JLHPROF

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.

http://Source: Instagram https://share.google/g8z8EEVoTUOBLBZRa https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2025/10/28/sleeveless-lds-garments-are/ I know they're "authorized" and all that but you can guess my thoughts on this. So sad.

Still continuing to ignore the facts and context. I'll let it go. If it makes you feel better to interpret it that way more power to you.

That may be, but the 1886 revelation concerns polygamy, not eternal marriage. The circumstances amd the portions I highlighted make that clear.

You ignore both the circumstances that brought abouth the revelation and the underlined highlights above. As for D&C 132, I suggest you check again. 32 Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved. 33 But if ye enter not into my law ye cannot receive the promise of my Father, which he made unto Abraham. 34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; Seems pretty clear what the law was at that time and in D&C 132.

Wrong on both counts. Completely wrong. Sorry. Specifically the context of the 1886 revelation makes it clear it's 100% about polygamy. It would make zero sense if it were about eternal marriage alone.

Which means if the 93 year old Oaks doesn't have the Hinckley/Nelson longevity we could have President Holland in a few years. But seriously, what medicine are they all taking to be that active into their 90s? Just statistically how does such a small select group of men have such a high percentage living past 90? Age expectancy is still just under 80.

Welp...I was wrong about Elder Bednar (for now). I guess President Christofferson fit the need more at this time. I remain curious about the choice because as Bluebell said he really wasn't on the radar. ETA - did you catch Pres Oaks comments emphasizing that "our ministry is a ministry of ALL the children of God on the face of the earth"? Given Pres Christofferson's public family history with his brother I can see the benefit in this calling if an outreach is planned. And I am surprised they retained President Eyring only given his age and health but I suspected they might. Is he one of the longest serving members of the First Presidency in Church history? 18 years with a few short gaps. ETA: Looks like a people few hit 20 years+ as First Presidency counselors, but 18 is up there.

Quorum meetings are usually on Thursdays.

I was just skimming the Deseret News article about the meeting where the Apostles select the new leadership. https://www.deseret.com/faith/2025/10/11/meeting-where-latter-day-saint-prophet-is-chosen/ A couple of thoughts occurred. 1. The article keeps using the phrase "ordained" as Church President. I think this is an incorrect usage. "Set Apart" is the correct term isn't is? That's how I was taught and that's how some Apostles describe it, but others in the article do also say "ordain". But is it an actual ordination? It's setting apart for a Church calling, not ordination to an actual priesthood office correct? Otherwise no living person could ordain someone to a higher office than they themselves hold. Thoughts? 2. Apostlic seniority and therefore priesthood seniority usually directs these decisions. There is no doubt that the President presides not just from a Church authority perspective but in priesthood authority too. So my other thought is when the counselors in the First Presidency are called they rightly preside over those still in the Quorum in a Church administrative capacity. However do they preside in priesthood authority or would they consider the senior Apostle as having authority over a junior Apostle temporarily serving in the First Presidency?

I doubt very much Oaks will select either. Not unless he wants to present a softer gentler counterpoint as counselors.

Probably - but Eyring being in the wheelchair I think makes it less likely.

By that logic he'd choose Holland (unlikely given his health) and they would have chosen Ballard a few years back. Being next in line has never been any indication of a First Presidency calling.

I don't it's an issue of different understanding or even any disagreement. I simply think that Pres Nelson, Oaks, Bednar, and possibly others take a more legalistic and literal approach. The "Mormon" usage is just one example. Elder Uchtdorf and others are the more gentle, subjective gospel teachers. Nothing wrong with that and this is evidenced by member comments & response to both groups. I simply don't see Oaks selecting counselors that don't match his perspective. I still think Eyring & Bednar unless Pres Eyring age/health play a factor.

Elder Holland is just unlikely with his declining health. He may eventually become prophet without ever serving in the FP. Elder Uchtdorf is unlikely I think for the same reason he wasn't retained by Pres Nelson. Different philosophies on the gospel. Eyring may stay but Bednar will almost certainly be prophet one day and is healthier and more philosophically alligned with Pres Oaks. I think he's almost certain. I'm thinking Gérald Caussé for Apostle.