Pyreaux

Here are the points and how they prove the cost of the polemical method: First an Argument from Ignorance It's the claim that a proposition is true simply because it has not been proven false, or is false because it has not been proven true. In the context of polemical apologetics, you see a lack of perfect evidence as evidence of fraud. But you do not apply the same skeptical rigor to the origins of your own faith. With no evidence, you assume the premise that there is continuous, unbroken authority in your own tradition to dismiss the LDS claim as unnecessary because you don't accept the evidence for it. You gave no positive argument, so it's a personal preference. Then Appeal to Continuous Authority in the face of an Ecclesiological deficit "My authority is Jesus saying he would build his church and the gates of hell would not prevail," is maybe your strongest affirmative statement, but it is deeply insufficient in an interfaith debate. The Catholic, Orthodox, and LDS traditions all agree with the promise of Matthew 16:18. They just fundamentally disagree on how that promise was fulfilled. When the Catholic poster pointed out the need for a "one true visible church," you needed to point to a specific, unified, visible body that exists today. If its a spiritual, invisible community of believers that is everywhere and yet nowhere, you cannot point to a single, positive, visible institution as "the Church" in Matthew. You must point to an invisible concept defined by a spiritual checklist, one which is easily satisfied by thousands of fragmented denominations. You authority is, therefore, an abstraction, which will force you back into negative polemics to defend your invisible boundaries. Then Relativism I'm not saying it wrong to exclude, just the portion of Protestants engaged in the polemic method of exclusion is by nature negative, often ill-informed, and consumed by attacking the opponent, which carries a high cost (a lot of false witnessing or rampant ignorance). It doesn't offer a positive, internal reason to reject the LDS claim, you offered a negative, external observation designed to neutralize a claim of uniqueness. Crucially, this line was used to rebut the Catholic's point about the Protestant lack of a single, visible church. A Protestant 'positive' defense should have been why a fragmented and invisible authority is superior to visible unity. Instead, you deflected. If the statement truly a justification for rejection, you could follow it up with, "And here is the superior, singular, non-fragmented, authoritative body that Christ promised would never be defeated". Since you cannot do this, you can only claim that all visible authority claims are equally suspect. This reinforces the idea that your identity is defined by whom you reject. It confirms the original thesis, the Protestant apologetics is often not engaged in affirmation, but a methodology of negation.

I do cobble together sources. Like the first is all me, I think I gleaned the definition of "dominion" from somewhere. Third one I recall is based on Jeff Lindsay and maybe a bit of Light Planet, but not verbatim.

A very good attempt to call out a Double Standard (the application of different sets of principles or standards to similar situations, often resulting in unfair treatment of one group compared to another). However, in reality that is a perfect demonstration of the defensive cycle in polemical apologetics. When the method is exposed (the constant critique, the negative identity), there is a immediately pivot back to attacking the opponent's faith to justify the negativity. A Protestant apologist attempts to establish the counter-argument: "The hostility originates with you. You accuse us of negative apologetics, but your founding (JSH 1:19) is a source of negative apologetics. It declares our ordinances invalid and our creeds an 'abomination.' Our negative critiques are simply a defensive reaction to your aggressive, negative, and exclusionary claim." Notice, the lack of a positive identity in fragmented Protestantism. It also misses a distinction between two fundamentally different types of exclusion. Exclusion by Affirmation (LDS/Catholic/JW) Positive Claim: "We have the true, visible, and enduring priesthood/authority/Church." Exclusion is a necessary consequence of the positive claim. The exclusion is doctrinal, not methodological. Exclusion by Rejection (Polemical Protestantism) Negative Identity: "We are the one true faith despite a lack of visible authority, and so we must define ourselves by what we are not." The apologetics must use a methodological, constant, active campaign of critique against all who claim a positive, visible authority (Catholic, LDS, JW, etc.). The Catholic was criticizing one Protestant METHODOLOGY (the need to constantly critique others to establish identity). The Protestant replied by criticizing the LDS DOCTRINE (the content of the exclusivist claim). The very act of answering a critique of methodology with a critique of doctrine proves the original point: you are unable to defend your own tradition positively and must attack. The Irony This rebuttal is ironic because the accusation of a "double standard" is itself a communication breakdown. All major Christian traditions are exclusionary. When the Protestant claims that Sola Scriptura is the only standard; this automatically excludes the Catholic appeal to Tradition and the LDS appeal to continuing Revelation. The Protestant, by claiming the Bible alone is sufficient, is effectively saying, "All non-biblical sources or claims of authority are corrupt." Yes, it is a symmetrical critique of the state of the institutional church, which is the same critique that Martin Luther leveled against the Pope and the same critique that the Church Councils leveled against the Arians. The difference is that when the LDS faith makes this statement, it's to then pivot to the positive work of Restoration. The polemical Protestant makes this statement to then pivot to the negative work of tearing down others, the claim the LDS faith is "hostile" for its foundational exclusionary statements. You are criticizing authority while refusing to positively defend your own authority structure. Ironic.

JFS does give essential Doctrines typically found throughout the Standard Works (LDS scriptures). The Godhead's Nature, and correct knowledge of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is essential for eternal life (John 17:3). Important in the temple context because it is the basis for understanding its teachings of our divine potential. Faith in Jesus Christ is required for all acts of repentance. Repentance is a necessary, ongoing process to be forgiven of sins and qualify for God's presence. Essential Ordinances - Baptism, Receiving the Holy Ghost, Priesthood, Temple Ordinances (Endowment, Sealing). These are the covenants required to enter Exaltation. Baptism, a Saving Ordinance. Priesthood, What it is, how it Works Marriage Resurrection/Judgment, knowing the reality of the Resurrection (universal) and the Judgment (conditional) provides the motivation and framework for obedience. The Gathering of Israel, because it is the mission of the Church and its members to prepare the world for the Second Coming. In short, anything relating to the Articles of Faith, the ordinances of the temple, and the necessary commandments (like obedience, the Sabbath, tithing, etc.) is considered required for the full blessings of exaltation. Subjects Not Required for Exaltation (Speculation/Interpretation) These are points of interest, historical theories, or interpretations that, while often believed by previous leaders (like Joseph Fielding Smith), are not currently sustained as unified, binding doctrine and do not affect one's standing for exaltation. The key non-essential subjects like; Specific Creation Timeline: The fact of the Creation by God is essential; the exact duration, mechanics, and correlation with scientific theories are not revealed and are matters of interpretation. Joseph Fielding Smith was a strong advocate for a literal, six-day creation (in the sense of six time periods but often short ones). He strongly argued against evolutionary theory. Current Church leaders maintain a position of neutrality on the process of creation, emphasizing that God directed it. Overly Detailed Millennial Conditions: The fact of the Millennial reign is essential; the exact status and role of non-members, the details of mortality vs. immortality on earth, and the precise nature of temple work during that time are not fully settled. Smith speculated on who exactly will remain on the earth (celestial and terrestrial people), the nature of death (change in the twinkling of an eye), and the level of mortality that remains. While based on scripture, the fine details are unnecessary for personal salvation today. Pre-Mortal Organization/Roles: The fact of the Pre-mortal Life is essential, specific hierarchy, nature of pre-mortal knowledge, or the details of how spirits were created are non-essential. Smith and others explored things like the specific progression of God and the concept of intelligence (a term often used broadly in early LDS thought). These are considered speculative philosophical points today. The doctrines required for salvation (or, more accurately, Exaltation) are what we call the Covenant Path starting with salvation and ideally ending in exaltation: Faith in Jesus Christ, Repentance, Baptism, receiving the Holy Ghost, and making and keeping the Temple Covenants (Endowment and Sealing). The subjects that are not required for salvation are the overly detailed interpretations or opinions of past leaders. These discussions are interesting, and have their own logic, maybe even true, but it is not the information we are judged by.

I was afraid I was over generalizing. I made some edits. "Not all Protestants, or even most Protestants, but a loud visible minority of Protestants calling themselves "apologists" but technically not exactly, particularly those engaging with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that put themselves online". I'm connected to Our Savior's Church and its very popular here in Louisiana, I don't hear any Mormon bashing. They don't seem to know anything about the Book of Mormon. They love The Chosen. They like Christian music and media. They are open minded when I talk about the Book of Enoch. They are very generous. The only thing they don't like is new age witchcraft and they lump in Masonry in that boat. I assume because masonry is popular here, the catagory is things used as replacements for religion.

Yes, a claim is not the proof. It seems like you're attempting to neutralize @3DOP's strongest positive claim. 1. Groups A, B, C, D (JW, SDA, Iglesia ni Christo) all make the exclusive claim: "We are the one true church." 2. So, if LDS or The Catholic Church also makes the exclusive claim: "We are the one true church." Conclusion: The claim itself is worthless, since it is mutually exclusive? It doesn't mean the need of a visible unity and singularity isn't valid, even if our claims to be it may not be any more valid than that of a Jehovah’s Witness. It misses the deeper point about identity. If a tradition lacks a single, visible, authoritative Church, you often must define yourselves by what you are not. You are compelled to lash out because you cannot positively point to "The Church". Just like here you seem unable to engage with the affirmation. Someone here attempted to affirm the theological nature of the Church; your first reflex seems to immediately go to a list of other groups, that I assume are to be rejected, not to defend Protestantism.

While nothing is exactly news here, I am just organizing my thoughts about what I see in the LDS sphere of Apologetics. I guess I'm trying to break down why our interfaith communication tends to... break down. Without assuming disingenuousness, but what its like in their shoes. As Brigham Young said, "we vary more in language than we do in sentiment". So, I'm often focused on how to best explain things using the right vocabulary, which I fail often enough to know there is always a better way to say something. Apologetics To "apologize" or make excuses, often focuses on defending, proving why one's own faith is true by presenting evidence, doctrine, or spiritual fruits (e.g., "Here is why the Book of Mormon provides clear answers to questions about the gospel.") Religious apologetics is supposed to be the reasoned defense of one's faith. A discipline common to nearly every major religious tradition. At its best, it is a scholarly, charitable endeavor to articulate truth and answer difficult questions. Not all Protestants, or even most Protestants, but a loud visible minority of Protestants calling themselves "apologists" but technically not exactly, particularly those engaging with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that put themselves online, a peculiar pattern emerges. A focus is placed overwhelmingly on a critical, often polemical, attack on multiple external faiths. This posturing, rooted in critique rather than affirmation, constitutes an oddity that is frequently distasteful and often poorly informed. Polemics Polemics (or Negative Apologetics) focuses on proving why everyone else's faith is false by attacking historical claims, perceived inconsistencies, or doctrinal shortcomings (e.g., "All I know about you is there are errors in the Book of Mormon."). The recent observation that captures this phenomenon is this young Protestant's lament: "I can't [defend Protestantism] without getting into why everyone else is wrong." This statement, simple as it is, speaks to exactly my experience of some Protestant's overreliance on polemics over apologetics. True apologetics should primarily articulate the beauty, consistency, and divine evidence supporting one's own faith (e.g., arguments for sola scriptura or the nature of God or grace). When the only perceived defense is an offense against other faiths, it suggests that the faith's identity is defined not by its internal strength, but by its opposition to others. This posture can inadvertently communicate a sense of doctrinal instability or a lack of self-assured identity. When the default answer to "Why Protestantism?" is "Because Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Mormonism are wrong," the conversation instantly becomes toxic. A Jack of all Trades, but a Master of None There is a cost to this. When a fledgling Protestant Anti-Mormon addresses LDS topics, they often rely on simplified or outdated anti-Mormon tropes. They aren't held to the same academic standard as a scholar specializing in religious history. They are speaking from a place of ignorance simply because they haven't done the specific homework required for the field. It takes years of study to "master" Mormonism. A college course of LDS literature, history, and doctrine. Even smart people won't dedicate the time and attention the subject needs. This lack of specialization, coupled with the aggressive focus on polemics, creates an environment where these new "apologists", despite their impressive intelligence, are very susceptible to being outmatched. When they encounter an actual LDS apologist who has dedicated years to mastering the relevant primary sources, historiography, and theological nuances of the debate, their generalized arguments most often fail. The defender, having mastered their own domain, finds it relatively simple to expose the shallowness of the critique. Beholdest the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye The next stage is a well-studied Protestant apologist prepared with arguments specifically designed to target LDS claims. Their study is highly focused on LDS weak points. It often has a price. It's easier to criticize an external structure than it is to establish the internal foundation of your own, which is why an "attack-first" strategy becomes so tempting. I feel that often they are often better at attacking LDS people than actually defending their own. The modern Protestant self-described "apologist" demonstrates highly specialized, often obscure, knowledge of LDS sources (e.g., obscure quotes from Brigham Young, complex details of the Book of Mormon translation process, early polygamy footnotes). When the LDS apologist pivots the discussion back to the Protestant's core doctrines (e.g., the hypostatic union, or the concept of eternal generation), the Protestant often lacks the specialized vocabulary and historical context to defend their own centuries-old positions. They know more about the internal disagreements of the LDS Church than they know about the detailed theological history of their own faith, proving that their study was motivated by critique rather than affirmation. The Always Unexpected LDS Counter-Punch to their Faith Your average studied LDS apologist is naturally drawn to study the traditional Trinitarian view, often viewing it as the starting point of the doctrinal divergence. If the Protestant launches a very polished attack on the LDS view of God, the LDS apologist can pivot quickly and say, "can you explain the coherence of one substance/three persons, and where the biblical model for that specific formulation is found?" For many every day, or even well-meaning, Protestant apologists, the Trinity is treated as a sacred cow that simply must be accepted, not defended with rigor. They often haven't been forced to break down the highly complex philosophical terms like homoousios, "substance," or persona, "person". The doctrine is taught as the non-negotiable boundary of Christian orthodoxy, not a concept to be rationally explained. The Protestant apologist that is so focused on the LDS doctrine can treats their foundational doctrine of the Trinity as a self-evident "mystery" that doesn't need a detailed defense. The Protestant Polemicist's Strawman These apologists can even spend all their energy defeating a belief system that no one actually holds, entirely missing the actual theological position. Sometimes the anti-Mormon or anti-Catholic critique requires filling in the missing gaps with assumptions. Like assuming someone that has a "works" tradition are neglecting faith. That is a straw-man position the Protestant is attacking. It's often a false assumption, since everyone, across all denominations, agrees that "works alone won't save," it is then attacking a caricature. The problem is that because they have never studied the nuances of LDS or Catholic theology on works and grace, they make statements about our errors, they are operating under the fundamental, unexamined assumption that the LDS or Catholic believe, "I am earning my way to heaven through effort, bypassing the need for Christ's Atonement." The Protestant apologist’s pre-packaged argument only works if the LDS member genuinely believes, or gullibly gets convinced by them, they are earning salvation. When the LDS apologist explains that they are saved by grace, and that the works are just the proof of their discipleship (following the path with Christ, not instead of Christ), the Protestant apologist is often, not stumped exactly. They often question your sincerity, because it can't possibly be a non-issue. Being Repugnant This reliance on external critique is manifest in the proliferation of literature and ministries dedicated to analyzing what is "wrong" with other faiths, with Latter-day Saints often featuring prominently. While good-faith theological engagement is essential, the tone of these critiques frequently crosses the line from academic disagreement to personal offense. The focus often moves beyond just comparing the Creeds to the Book of Mormon, instead shift in focus is what renders the approach distasteful, offensive and often ignorant. The Latter-day Saint feels attacked, rather than having a discussion. The issue of "annoying and ignorant" is perhaps the most frustrating aspect. Again, even highly intelligent public figures may occasionally wade into the complexities of LDS history or doctrine. They are experts in their own fields (Catholicism, philosophy, comedy, or political commentary), but their knowledge of the LDS context often proves to be superficial. These "apologists" feels obligated to cover all major religious groups but lacks the scholarly depth necessary to avoid making significant factual errors or relying on outdated arguments when addressing the LDS perspective. In conclusion, the oddity of this strain of Protestant apologetics lies in its tactical choice: a reflexive retreat to offensive polemics instead of building a robust, positive defense. By defining themselves primarily in opposition to others, these ministries risk becoming purveyors of misinformation and hostility. Ultimately, this focus detracts from the true scholarly work of both defending one’s faith and engaging with others in understanding

Yeah, that is a thing. There is confusion as there are categories of salvation, in the very same source materials we all use. We get lost by binary thinking (of saved and not saved, heaven or hell) to things that are a spectrum, or "degrees", if you will. Saved from Hades The Resurrection of Christ saved all of us from death, that is unconditional. Christ taught "all that are in the graves shall hear [the Father's] voice and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of of damnation" (John 5:29). Thus, resurrection saves our spirits from an eternal separation from our bodies after physical death. Save by Justification Justification, having the punishment of sins waived, on the condition of faith alone. Not any works can undo sin, Jesus paid it on our behalf. Paul says, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast" (Eph 2:8) and "a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ...for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified" (Gal. 2:16). Saved by Sanctification Individual purification makes men holy by repenting. Paul says, "God hath chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thes 2:13). The conditions are works of repentance, "faith without works is dead" (James 2:26). Those who are "called to be saints" are "them that are sanctified" (1 Cor 1:2). Repentance and the baptism of the Holy Ghost (John 1:33), the baptism of fire (Matt. 3:11) and being born again (John 3:3-5). Saved by Exaltation Fulness of Salvation. Exaltation is Eternal Life, to live with God in the Celestial Kingdom and become like Him, living the kind of life God lives, with the opportunity for eternal increase. A conditional gift, "ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved" (Matt. 10:22). "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne" (Rev. 3:21). The Required Knowledge for Salvation Required knowledge is a bit more complex. Joseph Smith taught that "it is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance" (D&C 131:6), and that we are saved "no faster than he gets knowledge". This knowledge would include the fundamental principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ; Faith in Jesus Christ, Repentance, Baptism, receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and receiving all temple ordinances and covenants (like the endowment and sealing), and enduring to the end in faithfulness. For those who do not hear the gospel in this life (like infants, or those without access to teaching), they are saved/resurrected by God's grace and are judged according to the knowledge and law they had (Light of Christ). For those who do hear the gospel during their mortal lives, the requirement is to exercise faith in Jesus Christ, which includes repentance. There is other important knowledge, the Plan of Salvation, the nature of God, the role of Jesus Christ, and the finer principles behind Faith, Repentance, Baptism, and receiving the Holy Ghost. Knowledge and understandings of the saving ordinances and covenants of the Gospel. "Ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age.... Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment." (Hebrews 5:12-6:2). The key takeaway is that it is the revealed nature of God (God has a body, He is a Personage) that is considered essential doctrine, but the specific, unrevealed details of His past progression or origin are non-essential and often fall into the category of speculation.

Rick K and the Allnighters with the Mad Drummer stealing the show.

It will provide an opportunity for more young women to serve who might otherwise have begun college, careers, or felt the pressure to marry. While some may not be, many young women today are emotionally, spiritually, and intellectually ready to serve earlier. The age change will dramatically increase the number of sister missionaries. They now align completely in terms of age with their male counterparts. This creates an appearance of greater equity. That said, stand clear and watch this chauvinistic swan dive. I do worry for the Sisters and think there could be an increased risk. I think though Elders are just as immature, if not more so, but the earlier age for young men was tolerated because their gender offered a form of situational safety buffer that young women inherently lack. While there was a prevalent cultural expectation within the Church for young women (and to some extent still is) to marry young and begin a family. I suggest the policy of an older age allowed for a greater wealth of street smarts before facing the rigors of a mission away from home, often in challenging environments. I have concerns about the safety, maturity, and naivety of 18-year-olds in real-world challenges. Missionaries, regardless of gender, are frequently exposed to high-crime areas, traffic accidents, aggressive individuals, and difficult living conditions. Being targets for theft, harassment, or other forms of exploitation due to their distinctive appearance and often limited local experience. While the Church emphasizes pre-mission preparation and safety guidelines, and though Missionaries will mostly only need worry about car accidents and illnesses, I just hope the absurd fiction that was Heretic 2024 doesn't become a documentary.

That is one way to look at it. The failure to fully establish Zion in Missouri in the 1830s was indeed attributed, in part, to the transgression and "apostasy" (lack of faithfulness/obedience) of the early Saints, "And Zion cannot be built up unless it is by the principles of the law of the celestial kingdom; otherwise I cannot receive them. My people must needs be chastened until they learn obedience, if it must needs be, by the things which they suffer." (D&C 101:6-8). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints still affirms a future fulfillment of the prophecies concerning the central land of Zion, but it does not view the temporary pause on the physical gathering as a sign of permanent collective apostasy or a loss of their priesthood or divine authorities. The verses in D&C 133 are understood to be describing the ultimate, complete gathering that will occur just before and during the Second Coming. The "Land of Zion" is the promised physical location which will be prepared to meet the Lord. This ultimate, physical gathering is still an outstanding prophecy and will occur when the time is right. If your specific Mormon denomination believes the physical gathering to the New Jerusalem must occur before any spiritual preparation in other stakes, then that is a difference in prophetic interpretation I won't dispute. But within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the current instruction is to gather to the local stakes while holding the ultimate gathering in Missouri as a future promise.

Ah, the iBand, playing 15 years ago on Gen 4 iPhones. A very hauntingly spiritual song.

The Land of Zion in D&C 133:7-16 is an initial Gathering to Missouri. The center stake of Zion was Independence, Jackson County, Missouri (D&C 57:3). This was the focal point of the "land of Zion" referenced in many early revelations, including D&C 133. There is later a broader sense of all of America as the Stakes of Zion. Joseph Smith later taught that the entire continent of North and South America was the "Land of Zion." The idea since evolved. Later, as the Church grew globally, the gathering was modified by prophetic direction in the mid-20th century. The gathering now occurs primarily to the local Stakes of Zion wherever members live worldwide, meaning they build up the Church in their own countries. They no longer need to physically move to the American Midwest. We "flee from Babylon" (spiritual wickedness) and gather to the nearest Stake of Zion. Christ's Second Coming and Zion in D&C 133:20 mentions Christ standing "upon the mount of Olivet, and upon the mighty ocean, even the great deep, and upon the islands of the sea, and upon the land of Zion." It is taught that Christ will physically stand upon the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem, fulfilling prophecy (Zechariah 14:4). The mention of the ocean, islands, and the land of Zion (Missouri/America) indicates the scope. His coming will be a worldwide event that everyone witnesses, not confined to one place. The references emphasize that his power and presence will be felt across the entire globe, manifesting in various promised locations; Zion, Jerusalem and on the sea and islands. The "land of Zion" here is the promised place in America. The Lands of Zion and Jerusalem in D&C 133:24 refers to a geological miracle that will occur before the Second Coming. The land of Jerusalem and the land of Zion (America) will be "turned back into their own place" to prepare the earth "like as it was in the days before it was divided." In this context, the land of Zion is the American continent, just as the land of Jerusalem is the traditional Holy Land. This prophecy refers to the reuniting of the landmasses of the earth to their original, pre-Pangaea state, often interpreted as the physical state of the earth that existed prior to the division of the earth in the days of Peleg (Genesis 10:25, though the how and when of that division is a matter of scriptural interpretation). Concerning D&C 134 and Missionary work to slaves, D&C 101:77-80 confirms the belief that the Constitution of the United States was divinely inspired to secure the rights and protection of all people, religious freedom being paramount. D&C 134:12 is part of a declaration written in 1835 by a general assembly of the Church and later canonized, addresses the Church's stance on governments and laws, specifically in relation to slavery, which was a deeply divisive issue in the US. "We do not believe it right to interfere with bond-servants, neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them contrary to the will and wish of their masters, nor to meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be uneasy, or exercise an influence, to the injury of their masters." Context of 1835 this declaration was a statement of political neutrality and an attempt to avoid provoking mob violence. In 1835, many US states had laws that made it illegal to educate slaves or preach to them in a way that might encourage rebellion or discontent. Preaching to slaves against the master's will would have been an act of civil disobedience that could have led to immediate, violent expulsion of the Saints from states like Missouri (which they were already experiencing). The Church was focused on survival, gathering to Zion, and building temples, and sought to demonstrate its loyalty to the law. Early Disciples and Paul situations are not fully analogous. Roman Law: While Paul preached to Roman soldiers and people of all statuses, the laws regarding slavery and the relationship between the Church and the Empire were different. Early Christians in the Roman Empire were a persecuted minority but were not operating under the immediate threat of mob violence from local authorities for legally defined "incitement" of chattel property, as the Saints were in the US. The declaration reflects a principle of respect for agency and avoiding unnecessary contention that would damage the Church's ability to operate. It was a pragmatic statement intended to protect the members and the Church's legal standing while confirming the general principle of respect for law. It did not endorse slavery as a practice but rather advised against unlawful interference that could lead to harm.

Okay, it's not too late to edit.

I'm borrowing the phrase to describe the distinction in authority held by the President of the Church compared to the other Apostles. Doctrine wouldn't be coming from Joseph Fielding Smith in any sermon before he was The President. Only the President of the Church holds and exercises all the keys to establish doctrine and announce new revelation. The ultimate sanction belongs to the President, the Quorum of the Twelve, then sustain it.

Appeal to Authority (or in your case a False Authority) into a False Dichotomy The Church's stated position is that leaders are fallible mortals who speak "as men" outside of official, unified revelation. Any statement, even if factually incorrect, is not "false" doctrine. This a classic non-LDS analytical error of not allowing commentary or personal opinion, but deeming everything as "doctrine" based solely the person's title; rather than based their stated source of authority, or on its venue (where it is taught) and sometimes even rather than the authority of the speaker at that moment (in this case like when they were not The Prophet when those teachings were originally given, compiled, or published. As only the President of the Church can claim to speak for the entire Church on matters of doctrine, particularly when accompanied by the unified assent of the Quorum of the Twelve.). Doctrines of Salvation was never presented as binding doctrine required for salvation. Any error there in is a factual mistake, not an error that undermines the gospel. Popular, unrevealed ideas (like "getting a planet") was never canonized, so rejecting them does not contradict revealed truth. Instances where a leader speaks outside their prophetic mantle is a mortal error; it is not a spiritual deception or an attempt to lead people away from God. These statements' purpose were to offer insights and instruction based on their personal study. A statement is simply "incorrect" if it fails a factual test, but it is not "false doctrine" because it never claimed the authority of revelation. Do you mean "lead people astray" is to lead them away from salvation? It nullifies the Atonement, invalidates covenants, or prevents a person from reaching the Celestial Kingdom? Or just leading away from factual accuracy? Believing it or disbelieving it (like getting a planet) does not affect salvation, temple covenants, or worthiness. Therefore, it does not "lead people astray" in a theological sense that matters.

Actually, Roman and Biblical slavery was some straightforward honesty, calling a spade a spade, part of a known social contract Now the lower working classes are offered a far more sophisticated, if permanent, reward of chasing debt while simultaneously being told they are "free." Apostle Paul's idea of social justice was to merely tell the enslaved to, "obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart" (Ephesians 6:5). If only Paul had anticipated the ingenuity of modern day. Paul's great failure was a failure of imagination. He simply couldn't envision a society that abolished the word "slavery" only to invent a dozen subtler, more pervasive forms of economic servitude, exploitation, and permanent class stratification that required no whip, only an omnipresent financial ledger and an empty bank account.

The scriptures do not explicitly name all polygamous relationships justified by God but leaves open the possibility that this principle was known or practiced by early righteous figures, unjudged figures and also those later judged wicked but not because they were polygamists. The scriptural and historical record suggest that these figures practiced sanctioned plural marriage: I'll add here many Jews think Adam supposedly married Lilith (Isaiah 34:14) who was created from dust (Genesis 1:27) while Eve is created later from Adam's rib (Genesis 2:22). Lamech had two wives, Adah and Zillah (Genesis 4:19). Abraham had his wife Sarah, taking Hagar (Sarah's handmaid) as a wife/concubine (Genesis 16:3), and marrying Keturah after Sarah's death (Genesis 25:1). Abraham took Hagar and was justified by all local laws in doing so. Nahor, Abraham’s brother had wives and concubines who bore children (Gen. 22:20–24) Jacob (Israel) had his two wives, Leah and Rachel, and their handmaidens, Zilpah and Bilhah, who are referred to as concubines and sometimes as wives (Genesis 29-30, 35:22). Simeon, Jacob’s son has polygyny mentioned in genealogical records (1 Chron. 4:24). Issachar, Jacob’s son has Polygamy mentioned in genealogical records (1 Chron. 7:1–4). Moses married Zipporah (Exodus 2:21) and later mentions he married an Ethiopian woman (Numbers 12:1). Caleb had several wives (1 Chronicles 2:18, 4:5). He is consistently portrayed as a righteous leader (Numbers 13:30). Judge Gideon had "many wives" and a concubine (Judges 8:30–31) a hero of faith in Hebrews 11. Judge Ibzan had 30 sons and 30 daughters whom he married out (Judges 12:8–9). This number implies plural marriage. Judge Jair had 30 sons who rode on 30 donkey colts (Judges 10:3–4). Implies plural marriage. Judge Abdon had 40 sons and 30 grandsons (Judges 12:13–15). Implies plural marriage. Elkanah had two wives, Hannah and Peninnah. A righteous, God-fearing man (1 Samuel 1:2) King Saul had at least two wives. Ahinoam and Rizpah and concubines (1 Samuel 14:50; 2 Samuel 3:7, 12:8). King David had at least eight wives, including Michal, Abigail, and Bathsheba (2 Samuel 12:8). David was justified in his plural marriages, but not in his sin with Bathsheba. King Solomon was known for having 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3), I think the scrolls are actually blank with a literal dash "-", the numbers are thought of as latter embellishment of translators. Solomon was justified in the plural wives he received of the Lord, but sinned by taking the unauthorized wives who turned his heart to other gods. King Ahab had multiple wives (1 Kings 20:7). King Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines (2 Chronicles 11:21). King Abijah had 14 wives (2 Chronicles 13:21). King Jehoram took multiple wives (2 Chron. 21:5–6). King Joash had two wives (2 Chronicles 24:1-3). King Ahasuerus had two wives, Vashti and Esther (Esther 1:10-12; 2:1-17). King Zedekiah had multiple wives (Jeremiah 38:23) King Jehoiachin is mentioned as having wives with him in captivity (2 Kings 24:15) Hosea by implication had two wives, was forced to marry the harlot Gomer as commanded (Hosea 1:3; 3:1) Ezra had two wives, one was Jehudijah (1 Chronicles 4:17-18) Ashur took two wives, Helah and Naarah (1 Chron. 4:5). Mered took two wives, Bithiah and another from Judah (1 Chron. 4:18). Shaharaim took two wives, Hushim and Baara (1 Chron. 8:8). Heman, Descendant of Levi, the lineage (1 Chron. 6:33). Shimei, Descendant of Reuben had 16 sons and 6 daughters, implying plural marriage (1 Chron. 5:4). Manasseh listed as having a concubine who bore a son (1 Chron. 7:14). Machir is listed as having Maachah and Zelophehad (1 Chron. 7:15). The Book of Mormon The Book of Mormon soon established the general law of monogamy (Jacob 2:27) but allows for the divine exception "For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things" (Jacob 2:30). This suggests that throughout Nephite history, there were no widespread or commanded instances of the practice. It acknowledges the Law of Moses allowed it, and they were going against it. New Testament Christian Father of the Fornicator in 1 Corinthians 5:1 had a son that had fornicated with his "father's wife", who is not his mother. Indeed, the term, "father's wife", is a very specific term, differentiated in Deuteronomy 27:20, 16. The father is a polygamist. Polygamy was likely discouraged among Jews in the Greco-Roman world, but it was not strictly illegal according to Jewish law. The rabbis of the Mishna and Talmudic periods (1st to 6th centuries) show evidence that plural marriage still occurred, although they placed severe restrictions on it. For instance, a man had to prove he could financially and emotionally support multiple wives. Josephus, the 1st-century Jewish historian, mentions that King Herod the Great had multiple wives, illustrating that polygamy existed among the elite, even if it was uncommon for the average Jew. Joseph Smith, for the Latter-day Saints, the next person justified by God to teach and practice this principle was Joseph Smith himself, beginning in the 1830s. Sanctioned Concubinage The story of Hagar had divine acknowledgment of the relationship that resulted in a son, Ishmael, even if the initial arrangement was following the customs of the entire ancient Near East, where a barren wife could give her handmaid to her husband to bear children on her behalf. Hagar became a secondary wife or concubine to Abraham, Issac was the heir of the covenant. The Angel of the Lord commanded Hagar "Return to your mistress and submit to her authority" (Genesis 16:9). and promised a blessed child if she did, "I will multiply your descendants exceedingly" and told her to name the child Ishmael (Genesis 16:10-11). The account of the prophet Nathan confronting David over his sin with Bathsheba provides the most explicit statement that God gave David his wives and concubines, thereby sanctioning plural marriage as a principle for him. Nathan recites God's goodness to David, including this direct statement about his marital status: "I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your arms and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would have added as much more" (2 Samuel 12:8). This confirms that the wives and concubines of David's predecessor, King Saul, were transferred to David by divine authority, and the Lord acknowledges giving David multiple wives as a blessing. Such passages are clear, unambiguous statements that God sanctioned, provided, and justified David's plural marriages and concubine relationships. The Commandments of Levirate Law Mandated Polygamy The core biblical rule for levirate marriage is found in Deuteronomy 25:5–6. It states that if a man dies childless, his brother must marry the widow to raise up an heir for the deceased. The brother was obligated to take the widow as a second wife, even if he already had a wife of his own. The Case of Judah and Tamar The classic biblical example of this duty is the story of Judah's sons and Tamar (Genesis 38). Judah's eldest son, Er, died childless. Judah commanded his second son, Onan, to marry Tamar (his deceased brother's wife). Onan knew the child would not legally be his, and he refused the duty, for which God killed him. Judah was then obligated to give his third son, Shelah, to Tamar, which he failed to do. Both would have been mandated into polygamy had they married Tamar while already having another wife, or they would have been restricted from marrying anyone else for their own children's inheritance until they fulfilled the duty to Tamar. Boaz married Ruth (Ruth 4:1-12) governed by the laws of levirate marriage. He had to raise seed in his brother's name, but nothing is said whether he bore his own children for his inheritance.

Correct, judging a single joke as "indicative" of a vicious strain of prejudice might be an overreach without looking at the history and future actions. However, the connection I made was in the context of "underscoring" a pre-existing, vicious anti-Mormonism seen in college sports. The documented and repeated incidents of "F* the Mormons" chants and other acts that are not jokes. It is not "indicative" proof of the writer's or ESPN's own vicious anti-Mormon intent. But the joke and its aftermath underscores, highlights or accentuates a larger, pre-existing, vicious strain. The connection is that the mildness of the editorial joke and the severity of the stadium chants exist on the same spectrum and bubble. The retraction underscores the severity of the chants by proving that a professional outlet feels it cannot even risk the appearance of adding to the hostile environment. The argument is that ESPN's joke, by using a religion as the punchline, adds to the climate that makes the stadium chants feel acceptable. The retraction acknowledges that a mainstream media outlet should not contribute any material that legitimizes mocking the faith, lest it be seen as validating the more overtly hateful conduct currently happening in the stands. Calm's and Nehor's "The Last Acceptable Prejudice" Fallacy A rhetorical claim used by members of a group to argue that their specific form of prejudice is the only one remaining that society tolerates or allows to be expressed openly. It is a fallacy because, as a universal claim, it is false. While the claim effectively highlights the real and painful prejudice faced by a group, its use by many different and diverse groups simultaneously demonstrates a simple truth: no single form of prejudice is the last acceptable one. The anti-Mormonism seen in sports is not unique; it is simply one visible manifestation of a general willingness to use prejudice to attack an opponent or an "other." Is the perceived double standard against the LDS faith valid when compared to Catholicism? ESPN and Notre Dame have a major, financially vested relationship with broadcasting rights, and major event coverage. Attacking or mocking Catholicism (the Eucharist, the Virgin Mary, the Pope) would likely be seen as a far greater threat to that business relationship and would incur a massive, swift public relations catastrophe. The Existence of Anti-Catholic ESPN Stories The most notable and widely reported incident I found involved former ESPN anchor Dana Jacobson in January 2008. While intoxicated at a roast for colleagues, Jacobson reportedly hurled profanity-laced insults, including "F*** Notre Dame," "F*** Touchdown Jesus," and, most controversially, "F*** Jesus." "Touchdown Jesus" is the nickname for the massive mosaic of Christ on the Notre Dame campus. The backlash was immediate and severe, primarily led by Catholic organizations like the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. They pressed ESPN for accountability. After some mixed messaging, ESPN suspended Jacobson for one week and she was required to issue an on-air apology, where she stated her remarks were "foolish and insensitive" and did "not mean anything derogatory by my poorly chosen words." The Catholic League eventually accepted this disciplinary action as sufficient, convinced that ESPN was taking the matter seriously. The example of the Dana Jacobson incident shows LDS fans would be wrong to assume that ESPN personalities have not, on occasion, mocked the Catholic religion in the context of Notre Dame.

It does seem like an awful waste of space.

I think Doctrines of Salvation is an unfortunate title since it is not scripture, nor a book of binding church doctrine. It contains Joseph Fielding Smith’s personal views, speculations, and opinions on subjects that are not required for salvation. The book is a compilation of sermons, articles, and answers given by Joseph Fielding Smith who would later become the Church President, over decades, compiled and edited by his son-in-law. It is commentary. The book contains well-considered, but ultimately personal and commentary-based opinions of one man at a specific time. It fails the test for binding doctrine. It is not scripture, it was not approved or issued by the unified voice of the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles, and its teachings are not always taught consistently across the Church today. It contains both essential and speculative ideas, any statement within it must be filtered through the current doctrinal standards, like scripture, to be "true". A "false" doctrine is one that leads you away from Christ and salvation. It contains detailed speculation on unrevealed topics like the nature of Hell, specific location of Eden, or geology which are not doctrinal essentials. False Dichotomy It looks like you are trying to force a choice between two extreme choices when a third, nuanced option is clearly the answer. The premise of your question is flawed because it ignores the third category of Non-Binding Commentary, which is not true or false. For a Latter-day Saint. If a statement in Doctrines of Salvation is also found in scripture (like the importance of Baptism), it is True Doctrine. If it is not found in scripture (speculation on the Earth's geology), it is simply Non-Binding commentary and is neither required to be believed as "True" nor condemned as "False."

Ryan McGee wrote an ESPN article about a BYU ranking that included a joke about the Golden Plates. As of Thursday, the BYU Cougars were 8-1 at the time and ranked in the Top 25, had just suffered a significant upset loss to Texas Tech, a lesser-ranked team, in Lubbock, Texas. This loss ended BYU's undefeated streak and was considered a major blunder. Ryan McGee's "Bottom 10" column is a satirical list of the 10 worst performers in college football that week. A recurring gag in the column is the "Coveted Fifth Spot," which is typically reserved for a team that experiences a major, unexpected, or embarrassing failure (like a highly-ranked team getting blown out by an underdog). The loss to Texas Tech landed BYU in this infamous "Fifth Spot." The joke; "Legend has it, after the angel Moroni showed Joseph Smith the golden plates upon which the Mormon Church was founded, he also warned Smith to make sure to heed the oft-forgotten inscription located on the scratched up backside of the plates: 'BEWARE THE COVETED FIFTH SPOT LEST IT BITE YOU IN THE BEHIND IN LUBBOCK'" The author likely intended it as a lighthearted, self-deprecating gag aimed at the team's performance, but the immediate and strong backlash centered on the fact that it mocked a religion. Making a joke out of the faith's narrative and figures was inappropriate in a professional publication like ESPN. Many pointed out that ESPN writers rarely, if ever, use jokes about Catholicism to deliver commentary on a Catholic school like Notre Dame, highlighting a perceived double standard. Oh No, Here Come the Mormons The backlash to the ESPN joke primarily came from members of the Latter-day Saint community, particularly BYU fans and alumni, and other individuals who felt the joke was a form of religious bigotry and showed a lack of professionalism. A Social Media outcry was seen on X/Twitter, and was the most immediate and visible backlash. Fans and members called out ESPN writer Ryan McGee directly, expressing anger, disappointment, and offense. They were the ones arguing that an ESPN writer would not have dared to use the Bible or the Pope to comment on Notre Dame, highlighting a perceived double standard aimed at the LDS faith. Many saw the phrase "Legend has it..." was to refer to the faith's origin story as a myth. And they were particularly upset that this level of disrespect was published by a major, established, and professional media outlet like ESPN, not in a blog or personal X account. Neutral journalists and outside commentators noted this was a lapse in judgment. Not necessarily one of religious offense, but of poor editorial standards, observing that a professional outlet should not be in the business of mocking the religion of any group. Neutral observers reinforced the point that the joke was likely allowed to be published because it targeted a faith often seen as an "easy target" in sports culture*, a standard that would never be applied to a prominent Catholic, Jewish, or Muslim institution. ESPN Editor's Prompt Retraction The swift and quiet editing/retraction of the joke by ESPN's editors and the subsequent public apology by the writer Ryan McGee indicated that the comment was flagged internally as inappropriate and was a violation of the network's editorial standards. Driven by the perception that the writer and ESPN had indeed engaged in sacrilege and religious discrimination, leveraging the founding story of the LDS Church as cheap joke material. So, after a bit of online discussion, an editor's decision and the subsequent retraction/edit by ESPN means they implicitly acknowledge the inappropriateness, regardless of the joke's perceived harmlessness. The Larger Picture at Stake Here The seemingly minor, even mild, joke highlights the critical lapse in ESPN's professionalism and, more profoundly, underscores a persistent, more vicious strain of anti-Mormon intolerance bubbling beneath the surface of college sports culture. For a major journalistic entity like ESPN, any mockery or generalization of a religious belief, no matter how tame the wording, constitutes a lapse in professionalism. In 2008, Ric Bucher made a comment on an ESPN radio show about Utah Jazz fans: "They are Mormons, and they are in Salt Lake, and there is nothing else there. You know, you gotta smile and be happy all the time. This is the one opportunity for people to get vicious." He later apologized, and ESPN issued a statement. In 2018, Stephen A. Smith stated that Mormons are "Not Christian" while discussing the Utah Jazz, for which he later apologized. In 2025, Ryan McGee make a joke about the Golden Plates is evidence of a pattern of clumsy or insensitive commentary concerning the faith by ESPN talent. A microcosm for the larger conversation around religious tolerance in sports. ESPN has a responsibility to maintain a standard of professionalism that actively avoids feeding into or even glancingly validating the kind of intolerance modernly seen in the stands. * As the chant of "F* the Mormons" continues to echo across the country in college sports stadiums directed at Brigham Young University teams in Oregon, USC, Colorado, Arizona. Between editorial jokes and coordinated stadium chants highlights the normalization of this specific religious bigotry. Is college sport media and BYU's sport rivals creating a safe harbor for expressions of intolerance and prejudice against Latter-day Saints that would be unacceptable if directed at other religious or minority groups? https://www.deseret.com/sports/2025/11/13/espn-ryan-mcgee-changes-joseph-smith-reference-in-column-byu-football/ https://www.sltrib.com/sports/byu-cougars/2025/11/13/espns-ryan-mcgee-apologizes-after/

Interesting observation. It seems like a matter of clarity and sensitivity. The term "concubine" carries a specific, often historically loaded and uncomfortable connotation, implying a lesser status. While the Bible uses the term, modern Church often opt for language that is more immediately understood by a global, contemporary audience and less likely to invoke outdated or culturally specific baggage. "Multiple wives" is a straightforward, encompassing term for polygyny (a man having more than one wife) that avoids a potentially distracting discussion about the exact social status of every partner. The purpose of the lesson text is to address the general principle that God has, at times, commanded plural marriage as an exception to the standard of monogamy. The term "multiple wives" adequately covers the practice without getting bogged down in the distinction between wives and concubines, which isn't the theological point the curriculum is trying to make about the Patriarchal figures. The curriculum does not de-emphasize the purpose of raising "seed unto [the Lord]." The manual references Jacob 2:30, which directly states God commands the practice "that he may raise up seed unto me." Doctrine and Covenants 132 itself, particularly verse 63, mentions the continuation of "seed" in fulfilling the Abrahamic promise of a numerous posterity, it indeed remains a promise for the seed of Abraham.

It hadn't escaped me that being a Latter-day Saint there is a bit of irony that I personally have entertained the Smithsonian, or the Vatican are hiding the truth of Mormonism. On the other hand, thinking poorly of Creation Scientists that think NASA, geologists, biologists are hiding the truth. While all Christianity depends on faith in many things without evidence. I'd then have to say by religious faith we believe the proof of the faith's historicity is out there (hidden in the earth or by the Smithsonian/Vatican), but the foundation of your testimony rests on a personal, spiritual encounter with God. The evidence of the truth is, first and foremost, internal and current. The Ballardite foundation of belief is based on a secondary claim (a powerful "Deep Church" enemy) that requires a primary, external object (documentation) to prove it. The belief is entirely conditional on the reveal. If its only the memo, the story collapses. They have a "good story," and no personal, divine encounter to substitute for the missing proof. The dilemma is that they put faith in a falsifiable, external evidence of a document, and the document hasn't been produced.