JLHPROF

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.

Any thoughts on the next First Presidency since Conference is upon us? I'm thinking Pres Eyring may get to rest now. And Elder Holland isn't well and will likely remain the new Elder Ballard. I'm expecting Bednar and possibly Andersen or Rasband.

A good percentage of donations appear to be from Church members. Just another reason I love this Church.

That would have been 1890. Interesting.

"Christ says no man knoweth the day or the hour when the Son of Man cometh (Matt 24:36). …Did Christ speak this as a general principle throughout all generations? Oh no, he spoke in the present tense. No man that was then living upon the footstool of God knew the day or the hour. But he did not say that there was no man throughout all generations that should not know the day or the hour. No for this would be in flat contradiction with other scripture for the prophet (Amos 3:7) says that God will do nothing but what he will reveal unto his Servants the prophets." Joseph Smith Date: 6 April 1843 Source: James Burgess Notebook. The Words of Joseph Smith: Page 180

In my opinion the primary reason people aren't getting married is there's a lack of willingness to sacrifice one's own wants and needs, or to sacrifice in general. Not everyone of course, but enough that it's reduced the marriage rate. Men are less willing to give their all, working long hours to support wife and children and to have little time to please themselves. Women are less willing to prioritize home and family over fulfilling their own needs and wants. And that is a primary reason why polygamy which would require even greater sacrifices from both just wouldn't fly anymore if God ever expected it again.

LDS Fair is posting this spin all over social media. It's so demonstrably incorrect. @Calm I'm a little surprised they'd take that approach. I believe you work with them correct? I've always found their work better than that. Reading the text of the revelation there is absolutely no way it refers to eternal marriage alone. Basic reading comprehension. LDS Fair should update those misleading posts.

Again that only means that the revelation was never accepted by or presented to the Church organization. It doesn't change whether or not the Lord actually spoke to John Taylor or not. It either happened or didn't. It was very much a personal revelation to John Taylor.

Ironic since our entire religion and Church is based on several revelatory visions to a teenage boy with no witnesses, no Apostolic approval, and no common consent vote. Using your argument the first vision and appearance of Moroni should be considered null. Or you have a double standard for revelations.

Do you think that any prophet of the Church was in the habit of inventing revelations? I don't. The legitimizing process is about whether or not a revelation was applicable or binding to the body of the Church IMO. I don't believe that process has any effect at all on whether God spoke to Pres Taylor. I believe President Brigham Young for instance likely had dozens of revelations throughout his life but only one made it into the D&C. They're still authentic revelations.

It's not the addition of the text that is news. It's the addition of the original document in John Taylor's own handwriting. As opposed to Petersen's statement that: "To justify their own rebellion recalcitrant brethren devised a scheme which they hoped would frustrate the stand of the Church on plural marriage. They concocted a false revelation, allegedly given to President John Taylor in 1886". Nobody concocted it. That's the news. It's an authentic revelation to John Taylor that was never accepted or canonized by the Church. There are quite a few authentic revelations to the prophets that haven't been legitimized by the Church. Apparently Matthew 4:4 doesn't really mean EVERY. Matt 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

1) Many Church leaders, including the vast majority of the Quorum of the 12 either married additional plural wives between 1890 & 1904 or performed plural marriages. We have to ask how the leaders of the Church viewed the Manifesto to understand it. 2) As far as accepting 1886 revelation AND the 1890 Manifesto as both true and valid we'd need to understand God's purpose in revealing both and the actions of those who received both documents from the Lord. Because they would understand the intent better than we do.