JLHPROF

According to scripture the current Prophet of the Church has the right to name a successor. In my opinion the Q12 doesn't and shouldn't choose. Only the head can designate his successor. There were many ordained Apostles who were never a part of the Q12. And some were faithful members throughout their lives.

Based on ages with conservatives like Bednar and Gilbert likely leading the Church for long periods I wouldn't expect it at all. Although if Uchtdorf takes the reigns briefly after Oaks his liberal viewpoint might slip it through.

Yep - I think this creation lacks passion and power. The standardized General Conference voice. (At least it's not Primary voice). Somehow I think Joseph was a little more emotive.

AI was used to put together a video of the Prophet Joseph delivering the King Follett Discourse. Fascinating idea. Obviously the accuracy of the imagery is debatable but the idea of being able to "see" Joseph deliver a discourse is interesting. We've seen numerous actors portray the Savior delivering the Sermon on the Mount. I just thought the project interesting. Thoughts?

I should have said 30 by the time Joseph died. Your number would be a five fold increase in just a year or two.

Joseph started learning during the translation of the Bible. He made some tentative attempts in the 1830s before eternal marriage was revealed but once it was revealed as a key component of the New & Everlasting covenant (D&C 132) and the temple ceremonies he was commanded to fully participate. I'm not sure how much impact it had on the trek west since only about 30 men entered polygamy in Nauvoo, out of a city of 12,000.

He never recovered from his wife's passing. Wonderful speaker and teacher. His discourse "None Were With Him" was one of the greatest I've ever heard. He will be greatly missed. I suppose this means we'll have a Pres. Uchtdorf again as acting Q12 Pres.

There are still some of us convinced that Christ was an actual polygamist in life too. We know at least three potential wives names.

Wow, it's like Church fanfiction.

Joseph Smith without a doubt - but then I consider him in a different category to his successors. If for no other reason than he is one of the 7 dispensation heads, our own Moses, Noah, Enoch. Of the remaining I've always liked John Taylor - he was born in England, moved to Canada, then to Utah, just like me. And for various reasons I've always enjoyed Presidents Young, McKay, Benson, and Hunter.

The point I was making had nothing to do with whether Adam-God was true or false. I was addressing the intellectually dishonest trend trying to claim Brigham never taught it. It's the same dishonest trend claiming Joseph wasn't a polygamist. Or that there was no priesthood restrictions on race until after Joseph died History is what actually happened, for better or worse. Amd Brigham (and other Apostles) absolutely taught Adam God, whether they were right or wrong.

I would say they are downplaying a little, but the data there alone is enough to make the Ward Radio video less a bombshell and more a bold faced lie. As it shows: ---------------------- "Adam-God teachings were published in Church magazines,[71] hymnals,[72] sermons,[73] private gatherings,[74] and in teachings in the St. George Temple.[75] Was this ever an "official" doctrine? Sort of. Adam-God theory was publicly asserted by leaders of the Church. It was referred to as a "doctrine" by Brigham Young and other leaders,[76] and ideas were taught in the St. George Utah Temple in the "Lecture at the Veil"[77] which explained the creation, the exaltation of Adam and his descendants, Adam and Eve being the parents of our spirits, and the mission of Jesus as the Savior." The real irony I see is that while in the last decade or so the Church themselves have become more honest in their representation of History, this in turn has produced a small but vocal movement among members pushing a newly sanitized revisionist history concerning many aspects of Church history. It's fascinating to watch.

I don't know any site that puts together the teachings. But some of the historical documentation can be found all over. This site contains a lot of the historical discourses and records. https://www.adamgod.com/ And then you only need to google or look into the history like with Orson Pratt or Bishop Bunker, to find records. Now if you're looking for explanation and clarification on what it all means that's much harder. But the idea that it was never taught (as Ward Radio claimed) has no truth to it.

It's the old "Brigham was misquoted" argument that was used decades ago. I think it was Petersen but I might be misremembering. It ignores the dozens of teachings, temple records, and quorum records. History shows Adam God was absolutely taught.

I saw that. It's absolutely wrong. Just not accurate history at all.

This being the case what right do we have to claim what we teach on God is true? In the Lectures on Faith they said the Holy Ghost wasn't a personage. That was official Church doctrine. In Brigham's day Orson Pratt and Bishop Bunker both suffered disciplinary actions for teaching AGAINST Adam-God. Christ wasn't officially identified as Jehovah in the Old Testament until Jesus The Christ was published (although there was speculation prior). There have been many many changes in how we view the Godhead in the Church. Yet if anyone questions the current teaching they are considered to believe "false doctrine". Yet continuing revelation could prove our current teaching to be false doctrine. It's mighty arrogant to assume current Church teachings are all completely true.

Most Latter-Day Saints are unaware that our theology concerning the Godhead has changed and adjusted many times over the course of Church History. Or that in the 200 year history of the Church our current Godhead understanding is only about 100 years old. Imagine what we may believe in another century.

Got me thinking more on this principle. This is a good example. Another might be: Baptism is a sign and a commandment which God has set for man to enter into His kingdom. Those who seek to enter in any other way will seek in vain; for God will not receive them, neither will the angels acknowledge their works as accepted, for they have not obeyed the ordinances, nor attended to the signs which God ordained for the salvation of man, to prepare him for, and give him a title to, a celestial glory” (Joseph Smith History of the Church, 4:554). Or: "What is the sign of the healing of the sick? the laying on of hands, is the sign or way marked out by James & the custom of the ancient saints as ordered by the Lord & we should not obtain the blessing by persuing any other course except the way which God has markd out." Joseph Smith - Discourse, 20 March 1842 All blessings have laws upon which they are predicated. Sometimes the only thing the law requires is faith or a humble prayer. Sometimes an ordinance is required for the blessing. Sometimes an act of obedience like paying tithing.

It's not a single law. It's the body of eternal law. Much as a lawyer practices law or an officer enforces the law. So God applies and upholds the law. You could correctly call it the Law of the Gospel. Additionally whether we realize it or not this mortal life can be termed as a kingdom in the gospel sense and D&C 88 also applies. 36 All kingdoms have a law given; 37 And there are many kingdoms; for there is no space in the which there is no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space, either a greater or a lesser kingdom. 38 And unto every kingdom is given a law; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions. 39 All beings who abide not in those conditions are not justified. So what eternal laws apply to this mortal life? And what conditions and bounds? See also Mosiah 2:24 And secondly, he doth require that ye should do as he hath commanded you; for which if ye do, he doth immediately bless you; and therefore he hath paid you. And ye are still indebted unto him, and are, and will be, forever and ever; therefore, of what have ye to boast? This principle is the first half, grace is the second part. (Although I'm not sure immediately is literal here).

The idea is completely scriptural: D&C 130:20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated— 21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated. God is a God of order and is bound by eternal law. There are blessings that God can give without merit on our part under the principles of grace and faith. But there are others that are eternally bound to obedience to law. God has rules he has to follow too. D&C 82:10 I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise.

This meets the description of Moroni's robe in every way does it not?

31 He had on a loose robe of most exquisite whiteness. It was a whiteness beyond anything earthly I had ever seen; nor do I believe that any earthly thing could be made to appear so exceedingly white and brilliant. His hands were naked, and his arms also, a little above the wrist; so, also, were his feet naked, as were his legs, a little above the ankles. His head and neck were also bare. I could discover that he had no other clothing on but this robe, as it was open, so that I could see into his bosom.

Well until we have the same fabric as the heavenly messengers wore I don't think we have much choice on that. 😄 It's the design that was revealed from the other side of the veil and worn by the angels.

You know I do. I happen to believe the historical accounts that God revealed the pattern to Joseph. They've been hacked to bits. The marks aren't even in the right places. Per Joseph F. Smith Improvement Era, Vol. IX, No. 10, p. 813; “The Lord has given unto us garments of the holy priesthood, and you know what that means. And yet there are those of us who mutilate them, in order that we may follow the foolish, vain and (permit me to say) indecent practices of the world. … They should hold these things that God has given unto them sacred, unchanged and unaltered from the very pattern in which God gave them. Let us have the moral courage to stand against the opinions of fashion, and especially where fashion compels us to break a covenant and so commit a grievous sin.” – Joseph Fielding Smith, August 1906 Messages of the First Presidency 5:110; “The Saints should know that the pattern of endowment garments was revealed from Heaven and that the blessings promised in connection with wearing them will not be realized if any unauthorized change is made in their form or in the manner of wearing them.” – President Joseph F. Smith; 28 June 1906.

1. God did set a pattern - check the history. 2. This is only an inch so not a huge change. I'm sad that they are so happy to be covered even less, don't want to be more modest instead of less, and have no understanding of the garments that were revealed to Joseph.