Is it sinful to operate any other way than to assume that everything the 12th says is from God

[telnetd]

On 3/20/2026 at 10:39 AM, bluebell said:

I do, but I think this line of questioning is illustrating a misunderstanding of what I said earlier.  I wasn’t specifically speaking about revelations that were presented at general conference.  I was speaking about how new revelations and understandings of gospel principles and doctrines have superseded previous revelations and understandings, and that we can see evidence of that throughout the history of general conference talks.

Do you have examples for the period after 1978?

[telnetd]

On 3/19/2026 at 2:35 PM, Calm said:

Not until you define what counts as revelation for you as I don’t want to waste my time. 

I consider "revelation" to constitute a divine disclosure of sacred truth, purpose, or 
knowledge from God, designed to guide faith, doctrine, and behavior. This could involve 
new teaching to correct previously held false beliefs.

Based on whether you accept that or you can provide your own definition, would you give
some examples of "revelation" in General Conference talks after 1978?

[bluebell]

On 3/21/2026 at 10:19 AM, telnetd said:

Do you have examples for the period after 1978?

Teachings around homosexuality are one example.

[telnetd]

15 hours ago, bluebell said:

Teachings around homosexuality are one example.

The Bible contains several passages often interpreted as condemning same-sex sexual 
acts, primarily in Leviticus (18:22, 20:13) and Pauline epistles (Romans 1:26-27, 1 
Corinthians 6:9-10), labeling them as "abominations" or "unnatural".

More is explained in this article.

Is there something new you have learned about homosexuality that is outside of
current scripture?

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, telnetd said:

The Bible contains several passages often interpreted as condemning same-sex sexual 
acts, primarily in Leviticus (18:22, 20:13) and Pauline epistles (Romans 1:26-27, 1 
Corinthians 6:9-10), labeling them as "abominations" or "unnatural".

More is explained in this article.

Is there something new you have learned about homosexuality that is outside of
current scripture?

I learned that Paul’s explanation for why people engage in homosexual behavior is objectively incorrect so we can probably ignore everything he said on the subject since he showed he has no idea what the hell he is talking about.

[bluebell]

21 hours ago, telnetd said:

The Bible contains several passages often interpreted as condemning same-sex sexual 
acts, primarily in Leviticus (18:22, 20:13) and Pauline epistles (Romans 1:26-27, 1 
Corinthians 6:9-10), labeling them as "abominations" or "unnatural".

More is explained in this article.

Is there something new you have learned about homosexuality that is outside of
current scripture?

Yes.

What is the purpose of this new line of questioning? It feels like you’re moving the goal posts around after each of my previous answers, trying to find something new that you can catch me on to prove that I’m wrong when the last question didn’t work.

[manol]

On 3/19/2026 at 1:41 PM, 3DOP said:

Just for the record, informed Catholics are aware that in 2,000 years there have been only two times when a pope has certainly spoken infallibly.

While neither informed nor Catholic, I am definitely curious... ??

 

On 3/19/2026 at 1:23 PM, telnetd said:

If you could provide several significant things you have heard in General Conference in
the last 10 years you would consider "revelation" for the church.

 

On 3/19/2026 at 1:25 PM, telnetd said:

Do you have something after 1978?

 

You didn't address these questions to me, and my opinion on this subject is probably not going to be a very popular one.  Obviously that isn't stopping me...

It seems to me that the LDS Church was arguably the nexus for revelation during the time of Joseph Smith, but for whatever reason that no longer appears to be the case. 

It seems to me that "that which God does now reveal" is showing up in great abundance through channels unaffiliated with this or any other religion.  One such channel is the first-hand accounts of near-death experiencers, wherein there is (imo) a great deal of "revelation" regarding such topics as who and/or what we are; who and/or what God is; the way things really are; and what really matters in this life. 

 

Edited March 24 by manol

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, manol said:

While neither informed nor Catholic, I am definitely curious... ??

 

 

 

You didn't address these questions to me, and my opinion on this subject is probably not going to be a very popular one.  Obviously that isn't stopping me...

It seems to me that the LDS Church was arguably the nexus for revelation during the time of Joseph Smith, but for whatever reason that no longer appears to be the case. 

It seems to me that "that which God does now reveal" is showing up in great abundance through channels unaffiliated with this or any other religion.  One such channel is the first-hand accounts of near-death experiencers, wherein there is (imo) a great deal of "revelation" regarding such topics as who and/or what we are; who and/or what God is; the way things really are; and what really matters in this life. 

 

I just saw President Oaks talk about this. I don’t remember where I saw it so I don’t know if he was president of the church at the time that he said it, but he talked about how near death experiences can be described as revelation, but that they are personal revelation and not meant to be taught as revelation for others. Or something like that. I should probably see if I can find the quote again to see if I’m describing an accurately

[Senator]

52 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I just saw President Oaks talk about this. I don’t remember where I saw it so I don’t know if he was president of the church at the time that he said it, but he talked about how near death experiences can be described as revelation, but that they are personal revelation and not meant to be taught as revelation for others. Or something like that. 

Why not?  

Why couldn't the things learned have general application? Maybe they felt impressed to share it with the world.

And how would Pres Oaks know what other people's revelations were meant for?

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, Senator said:

Why not?  

Why couldn't the things learned have general application? Maybe they felt impressed to share it with the world.

And how would Pres Oaks know what other people's revelations were meant for?

I’m sure it goes back to the doctoral principal that God doesn’t reveal anything to the world except through his prophets. 

[Senator]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I’m sure it goes back to the doctoral principal that God doesn’t reveal anything to the world except through his prophets. 

Hmmm

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

sure it goes back to the doctoral principal that God doesn’t reveal anything to the world except through his prophets. 

Commandments and doctrine that are binding (we will be held accountable for them if we are taught such) is the nuance here, imo.

We believe the Constitution was inspired (parts I agree), the scriptures teach that God is revealed through the world.  I have heard that scientists and others receive revelation in service of making things better for humanity (the benzene rings in the form of the ouroborus daydream has always made me go ‘hmmm’, but blast it, it may be an embellishment).  If so, there is a lot of revelation for the world that goes through different conduits than prophets.

Edited March 24 by Calm

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Commandments and doctrine that are binding is the nuance here, imo.

We believe the Constitution was inspired (parts I agree), the scriptures teach that God is revealed through the world.  I have heard that scientists and others receive revelation in service of making things better for humanity.  If so, there is a lot of revelation for the world that goes through different conduits than prophets.

It definitely depends on the definition of revelation that we are using. 

[manol]

2 hours ago, Senator said:

Why not?  

Why couldn't the things learned have general application? Maybe they felt impressed to share it with the world.

And how would Pres Oaks know what other people's revelations were meant for?

Yes!

Sometimes a near-death experiencer is told, during the experience, that he or she is to convey a particular message.

 

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I just saw President Oaks talk about this. I don’t remember where I saw it so I don’t know if he was president of the church at the time that he said it, but he talked about how near death experiences can be described as revelation, but that they are personal revelation and not meant to be taught as revelation for others.

Well good for President Oaks for at least not dismissing near-death experiences entirely. 

 

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I’m sure it goes back to the doctoral principal that God doesn’t reveal anything to the world except through his prophets. 

Amos 3:7:  "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets."

We might ask:  Did the word "prophet" in Amos' day mean the same thing as the word "prophet" does in modern LDS usage?  No, it did not.  The word meant something like "spokesman", and more particularly, it did not refer to an ecclesiastical office nor to ecclesiastical authority.  

So, going by what the word meant in Amos' day, could a near-death experiencer who was told by God or Christ or a divine messenger that they were to play a "spokesman" role and convey a particular message be called a "prophet"?   

And does the parsing of terms and fitting of definitions matter as much as whether or not what they convey is actually true?  Seems to me that would be paramount, and for that we can always run the Alma Chapter 32 test.   

[bluebell]

35 minutes ago, manol said:

Yes!

Sometimes a near-death experiencer is told, during the experience, that he or she is to convey a particular message.

 

Well good for President Oaks for at least not dismissing near-death experiences entirely. 

 

Amos 3:7:  "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets."

We might ask:  Did the word "prophet" in Amos' day mean the same thing as the word "prophet" does in modern LDS usage?  No, it did not.  The word meant something like "spokesman", and more particularly, it did not refer to an ecclesiastical office nor to ecclesiastical authority.  

So, going by what the word meant in Amos' day, could a near-death experiencer who was told by God or Christ or a divine messenger that they were to play a "spokesman" role and convey a particular message be called a "prophet"?   

 

I don't think that Pres. Oaks is basing this on Amos alone though.  I'm sure it's also in conjunction with D&C 28.  

But like Calm said, this idea really has to be understood in terms of doctrinal authority.  God can (and I would think does) give revelation to many inside and outside of the church in many different ways.  This principal isn't really about revelation in general but about revelation that is meant to be binding or applicable to other people.

God has revealed many things to me because of what someone else said or did, but that is different than someone else receiving revelation that is meant for me.  

Quote

And does the parsing of terms and fitting of definitions matter as much as whether or not what they convey is actually true?  Seems to me that would be paramount, and for that we can always run the Alma Chapter 32 test.  

I actually think it does matter.  I believe that God has given us an order to things because it serves us best.   

[manol]

@bluebell, thank you for having this conversation with me.

I hope you don't mind if I quote something you wrote:

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

I just saw President Oaks talk about this. I don’t remember where I saw it so I don’t know if he was president of the church at the time that he said it, but ...

Does whether or not his words are "binding" on you depend on whether they were spoken by President Oaks or by Apostle Oaks? 

And, does whether or not his words are "true" depend on whether they were spoken by President Oaks or by Apostle Oaks? 

 

Edited March 25 by manol

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, manol said:

@bluebell, thank you for having this conversation with me.

I hope you don't mind if I quote something you wrote:

Does whether or not his words are "binding" on you depend on whether they were spoken by President Oaks or by Apostle Oaks? 

And, does whether or not his words are "true" depend on whether they were spoken by President Oaks or by Apostle Oaks? 

 

Hmmm. 

I haven't considered Pres. Oak's words in this clip (which I really need to find and post) to be binding on me I guess, since he's basically repeating what is taught in D&C 28.  But I do believe that D&C 28 is scripture and of God, so that would make the teaching or principle Pres. Oaks is speaking about both binding on me and also true.

If that makes sense.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Hmmm. I haven't considered Pres. Oak's words in this clip (which I really need to find and post)….

I tried with Chat, the closest it got was his 2019 conference talk Trust in the Lord.

Did he specifically refer to NDEs?

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2019/10/17oaks?lang=eng

Added:  Good thing I checked as Chat said he didn’t refer to NDEs, but he did.

Quote

Beyond these basics, our canon of scripture contains very little about the spirit world that follows death and precedes the Final Judgment. So what else do we know about the spirit world? Many members of the Church have had visions or other inspirations to inform them about how things operate or are organized in the spirit world, but these personal spiritual experiences are not to be understood or taught as the official doctrine of the Church. And, of course, there is abundant speculation by members and others in published sources like books on near-death experiences.

As to all of these, the wise cautions of Elders D. Todd Christofferson and Neil L. Andersen in earlier general conference messages are important to remember. Elder Christofferson taught: “It should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church.”

In the following conference, Elder Andersen taught this principle: “The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk.” The family proclamation, signed by all 15 prophets, seers, and revelators, is a wonderful illustration of that principle.

 

Edited March 25 by Calm

[manol]

@Calm, thank you for finding that. 

From the part you quoted:

1 hour ago, Calm said:

And, of course, there is abundant speculation by members and others in published sources like books on near-death experiences.

So President Oaks (he was First Counsellor at the time) labels near-death experiences as "speculation"?   Wow.  Disappointing.

But wait!  From the same quote:

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Elder Christofferson taught: “It should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church.”

In the following conference, Elder Andersen taught this principle: “The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk.” The family proclamation, signed by all 15 prophets, seers, and revelators, is a wonderful illustration of that principle.

So... correct me if I'm mistaken... until it's been taught and/or signed by the Fifteen, President Oaks' statement implying that near-death experiences are merely "speculation" is not "doctrine"!

I hate falling back on technicalities, it feels like avoiding the real issue and clutching at straws instead. 

 

Edited March 25 by manol

[Calm]

Quote

And, of course, there is abundant speculation by members and others in published sources like books on near-death experiences.

There must be interpretation going on as how else can we convey internal experiences to others?  Our choices on what is important in such as well as the commentary that is attached to what we remember of those experiences…I have no problem with labeling that speculation.  But I am comfortable with describing much of my own internal experiences as my speculation about what my feelings mean, etc.  And certainly anything I assume about others’ experiences is going to be speculation, hoping we share enough language in common to communicate…but everyone likely has a different understanding of any particular word based on how they and others have used it in communication over their lifetime.  I have been wrong before about how I have felt and why because I put the wrong label on my internal experience or couldn’t even find a label that felt right to me and will no doubt be wrong again.

I also have no problem labeling much of what prophets and church leaders describe as their personal experiences as speculation.  It’s never going to be spot on to what they received when we only have so many words to describe the range of human internal experiences.

Having said that, I doubt that Elder Oaks was as expansive in his application of “speculation” when it comes to human communication. I highly doubt he would accept it could be applicable to any scripture or teaching of Joseph, for example, interaction with the divine, while I have no problem labeling Joseph’s comments as such.

You probably know the book/video, Flatland. I find that very useful in framing human communication and what we might be trying to communicate from our experience with the divine and even mundane internal experiences that are never just about the here and now, but reach back into the past and anticipate the future.   

My guess is the divine is much more than just one dimension level about the mundane world (speaking metaphorically).  Mortals lack the perceptual and conceptual context to comprehend the divine, imo.  How could we interact equally with someone fully aware of not only eternities past and eternities to come, but the vastness of at least our universe and possibly much more.  So many layers we cannot perceive in their experience.  With their likely control over their body and surroundings, we probably can’t even grasp the true extent of their physical form, but focus on what we are familiar with.  I would not be the least surprised if what someone sees in a vision or receives in more complicated inspiration at times is only how their brain tries to process the unprocessable with God and the Spirit nudging us towards certain familiar ideas, senses, experiences so we can correlate what would otherwise appear to us as one massive jumble of too much contextless information into something we can swallow and digest mentally and emotionally as well as spiritually.

I think there is a very good reason “the ineffable” is often linked with the divine. 

[bluebell]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

There must be interpretation going on as how else can we convey internal experiences to others?  Our choices on what is important in such as well as the commentary that is attached to what we remember of those experiences…I have no problem with labeling that speculation.  But I am comfortable with describing much of my own internal experiences as my speculation about what my feelings mean, etc.  And certainly anything I assume about others’ experiences is going to be speculation, hoping we share enough language in common to communicate…but everyone likely has a different understanding of any particular word based on how they and others have used it in communication over their lifetime.  I have been wrong before about how I have felt and why because I put the wrong label on my internal experience or couldn’t even find a label that felt right to me and will no doubt be wrong again.

I also have no problem labeling much of what prophets and church leaders describe as their personal experiences as speculation.  It’s never going to be spot on to what they received when we only have so many words to describe the range of human internal experiences.

Having said that, I doubt that Elder Oaks was as expansive in his application of “speculation” when it comes to human communication. I highly doubt he would accept it could be applicable to any scripture or teaching of Joseph, for example, interaction with the divine, while I have no problem labeling Joseph’s comments as such.

You probably know the book/video, Flatland. I find that very useful in framing human communication and what we might be trying to communicate from our experience with the divine and even mundane internal experiences that are never just about the here and now, but reach back into the past and anticipate the future.   

My guess is the divine is much more than just one dimension level about the mundane world (speaking metaphorically).  Mortals lack the perceptual and conceptual context to comprehend the divine, imo.  How could we interact equally with someone fully aware of not only eternities past and eternities to come, but the vastness of at least our universe and possibly much more.  So many layers we cannot perceive in their experience.  With their likely control over their body and surroundings, we probably can’t even grasp the true extent of their physical form, but focus on what we are familiar with.  I would not be the least surprised if what someone sees in a vision or receives in more complicated inspiration at times is only how their brain tries to process the unprocessable with God and the Spirit nudging us towards certain familiar ideas, senses, experiences so we can correlate what would otherwise appear to us as one massive jumble of too much contextless information into something we can swallow and digest mentally and emotionally as well as spiritually.

I think there is a very good reason “the ineffable” is often linked with the divine. 

I like how the leaders are becoming more purposeful with their language when speaking than they used to be, when every opinion taught was considered doctrine.

In his last GC talk, Elder Bednar said “I believe..” before saying something and that stood out to me as important. His belief could still be gospel truth (and he obviously believed it was or he wouldn’t have taught it as he did) but it was nice that it wasn’t automatically elevated as such just because he’s an apostle. 

[telnetd]

On 3/24/2026 at 10:18 AM, bluebell said:

Yes.

What is the purpose of this new line of questioning? It feels like you’re moving the goal posts around after each of my previous answers, trying to find something new that you can catch me on to prove that I’m wrong when the last question didn’t work.

I'm not trying to catch you. Just seeking clarification.

Back around March 21, I asked you "Based on whether you accept that or you can provide 
your own definition, would you give some examples of "revelation" in General Conference 
talks after 1978?"

And you mentioned homosexuality as one example.

So what about homosexuality did you learn in General Conference after 1978?

[telnetd]

On 3/23/2026 at 2:43 PM, The Nehor said:

I learned that Paul’s explanation for why people engage in homosexual behavior is objectively incorrect so we can probably ignore everything he said on the subject since he showed he has no idea what the hell he is talking about.

Paul's explanation is theological: people turn away from God, their thinking becomes 
disordered, and as a result they follow various desires, including same-sex relations.

So his cause is spiritual rebellion leading to moral and behavioral consequences.

[manol]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

There must be interpretation going on as how else can we convey internal experiences to others?  Our choices on what is important in such as well as the commentary that is attached to what we remember of those experiences… I have no problem with labeling that speculation.

How about Joseph Smith's descriptions of his interactions with the Divine?  Was that also "speculation"? 

 

13 hours ago, Calm said:

I highly doubt [Elder Oaks] would accept [the word "speculation"] could be applicable to any scripture or teaching of Joseph, for example, interaction with the divine, while I have no problem labeling Joseph’s comments as such.

Ah, you answered my question!  Kudos to you for being consistent in your usage of the term!

 

13 hours ago, Calm said:

You probably know the book/video, Flatland. I find that very useful in framing human communication and what we might be trying to communicate from our experience with the divine and even mundane internal experiences that are never just about the here and now, but reach back into the past and anticipate the future.   

Bingo!

Near-death experiencers tend to be acutely aware of the inadequacy of human language for describing what they experienced.  "Speculation" is not the term I would have applied to their efforts, but you have explained your usage of the term so I won't cross verbs with you about it.

 

13 hours ago, Calm said:

My guess is the divine is much more than just one dimension level about the mundane world (speaking metaphorically).  

Yes - see my NDE quote below, the part about a matrix within a matrix within another.

 

13 hours ago, Calm said:

Mortals lack the perceptual and conceptual context to comprehend the divine, imo.  How could we interact equally with someone fully aware of not only eternities past and eternities to come, but the vastness of at least our universe and possibly much more.  So many layers we cannot perceive in their experience.  With their likely control over their body and surroundings, we probably can’t even grasp the true extent of their physical form, but focus on what we are familiar with.  I would not be the least surprised if what someone sees in a vision or receives in more complicated inspiration at times is only how their brain tries to process the unprocessable with God and the Spirit nudging us towards certain familiar ideas, senses, experiences so we can correlate what would otherwise appear to us as one massive jumble of too much contextless information into something we can swallow and digest mentally and emotionally as well as spiritually.  [emphasis Manol's]

Amen, sister!

And imo here you put your finger on the benefit of exposing oneself to near-death experience accounts:  God and the Spirit can nudge us to swallow and digest that which is of benefit to us therein. 

I hope you don't mind if I pull out an arguably-still-relevant Joseph Smith quotation: 

“One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from where it may.”

And as I'm sure is apparent, I consider near-death experience accounts to be a particularly rich source of truth which can be tested via the Alma Chapter 32 protocol.  

To illustrate what one might find in NDE accounts, first I will quote from the D&C, followed by some quotes from an NDE:

"[L]ight proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space— The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things... even the power of God... who is in the midst of all things... all things are before him, and all things are round about him; and he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever." - from D&C 88 verses 12, 13, and 41

“God is in everything and everything in God, just as life itself... Nothing is outside of God just as nothing is outside of life itself.”

“We live in a 'Plural Unity' or 'Oneness'. In other words, our reality is 'Unity in Plurality and Plurality in Unity’.”  [<- Imo reminiscent of Jesus' teaching about vine and branches]

“The 'creator' is eternally creating, and one of the creations is the practice of conscious love. 'One learns to paint by painting'. That's why this 'temporal human illusory creation' exists as though it were a matrix within another matrix and this, within another - multi-dimensionally until we wake up... Consciously living by love is the essence of life itself and is made manifest or materializes in this plane of existence as a cohesive force to recreate itself in multiple forms...”

“I learned thousands of other things without end, and it is difficult to express in words because words are insufficient, they can't describe what I experienced in this other state of consciousness that was much clearer than this one.” - from NDE number 3558 at nderf.org

There are thousands of NDE's on that website, with more being added every few days.  Imo this constitutes only part of "that which God does now reveal". 

I speculate that we live in an absolutely amazing time.

Edited March 25 by manol

[Calm]

45 minutes ago, manol said:

about Joseph Smith's descriptions of his interactions with the Divine?  Was that also "speculation"? 

 

By my definition and perception, yes. I believe he likely filled in gaps where he lacked info or the ability to define at the very least.  

He may not have been aware of it, the brain compensates and adapts quickly.  Iirc, he did at times voice his struggles to share his divine experiences.

Joseph’s vision of the afterlife in D&C 76:  ”which surpasses all understanding….neither is man capable to make them known”.

Others have as well.  “Words cannot describe…” seems like it’s not uncommon to be attached to revelatory experiences even when the person then goes on to use words to describe them. I tend to accept the first valuation as accurate in those cases and treat what follows as an approximation and probably not that good of one. 

Paul (2 Cor 12:4):  heard “inexpressible things” (NIV)

Ineffability is, imo, to be expected when a limited being interacts with an unlimited one (at least in comparison).

Ants communicate.  We can see that by their behaviour. How accurate in detail or even broad framing would be ants’ descriptions of human behaviour, not only what we did, but our ideas and feelings we express, our motivations?  Does their ‘language’ even have the capability to convey more than the broadest, the most basic bit of information about these with their use of pheromones, touch, taste, and sound?  While they might get the basics of alarm and territory with their signals of recognition and alarm, etc, gather a very limited understanding of family given their language includes signals to suppress and promote reproduction and care of ‘children’, could they even begin to convey the concepts of attending school, having bank accounts, shopping, recipes and cooking, dating and everything that follows, building homes and decorating them, collecting art, driving cars, having pets, etc.  There would be some very rudimentary parallels (they prepare food, build shelters, mate, use aphids), but any detail would be lost. 

Who knows if anything that was filled in by Joseph or other prophets is critical to a teaching or interpretation of our faith.

This is one of the reasons I believe continuing revelation is necessary.  Multiple people sharing their experiences presents us with a fuller picture than we would receive if we considered revelation more one and done.

Edited March 25 by Calm