Church previously denied a John Taylor revelation on polygamy now admits it

[MG 2.0]

Does God know the end from the beginning? Sure.

I don’t believe that’s within the Mormon God’s capabilities. Remember, he is not the creator of the universe. He’s merely a more powerful homo sapiens within it.

I think the scriptures make that rather clear. God is the Creator.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Mormons have already been indoctrinated to believe that old prophet’s words are no longer relevant.

Just like whatever false revelations Rusty Nelson has for us today will be irrelevant when they are exposed in a few decades.

Mormons need only to be taught to follow whatever their leaders are currently teaching, and to think no further.

I agree. Do you think that is why they allowed this revelation to be acknowledged, because they have laid the groundwork for rejecting past revelations, and therefore it's less damaging to admit it and discredit it, than to continue trying to hide it?

I think this fits in within the dynamic model of revelation that I've been describing on pg.4 of this thread.

It's not matter of "rejecting" a revelation. It is a matter of knowing when and how to bring what was a revelation (higher law in this instance) to light that is no longer directly applicable to our time except in relatively rare cases.

That revelation is of no matter to us any more.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I agree. Do you think that is why they allowed this revelation to be acknowledged, because they have laid the groundwork for rejecting past revelations, and therefore it's less damaging to admit it and discredit it, than to continue trying to hide it?

A million percent. The members are so well trained to ignore the difficult issues now that they don’t even have to wrestle with these things anymore.

Or it may be that more members nowadays have learned to think in a more nuanced way than those in past generations where things were rather black and white.

That black and white worldview/mindscape is noticeably present on this board and even within this very thread.

Regards,
MG

[bill4long]

I don’t believe that’s within the Mormon God’s capabilities. Remember, he is not the creator of the universe. He’s merely a more powerful homo sapiens within it.

I think the scriptures make that rather clear. God is the Creator.

Regards,
MG

Who the hell is "God"?

[drumdude]

I don’t believe that’s within the Mormon God’s capabilities. Remember, he is not the creator of the universe. He’s merely a more powerful homo sapiens within it.

I think the scriptures make that rather clear. God is the Creator.

Regards,
MG

Mormon God is only doing “that which has been done in other worlds.” Many Gods, all organizing, not creating.

The temple ceremony is quite clear on this. And Brigham was quite clear that “our God” was the only one of many with whom we have to deal.

[Rivendale]

I think the scriptures make that rather clear. God is the Creator.

Regards,
MG

Who the hell is "God"?

Nephi allegedly appeared to Joseph as a levitating reanimated native american. Extrapolating this to a itinerary apocalyptic preacher in Palestine it seems to insinuated that the main difference being he is the supreme Homo Sapien who demands to be worshipped.

[Marcus]

I agree. Do you think that is why they allowed this revelation to be acknowledged, because they have laid the groundwork for rejecting past revelations, and therefore it's less damaging to admit it and discredit it, than to continue trying to hide it?

A million percent. The members are so well trained to ignore the difficult issues now that they don’t even have to wrestle with these things anymore.

Yes, that's another thing I find perplexing. People can be so intelligent about everything else, but they are trained to default to a non-thinking argument that they would never use in a different context, and in fact they would reject the same argument if anyone else used it.

[MG 2.0]

I think the scriptures make that rather clear. God is the Creator.

Regards,
MG

Who the hell is "God"?

The creator of the ways and means by which you find yourself sitting around communicating on this board.

The Creator of:

Earth and Atmosphere. Body with the ability to experience sentience and find meaning. The organization of elements of which all things are made including your device you're using right now. Etc.

It's all something, right? Rather than nothing or matter unorganized.

That would be a bummer.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Getting back to malkie's comment and the topic,

Yes. They seem as reliable as a Magic 8 Ball. The Church has learned not to call anything specifically a revelation. Sure, they’ll say that General Conference contains revelation for members, but they won’t be specific about which statements are, or aren’t “revelations”. Now it’s all just policies and pr statements. The last time anyone declared a specific thing was a “revelation” was Nelson when he declared Gays were apostates and God didn’t want their kids in His church. That was u-turned within weeks. Farcical.

Now if President Taylor really did receive a revelation about polygamy, then the current SLC Church is operating in apostasy. If President Taylor didn’t receive a revelation then no President can be trusted to know what is, or what isn’t the will of God.

It really is that simple.

The LDS church is now admitting Taylor did have a revelation, as I understand it. Of course, it doesn't fit in with their sanitized version of events, but what does?

They were hoping nobody would notice that admission if they just slipped it quietly into the record, with no comment nor announcement.

The implications of this are sizeable. If they acknowledge Taylor’s revelation, then they are also admitting the Church has been led astray for many generations. They are also admitting that the Family Proclamation is a misleading (dishonest?) statement.

[Equality]

Mormons have already been indoctrinated to believe that old prophet’s words are no longer relevant.

Just like whatever false revelations Rusty Nelson has for us today will be irrelevant when they are exposed in a few decades.

Mormons need only to be taught to follow whatever their leaders are currently teaching, and to think no further.

Critics want to pin down the prophets. That way when things don't go according to planned expectations they can nail them and call out, "False prophet!"

Is it really the “critics” who want to “pin down” the prophets?”

In my experience, it is the most faithful resotredchurchofjesuschristians who “pin down” the prophets.

Consider the following, for example:

A member of the church drinks wine, like Jesus and Joseph Smith did and like the Doctrine & Covenants section 89 says is perfectly acceptable.

Other members of the church, including the member’s Bishop and Stake President, citing the words of Heber J. Grant and other so-called prophets, condemn the member for drinking wine, denying them of church callings and a temple recommend.

The member interprets the scriptures and words of the prophets to allow for the exercise of agency to “be like Jesus” and drink wine. The Bishop and SP (and other members), though, “pin down” the prophets to a black-and-white “any amount of alcohol at all ever is evil” stance, even though this stance contradicts their own canonized scriptures.

“When the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done” is not a quote from critics—it’s a quote from one prophet attempting to “pin down” the other prophets.

You can’t have it both ways (logically, that is). If the “revelations” from the “prophets” are unreliable, and the members are not supposed to “pin them down,” then any interpretation of what the prophets say, and any individual member’s decision as to whether and how to follow the “revelations” given by the “prophets” is equally valid.

Which would be fine if that’s how the SLC LDS Church actually acted in practice (it’s how a lot of other churches do act, to be sure).

But that’s not how things go in the SLC LDS church, and MG knows it. In the Nelson-led church, it’s “pray, pay, and OBEY,” where obedience is expected to be to the most literal black-and-white interpretation of the latest “revelation” of the current prophet.

And when that latest revelation, like so many before it, turns out to have been “unreliable,” the members who relied on it are gaslit by the cognitive acrobats and told that their reliance was a “blessing” no matter the consequences that may have resulted from their obedience to a bogus “revelation.”

What MG has acknowledged in this thread is that, yes, the prophets’ so-called revelations are unreliable. There is no way of knowing at the time such revelations are given that they won’t be rescinded next week, next month, or 100 years from now. But according to MG, even if the prophets are unreliable (i.e., wrong), it’s a “blessing” to follow them at every turn. This, of course, creates a “no lose” scenario for the LDS prophets who are controlling their followers: whether the prophet is right or wrong, you need to obey and no matter how miserable such obedience might make you, it’s actually a “blessing” for you.

This is cult dynamics at work. It’s the exact same framework used by the Jim Joneses, David Koreshes, and Marshall Applewhites of the world. If the “true” prophets are no more reliable than the obviously “false” prophets, then what’s the difference between a true prophet and a false one? And how is it any better for an individual to follow a true prophet than a false one?

MG’s assertion that pinning down the prophets is a critic’s game, and thus inappropriate, is antithetical to what the scriptures he says he believes in have to say on the subject. It’s the Bible that establishes the test for distinguishing between true and false prophets, and that test is—you guessed it—reliability. Deuteronomy 18:21-22: "When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.”

So, MG’s proposition that reliability is irrelevant to the question of whether a prophet is genuine or a fraud is not only illogical; it also stands in opposition to scripture (to which no doubt he does not want to be “pinned down.”).

But if the faithful are not pinned down to either the prophets or to scripture, are they not then subject to being "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.”? (Ephesians 4:14).

It seems to me that the problem with the church admitting that John Taylor had a revelation diametrically opposite of another prophet, which the church lied about for 100+ years for what should by now be obvious reasons, is not so easily waved away.