seemed to have an unhealthy fixation on political power.

He also had a number of harebrained schemes. This was one of the weirdest:
 

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

this is not exactly the best place to engage in testimony strengthening dialogue

Understatement of the decade. 😂

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

President Kimball did eventually call President Benson out and lambasted him for his political obsessions. He held back for a long time though. Elder Benson had all kinds of crazy schemes and several times was angling to be a third-party presidential candidate. He seemed to have an unhealthy fixation on political power.

He also had a number of harebrained schemes. This was one of the weirdest:
 

 

One man's "hair-brained" weird "scheme" (ie... actually fight to win a war) is another man's common sense.

[MrShorty]

21 hours ago, teddyaware said:

As a consequence, this is not exactly the best place to engage in testimony strengthening dialogue.

Obviously getting a long ways away from the OP, but I find this accusation interesting. According to the board guidelines, this forum is for 

Quote

People of all faiths are welcome to engage in substantive and civil discussion about topics related to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Mormonism in general.

I don't know what constitutes "testimony strengthening dialogue," but it seems to me that "substantive, civil discussion" can strengthen testimony just as easily as it can weaken testimony.

I am reminded of the oft quoted statement from Pres. J. Reuben Clark, "If  we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed." I doubt life and faith and truth are as dichotomous as all that, but I think it is valuable for my faith to have substantive, civil discussion with a variety of people of differing faith and beliefs.

That said, some of my investigation has "harmed" previously held beliefs. Polygamy and "celestial marriage" -- the main topic of the OP as it relates to Pres. Taylor's 1886 "revelation" --  is certainly one of those topics where some of what I used to believe was true has been harmed, but I think such inquiry gets me closer to truth. Having the ability to wrestle with the nuances around these topics makes my faith in core principles (like the goodness of God and the atonement of Christ) more resilient. I don't think I would find this same resilience in an "echo chamber" where nobody dared challenge belief.

I guess at the end of the day, nobody is forced to participate here. If someone wants a "fluff" discussion board where people post soundbites and all of the comments are some variation on, "Amen," those exist out there. I like that this group has regulars who are willing to challenge my testimony so that my testimony can grow (even when that means discarding previously held beliefs).

 

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I don't know what constitutes "testimony strengthening dialogue," but it seems to me that "substantive, civil discussion" can strengthen testimony just as easily as it can weaken testimony

My interaction with the board over the decades, including with criticism and critics, has strengthened my testimony, not weakened it.  And I had what I believe was a strong one when I first got online.

[bluebell]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

My interaction with the board over the decades, including with criticism and critics, has strengthened my testimony, not weakened it.  And I had what I believe was a strong one when I first got online.

Me too.  And anytime we speak of the Savior we are engaging in "testimony strengthening dialogue". That happens here a lot, and it seems like a perfect place for it to be happening.   

[Senator]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

My interaction with the board over the decades, including with criticism and critics, has strengthened my testimony, not weakened it.  And I had what I believe was a strong one when I first got online.

I don't think I can say that this board has strengthened my testimony.  In fact, in the earlier days it had a deleterious effect on many of my long held beliefs and understanding of faith, testimony, church, gospel.  But in the long run, that was a good thing, because those things needed to be challenged and informed.

So, did it strengthen?  No.  Change? Yes.