All Activity

At birth. As always, in Latter-day Saint theology, the key distinction is between being affected by the Fall and being personally guilty of sin. Moroni 8, the "curse of Adam" is understood as the fallen condition and its consequences that came through Adam, the need for redemption not personal culpability for Adam’s transgression. Christ’s Atonement removes the condemning effect of Adam’s Fall from little children. They are not required to repent or be baptized because they have not become morally accountable. From birth everyone enters mortality in a fallen world. We inherit mortality, weakness, corruption, and eventually physical death. In that sense, children are born into the consequences of the Fall. A child does not become personally subject to condemnation for sin merely by being born. Moroni's point is that the Fall has no condemning power over little children. Once a person becomes capable of knowingly choosing sin, however, their own sins become relevant and they need repentance and Christ's grace. This is why Moroni immediately contrasts little children with those who are "understanding" and "capable of committing sin." The issue isn't that the child somehow possesses Adam's guilt and then has it removed at baptism. Rather, Christ prevents Adam's transgression from counting against the child in the first place. If by "tainted" you mean born into mortality with fallen human nature and subject to physical death, that's compatible with Moroni 8. If you mean born spiritually guilty, because of Adam, Moroni 8 strongly rejects that idea. So what exactly is the curse that Christ removes from little children? I would describe it as the condemning/spiritual consequence of the Fall, not Adam's guilt transferred to them. Yes, Alma does call Adam's act a transgression. Adam actually transgressed a command, and that transgression initiated the fallen condition. But Adam's transgression isn't identical to our personal sins. Mosiah 3:11 says Christ's blood atones for those people who died without knowing God's will or who sinned ignorantly like baby's that transgress the law before knowing good from evil or Adam before he knew good from evil.

Although no expert by any means. From a Catholic perspective. Original sin is passed down to the individual, however it is washed away at Baptism, at which we become part of one body in Christ, the body being the Church,from whom grace is given to the person. This has been my understanding, in basic form of the matter. Hope that proves useful to the post.

@Tony uk Tony is a Catholic. I am not aware that Catholics hold a different position.

Adam sinned. See Alma 42:1-7.

Unbaptized babies are not damned but they are tainted by the Fall. Moroni 8 says "little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me". What is the curse of Adam and when do little children inherit that curse that is done away from them in Him?

Personally, no. I view the deliberate exposure of children to highly sexualized live adult performances as a form of sexualizing and grooming minors. I regard that as wrong. This assessment does not depend on the sexual orientation or identity of the performers. Parental approval does not change the above judgment. There are circumstances in which society is justified in using the law to protect children even when their own parents consent to the exposure. Age-based restrictions on commercial adult live performances fall into that category. I am not aware of any significant contemporary movement openly advocating that children be admitted to traditional heterosexual adult venues such as strip clubs (I am open to correction on this point). Existing norms and laws have largely kept that from becoming a live controversy. What has generated recent dispute is resistance, in some quarters, to efforts to keep children out of highly sexualized live performances. In a pluralistic society people will disagree about many cultural questions. On this particular point, however, the sexualization of children should remain a bright line. Advocating for it, or even treating it as controversial or negotiable is, I think, a rapid way for the LGBT community to forfeit broader public support. Many people across communities, including many within the LGBT community, share a straightforward revulsion at the idea of sexualizing children. Those voices are worth hearing more clearly. Thanks, -Smac

LDS Leader Detained For "Financing Terrorism" FYI, "Vyborg" is a city in Russia. Navalny He died in prison in 2024. The Anti-Corruption Foundation ("NBK") : More context on the designation of FBK as a terrorist organization seems Back to the article: I tried to watch the video. Could not get it to work. Looks like Br. Gavrilov is a Branch President. The poor man is 74 years old. I wonder if this will have a larger impact on the Church in Russia. Thanks, -Smac

I just posted this in the News section, but it is sad that we just lost a Pro LDS YouTube channel content provider on Friday. It was Chandler David Hendry, the founder of the Restored Truth podcast on YouTube: Religious podcaster dies in Lehi multi-vehicle crash It's sad to see any young life taken away like that. This is the Restored Truth channel: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Restored+Truth+podcast

KSL carried this story yesterday: Religious podcaster dies in Lehi multi-vehicle crash "Chandler David Hendry, 27, was the sole victim of a three-vehicle crash that happened at 8:25 a.m., Lehi police spokesperson Jeanteil Livingston said. The crash happened at the intersection of Timpanogos Highway and Morning Vista road." "Hendry was the founder of the Restored Truth podcast, which explores interfaith dialog, scripture, Christian history and the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ, according to a Restored Truth YouTube video." This is his YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@RESTORED_TRUTH/shorts And the community section is mourning his loss: https://www.youtube.com/@RESTORED_TRUTH/community This is sad news.

From Nibley's talk: "Do not begrudge existence to creatures that looked like men long, long ago, nor deny them a place in God’s affection or even a right to exaltation—for our scriptures allow them such. Nor am I overly concerned as to just when they might have lived, for their world is not our world. They have all gone away long before our people ever appeared. God assigned them their proper times and functions, as he has given me mine—a full-time job that admonishes me to remember his words to the overly eager Moses: “For mine own purpose have I made these things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me.” (Moses 1:31.) It is Adam as my own parent who concerns me. When he walks onto the stage, then and only then the play begins. He opens a book and starts calling out names. They are the sons of Adam, who also qualify as sons of God, Adam himself being a son of God." I do not deny the Garden of Eden as a real place. Neither do I deny the reality of hominids*. I can even entertain the idea that the children of Adam and Eve interbred with such. In Nibley's account the defining feature of being a son or daughter of God is not biology but of covenant relationship for "until a man with a book walks onto the stage there is no story, no play". Understanding the earth's evolutionary history, geology, etc. is a great and worthy endeavor (though I personally inclined my interested to cosmology), from the perspective of spiritual progression the history that matters the most is that of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve**. * There is a very interesting question asked during the presentation of the endowment that many overlook. ** I hold that Adam and Eve are historical and presently real, resurrected individuals.

So many favorite scenes. When the technical guys had to make a filter with scraps? "We gotta make a filter to fit this using nothing but that."

I will look out for the book. It will be interesting, getting the first hand account of what happened 👍

Here's another channel from a person I know personally. He is Austin Falter, and he was a member of my old ward in the US, and for a couple of years was my home-teaching companion before he went to serve his mission. Austin has also shown up in some other LDS-related YouTube channels, such as Ward Radio. Austin's dad Daren was my family's home teacher (along with Austin's younger brother) during the time I lost my wife to cancer and helped me cope with that event.

Here's a relatively new LDS-related channel called LDS Teaching Toolbox. This one is kind of special to me because the man behind the channel, Timothy Laine Carver, was a missionary in my own mission when I served in the Central German Mission, later called the Germany Düsseldorf Mission, and no now longer a mission. We did not serve as companions, but were for a time in the same missionary district in the city of Wuppertal, Germany. Here's the channel's most recent video:

All terrestrial and telestial inhabitants do not receive a fulness of joy even though their spirit and body are joined together eternally – not even those in the two lower divisions of the celestial kingdom have it. "Fulness of joy" and "eternal life" seem to be different things, and it's only reserved for exalted beings. "Neither is it enough to be a good, solid citizen, contributing to charities, serving on community boards, and in general living a good Christian life. Although commendable, this is not sufficient to entitle one to the fulness of joy and the eternal life that our Father in heaven has promised to those who love him and keep his commandments" (January 1975, New Era, Just for Today, President N. Eldon Tanner). Becoming a god (God) precedes obtaining a fulness of joy. Both Father and Mother obtained their fulness of joy. The LDS Father did not have a fulness of joy until he passed all his tests and became a God. "We learned that if we placed our faith in him, obeying his word and following his example, we would be exalted and become like our heavenly parents. We would receive a fulness of joy … We can be exalted as God is and receive a fulness of joy … If we passed our tests, we would receive the fulness of joy that our heavenly parents have received … Blessings of Exaltation: They will become gods. They will receive a fulness of joy" (Gospel Principles, 1997). The LDS Father is not always a God (in a state of godhood) before he fully progresses. "The progression of our Father in heaven to godhood, or exaltation, was strictly in accordance with eternal principles" (Achieving a Celestial Marriage manual). And none of this has anything to do with what I said in my last post about exaltation, which is that it is “the kind of life God lives”. But you reject the idea that some being progressed beyond what he was before and became a God then Father. This all goes back to how you define “God”. God the Father has always been the most advanced, the most intelligent, the “most high” of all other spirits regardless of the other things he did that were like what Jesus did. What I reject is the idea that this does not make him “God” in some sense, for no other being could compare to him. Yes. God the Father is above all the gods of the Greeks, Romans, Hindus, etc. What about Jesus? I asked about Jesus. According to the Bible, God the Father is the very God and Father of Jesus Christ (John 20:17, Romans 15:6, 1 Corinthians 11:3, 2 Corinthians 11:31, Ephesians 1:3, Ephesians 1:17; Hebrews 1:8-9, 1 Peter 1:3, Revelation 3:12), and Jesus is even said to be eternally subject to the Father (1 Corinthians 15:28). Do you believe that Heavenly Father is a higher God than Jesus like the Bible teaches? Or do you reject those Bible teachings too? As for the gods of the Greeks and Romans, those are false gods. They are “nothing” (according to the Bible). God is not a God of “nothing”. He is not a God of fictional characters. That would be like saying God is the God of the Easter Bunny and Santa Clause. It is demeaning and disrespectful to God to classify him that way, because anyone (me, you, or your dog) can be the “god” to fictional characters that don’t exist. But the Bible truth is that God is the God of other “gods” that exist in reality, “God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible” (Deuteronomy 10:17). A God of fictional characters is not mighty or terrible.

I checked your links but I see no place where you address the fact that you believe Joseph Smith, in his King Follett discourse, was really saying that "God was not OUR God (OUR Father) from all eternity" as opposed to "God was not God from all eternity". Remember, your question to me was this: In every one of the posts I linked above, I quoted the portion of the King Follet Discourse that addresses that question. Here’s a quote from my post on 10/30/2022: “Joseph Smith taught "what kind of being God is" and how he got to be the way he is, a being who created worlds, a being who created man in his own image. He described it this way: "The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits." Here’s a quote from my post on 11/10/2022: “And God the Father has always been above all others. How he came to be our God is explained in the statement from Joseph Smith that I quoted just a few posts ago (here) : “The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 354) "That is how God came to be our God.” And in my post on 11/11/2022 I reposted what I said above, and added: “Repeating what I said above, ‘God the Father has always been above all others.’ How he came to be our God was in our relationship to him, and him providing a way for us to advance and become like him. That is the way Joseph Smith taught it in his sermon.” I could post the same thing from the other posts (and others). This was all in direct response to the same question you asked me above. The God of the Bible has eternal increase, so why wouldn’t you accept that? Otherwise, what is God’s point in creating the earth? The “how God came to be our God” part is all contained in the same sermon. It was the focus of Joseph Smith’s overall teaching. Read or listen to the entire sermon in context. Joseph Smith explained it right within the same sermon. Do I need to quote it again? Let me break it down for you, phrase by phrase: “The first principles of man are self-existent with God” : Our spirits are self-existent with God. We were with God in the beginning of his plan. “God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory…” : God had more glory than others and he implemented a plan for the other spirits. “because he was more intelligent” : God was the most intelligent of all others, eternally so. This puts him in the position to be the “most high” of all others, always and forever. He has always been “God” in that sense. “saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself” : God the Father instituted the laws, nobody else did that. God the Father didn’t inherit those laws from some other God, he is the lawgiver. “The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge” : We entered a relationship with God, this is where God became “our God”. “He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits." : Because God is love, he wanted others to have the same knowledge and experiences that he has. God offered this plan to the spirits that were self-existent with him. It’s perfectly clear to me anyway. I understand that to be your belief, but believing that only God is self-existent is a doctrine that contradicts the Bible teaching that we are all the same “kind” of being as God (Acts 17:28-29). I prefer to believe the Bible doctrine rather than traditions that were developed later. That's self serving – a being, eternally existing as maybe intelligence, without a spirit or physical body, institutes laws by which he advances into becoming a God. You never show from scripture where some being instituted laws to become a God before he becomes a Father. How is it “self serving” for a God who loves others so much that he wants them to have the same experiences that he has and provides a way for them to receive everything that he has? And can you show me from the Bible what God the Father did before he created this earth? You can’t. The Bible doesn’t talk about that. No doubt you have some belief that you hold about what he was doing, but you can’t demonstrate any of it from scripture. We’ve already been through the verses that say, “from age to age thou art God” (like Psalm 90:2), but those don’t prove what you are thinking. I can show you from Latter-day Saint scripture where God has been creating “worlds without number”, but other than that we aren’t given any other details. Nor can you ever claim to receive “eternal life” that Jesus is offering us by the same line of reasoning. It’s really not “eternal life” because (as you believe) you didn’t have it eternally. But this shouldn't be an issue to you, since the Bible never refers to Jesus as the "Eternal God". The Book of Mormon does in several places, however. The fact that some taught that men could become gods or Gods doesn't make it true It wasn’t just “some men” who taught that men can become gods or Gods, it was the “heavy hitters” like St. Clement of Rome, St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Theophilus of Antioch, St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Hippolytus of Rome, Origen (Highly regarded as one of the most influential Christian theologians), St. Cyprian, St. Athanasius of Alexandria, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Augustine of Hippo, that all taught that men become gods in no uncertain terms. This is the widespread foundation of the teachings of the early Christian Fathers. The bottom line? “Christian” doctrine has changed through the years. It used to be one thing, now it’s something completely different. The difference here is that the earliest Christians taught that men become “Gods” far and wide, independently of one another. They didn’t get it from interpreting the words of one person in different ways, they received it as part of their basic teachings from the earliest time. Latter-day Saint leaders, on the other hand, were often trying to interpret some things that one scribe recorded (incorrectly in some respects) of a sermon that Joseph Smith gave without access to the original source, and with the assumption that what was first published of the sermon was an accurate account of what Joseph Smith said. This was not the case for the early Christian Fathers teaching that men can become gods. See above where I explained the difference. I believe they misinterpreted what these verses mean: Of course you do. Christian teachings have changed drastically since the first three centuries AD, and they have needed to reinterpret scripture to fit the modern teachings and ignore others, like the Biblical teaching that we are all the same “kind” of being as God (we are the very génos of God - Acts 17:28-29). They might say that you are the one misinterpreting what those verses mean. Is God the Father (the Father of the Gods as you say above) also the Father of Heavenly Mother (believed to be a God herself)? You didn’t answer the question I asked last time. I’ll ask it again: I quoted Joseph Smith directly. Joseph Smith emphasized that God the Father is the “head God” at least eight times in the King Follet Sermon, calling him “the head, the Father of the Gods”. He taught that he was “more intelligent” and “saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself”. Where is there any room in those statements for the idea that God has a God above him like you are asserting? I already addressed that sermon in great detail, and you didn’t even bother to read my responses, so why should I bother repeating myself again? I’ll just cut and paste things all over again. But I’m getting tired of the fact that you ignore my responses and pretend like we didn’t ever discuss this. Why should I respond to you at all in the future? See my recent post on 07/27/2026 where you quoted the same thing while posting as telnetd, which refers back to my post on 05/26/2025 where I addressed that sermon in detail. During the Sermon in the Grove, Thomas Bullock recorded Joseph Smith saying the following (right before the part that you quoted above): “I want to reason— I learned it by translating the papyrus now in my house—I learned a test. concerning Abraham & he reasoned concerng. the God of Heaven— in order to do that s[ai]d. he— suppose we have two facts that supposes that anor. fact may exist two men on the earth— one wiser that the other— wod. shew that anor. who is wiser than the wisest may exist— intelligences exist one above anor. that there is no end to it” The problem with this record is that it directly contradicts the source that Joseph Smith is said to be referencing. Bullock records that the “two facts” are that there may always be one that is wiser than the wisest (which is logically impossible, or otherwise the wisest is not really the wisest). And he also says that there is no end to intelligences existing one above another. But Abraham 3:18–22 says the following: 18 … if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal. 19 And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all. …. 21 I dwell in the midst of them all; I now, therefore, have come down unto thee to declare unto thee the works which my hands have made, wherein my wisdom excelleth them all, for I rule in the heavens above, and in the earth beneath, in all wisdom and prudence, over all the intelligences thine eyes have seen from the beginning; I came down in the beginning in the midst of all the intelligences thou hast seen. So, the “two facts” stated in the book of Abraham are that there is one who is the wisest and the most intelligent than all others, and that being is the Lord God. And it is the eternal existence of intelligences that have “no end”, because they have no beginning and no end, not that there is no end to them existing one above another as the Bullock notes indicate. So, Thomas Bullock gets it wrong. Furthermore, to re-quote what I said to you posting as telned: I see from Thomas Bullock’s notes of that sermon that the discussion of God the Father having a father was in the context of God the Father’s mortal experience on an earth. His notes show that the statements about God the Father having a “father” are immediately followed by “I want you to pay particular attention to what I am saying. Jesus said that the Father wrought precisely in the same way as His Father had done before Him”. In other words, Bullock’s notes indicate that God the Father’s “father” would have been either his earthly father when he was born into mortality, or that God the Father (as the head of all other Gods) would have appointed some other God to produce him in the same way that Jesus came into mortality. But Bullock also seems to have repeated himself in part of those notes, so it’s hard to tell if Joseph Smith was restating something for emphasis, or if Bullock recorded it incorrectly, or if he did get it correct, we need further information and context to draw any conclusions with certainty. Joseph Smith referred to him as the “head of the Gods”, not me. I was quoting Joseph Smith. I’ll respond to these questions as soon as you answer this question: What exactly was God the Father doing on August 9, 100 billion B.C.? Be specific. (And it wasn't a Sabbath day). I don't agree with Lactantius teaching Jesus Christ is the "Second God". Of course you don’t. Christian teachings have changed drastically since then, and you go with the modern interpretations. Neither of those verses say that Jesus created Satan. And John 1:3 includes the stipulation that without Jesus “was not anything made that was made.” In other words, Jesus didn’t make anything that was not “made”, like the spirits that existed with God in the beginning (they are called the “sons of God” and “morning stars” in Job 38:7), and the Bible teaches us that humans are the same “kind” of being as God (the génos of God - Acts 17:28-29). We need to include all the Bible teachings on this topic, not just a few here or there.

I am sure that the people writing your outrage porn will say there are a lot of them no matter how many there actually are. So no need to be curious.

Not a report. That is just taking their word for it on everything and even their side of the story has holes you could drive a large truck through. Then again this kind of report isn’t around to inform. It is there to generate hatred. No one will follow the case or change their mind if it turns out to be without merit.

The Book of Mormon does indeed assert the reality of original sin as a doctrinal concept, one that’s very similar to the original sin doctrine of the Catholic Church. Where the Latter-Day Saints part company with the Catholics on this point is we believe that the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ mitigates the utterly destructive spiritual and temporal effects of the fall, and does so by mercifully allowing every member of the human family to be endowed at birth with the indwelling and uplifting light of Christ so that each individual isn’t left utterly bereft of a spiritual connection with God While it’s true that the Book of Mormon does testify that the fall, if allowed to stand alone without counteraction, would have left man in a state of total spiritual depravity, it’s also true it the Book of Mormon testifies that thanks to the atonement of Christ the totally devastating spiritual effects of the fall are mitigated to the point that all accountable humans are free to draw upon the inner light of Christ to choose good over evil. This means that while the fall could have been the worst possible calamity that could possibly befall the children of men, nevertheless, thanks to the atonement of Christ the fallen state has been transformed into a wisely designed spiritual proving ground in which men and women are able to freely choose between good and evil, and if one so desires, follow Christ on the covenant path to glory. Anything less than this would make God unjust. 6 For as death hath passed upon all men, to fulfil the merciful plan of the great Creator, there must needs be a power of resurrection, and the resurrection must needs come unto man by reason of the fall; and the fall came by reason of transgression; and because man became fallen they were cut of from the presence of the Lord. 7 Wherefore, it must needs be an infinite atonement—save it should be an infinite atonement this corruption could not put on incorruption. Wherefore, the first judgment which came upon man must needs have remained to an endless duration. And if so, this flesh must have laid down to rot and to crumble to its mother earth, to rise no more. 8 O the wisdom of God, his mercy and grace! For behold, if the flesh should rise no more our spirits must become subject to that angel who fell from before the presence of the Eternal God, and became the devil, to rise no more. 9 And our spirits must have become like unto him, and we become devils, angels to a devil, to be shut out from the presence of our God, and to remain with the father of lies, in misery, like unto himself; yea, to that being who beguiled our first parents, who transformeth himself nigh unto an angel light, and strirreth up the children of men unto secret combinations of murder and all manner of secret works of darkness. 10 O how great the goodness of our God, who prepareth a way for our escape from the grasp of this awful monster; yea, that monster, death and hell, which I call the death of the body, and also the death of the spirit. 11 And because of the way of deliverance of our God, the Holy One of Israel, this death, of which I have spoken, which is the temporal, shall deliver up its dead; which death is the grave. (2 Nephi 9)

I love that movie. The book that Lovell wrote about the experience is really good too.

A compilation of the Nauvoo temple records can be found at https://archive.org/details/nauvoo-sealings-adoptions-and-anointings/. It is a really fascinating document. It lists all of the people who received their endowments, all of the sealings, and who they were sealed to (including both proxy and non-proxy). So, if we are going with contemporary documents, there is no evidence that Augusta was married/sealed to Brigham before 1846 either. If we go by the earliest contemporary evidence (the Nauvoo Temple sealings), she is quite late, being sealed in Feb 2 and over a dozen being sealed earlier in January. By the way, Augusta was actually sealed to Joseph Smith. Brigham stood in proxy for Joseph. So Augusta and Brigham were sealed for time only (that is how the sealings worked back then for proxy sealings). You can see that in the "Nauvoo Sealings, Adoptions, and Anointings". Augusta is listed under Joseph and Brigham as a wife. When Augusta went to Nauvoo the first time (1843), there is no contemporaneous evidence that she did it to marry Brigham. She arrived in Nauvoo in October 1843. She traveled back to Boston in August 1844 and then back to Nauvoo in November 1845. http://www.connellodonovan.com/essex_mormons.pdf The first evidence is 1846 in the Nauvoo Temple sealings. Then we get letters from her talking about her sister wives. Then we have a divorce case between Augusta and Henry Cobb where he alleges that she committed adultery with Brigham in August 1844. Then we get a "tell-all" book written by Catherine Lewis (1848 https://archive.org/details/CatherineLewisNarrative/page/n1/mode/2up) that says that Augusta told Catherine about polygamy when Augusta returned to Boston (so 1844-1845). Our evidence that she was married in 1843 is her affidavit from 1869. That is also where we get Lucy Ann Decker's marriage date. So if we don't accept one, then I don't see why we should accept the other. Without that affidavit, she is maybe married by August 1844 (per her divorce case) which would put her further down the line. I don't see why Lucy Ann Decker being married to her husband would have a factor in this since Augusta was also still married to her husband. They both have that. We can't say that Lucy got married later but not say the same thing about Augusta. They both were definitely sealed by 1846 to Brigham and apparently Lucy's earlier marriage date was actually written in the Nauvoo temple records. https://www.dialoguejournal.com/articles/determining-and-defining-wife-the-brigham-young-households/ says that but it is really hard to get access to the Nauvoo temple records so no way to prove it.

Okay so, I did some more digging and I discovered that Brigham Young's marriage to Lucy Ann Decker was not recorded until 1846 -- it was recorded as an 1842 marriage, but the record itself was not actually made until the year 1846. I think you might be able to find it in the Nauvoo 1846 temple records here: https://www.familysearch.org/en/search/catalog/285774 Since there wasn't any evidence before the martyrdom that they were married pre-martyrdom, those who espouse the narrative that Brigham Young introduced polygamy consider such back dates to be fabricated, or at least without proper evidence. We have contemporary evidence that Augusta Cobb, before the martyrdom, followed Brigham to Nauvoo to be a plural wife (but we find out from her letters later that Brigham forbid her to speak to Joseph Smith) so that would be why those who don't believe Brigham Young to disregard when he later said a marriage date was. Another piece of evidence against the LDS narrative was that Lucy Ann Decker was still married to her first husband William Seeley in 1842 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Brigham_Young's_wives), so that makes the back-dated marriage claim to Brigham Young a lot less credible too. I also found that even though no sealing record was made until 1846, they were definitely in a relationship earlier, as she gave birth to their first child together on June 19, 1845, (https://ancestors.familysearch.org/en/KWJH-DJZ/lucy-ann-decker-1822-1891) about a year after the martyrdom, but that still doesn't date their relationship as being before the martyrdom by any contemporary evidence, as Augusta's was. So as a whole, those who don't ascribe to Brigham Young's narrative of polygamy also don't necessarily ascribe to the LDS church's given dates when certain polygamous events happened either. I guess it would be great if there were to be a narrative timeline put together of the two sides so each side's proposed chain of events and their differences could be compared side-by-side, but I've never seen anyone put something together like that.

It's a trend, usually relying on revisionist history. No real historian doubts the established origin. Just a lot of internet warriors. Whether it's commanded by God is a matter of faith.

Firstly, you are confused by how we use the term "original sin". The Church has not changed its doctrine on this topic, it has always maintained a distinction between the consequences of the Fall and innate moral guilt/taint of humanity. When leaders use traditional Christian vocabulary, like "original sin" or "taint", to describe physical mortality and spiritual separation, they wouldn't be ignoring that the Book of Mormon rejects the concept of inherited moral guilt and infant damnation. Nor that the Second Article of Faith also explicitly rejects inherited moral guilt, "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression." In classical Roman Catholicism or Calvinism, "Original Sin" carries two components. One, the physical/spiritual consequences of the Fall (mortality, physical pain, spiritual separation from God, inclination toward sin). Two, the inherited moral guilt/depravity (the idea that infants inherit the blame and corrupted nature of Adam's transgression, making them inherently sinful at birth and subject to damnation unless baptized). Therefore, Joseph Fielding Smith and Charles W. Penrose used the term "original sin" were strictly referring to the physical and spiritual consequences of the Fall. They defined the penalty of the Fall as physical death and spiritual death. The "taint" refers to inheriting mortality, physical weakness, and exposure to a fallen world, not inherited moral guilt. Penrose directly noted in the quote you provided that Christ's atonement covers original sin unconditionally. Because no individual is morally guilty for Adam's act, Christ automatically overcomes physical death and spiritual death for infants without infant baptism. Thusly, when President Russell M Nelson and Church manuals refutes "original sin," they are rejecting inherited moral guilt and infant depravity. Traditional Christians historically argued that because infants possess "original sin," unbaptized infants who die cannot enter heaven or are subject to damnation. LDS rejects "original sin" due to historical baggage implying that infants are born guilty or unclean before God, which is why modern LDS teachings generally avoid using the phrase altogether to prevent confusion with mainstream theology. Are you certain you are wanting to argue against the Church, over what is clearly a petty issue over theological precision and definitions, to defend a theology where unbaptized babies are born guilty and spiritually damned?

That kind of strengthens my issue with the site. If WomenStats has the data, why not show it vs show a completely unrelated chart from World Bank. I'm not looking for a country-by-country chart. A chart 2 with two lines would be enough. 1 line for non-polygamous countries and 1 line for polygamous countries. And then I'd love an actual list of what are the polygamous countries. Because if they aren't looking at legality but are looking at prevelance, than that could mean the US could be included as we have a decent amount of polyamorous relationships. Since I can't tell exactly what the website is arguing and because I can easily find data that refutes how I read the arguments, it makes me not trust it. Because it feels like it is cherry-picking its data or the author isn't actually drilling into the data. I found a maps page in WomenStats that shows all the countries on the 1-5 scale One thing that is interesting is that US is yellow so is it polygamous or not? Depends on if we are only looking at the ones orange/red or if we also are including the yellow. I can see that Angola is marked with a 4 (I'm giving 1 to the dark green and 5 to the dark red). But so is Bahrain. So, if "polygamous countries" are all 4 and 5s, then the statement is false. But if polygamous countries are only 5s, then why did the website mention Haiti since that is a 4 (you have to zoom in but it is an orange color)? I also went through several of the red countries (the ones that are definitely "polygamous countries" by WomenStats) and Burkina Faso has been declining its extreme poverty. I also went through some of the green ones (definitely not polygamous) and found Kosovo which has increased its extreme poverty and been bouncing around at a higher level since 2016. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.DDAY?end=2022&locations=XK-BF-HT&most_recent_value_desc=true&start=1994&view=chart has Haiti, Kosovo, and Burkina Faso If the author of the website had instead said something like "Most polygamous countries are not declining in extreme poverty", than it would be fine. But the author is using an absolute ("every"). The data they are using doesn't use those absolutes.