Pyreaux

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.

I'd like to wait for evidence too, the promise of proving the "Deep Church" is a powerful motivator to hold out. It's easy to get invested, not just in Ballard, but in the cause and the idea that the truth is being suppressed. What is crazy is how the power dynamic flipped. When does the lack of evidence becomes evidence of the conspiracy for those committed to the belief, making the wait for actual proof a potentially endless loop? Waiting for the evidence becomes an act of loyalty and faith against the perceived dark forces, regardless of how long the wait is or how many times the deadline for the "proof" is missed. If the long debunked "Pace Memo" is the evidence of the "Deep Church" claim, it looks like a long wait for a train that won't come.

It is not disavowing doctrine, in that doctrine typically is measured by such things as the standard works, not traditions or speeches. Is it found in the Standard Works? Was it proclaimed by the united voice of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles? Is it a core principle essential to the Plan of Salvation? The prophet hears a few words from God from time to time but he is not infallible in all matters that were not directly revealed as doctrine. It is widely accepted in LDS thought that a prophet can be wrong in personal opinions, they could find their way into their talks. The principle that the prophet will never be allowed to lead the Church "astray" usually means that the prophet will not change the ordinances or be so wrong that it would disqualify members from exaltation. So, if Joseph Smith or any Bible prophet had said in a sermon or poem that he thought the earth was flat would not have led the Church astray because believing in a flat earth has no bearing on salvation or following Christ. Prophets hold personal, non-salvational views that may later be proven incorrect or non-essential. Accepting this allows the Church to embrace continuing revelation and correct past errors (both doctrinal and cultural) without undermining the prophetic office itself.

"They" who? Orthodox Jews? Many Orthodox Jews, especially those past their younger years, quietly engage with Kabbalistic teachings and accept the concepts of the Shekhinah and the feminine Sefirot (divine emanations) as integral parts of their belief system. The ideas of the Divine Feminine were not deleted but were re-categorized and reserved for advanced, disciplined study.

It is highly likely that Hudson and Miller used a resource like a Strong's Concordance that would clearly show "with" as a potential translation for "bet" (H9003) and then selected that meaning to support a modern theological view. Neglecting the collocation (how words are used together) in an advanced lexicon like the Brown-Driver-Briggs (BDB) or Koehler-Baumgartner (HALOT), they would see that the entry for the verb masal specifically directs the reader to the context of dominion when used with the bet preposition. This, Hebrew students, would be considered a case of eisegesis (reading a desired meaning into the text) rather than exegesis (drawing the meaning out of the text).

Well, that interpretation seems theologically motivated to promote equal partnership in marriage. The phrase "he shall rule over you" in uses the Hebrew verb "masal" ("to rule") followed by the prepositional prefix "bet" which does have a range of possible meanings, including: "in" "at" "by means of" and "with" (often in the sense of "in the company of"). However, when masal is used with the bet preposition it gets interpretated throughout the Hebrew Bible as "to rule over," indicating governance or authority over a thing in virtually every other instance of masal + bet, Joseph ruling over Egypt in Genesis 45:8, or a king ruling over his people. The meaning should be one of subordination and authority exercised over someone or something, not with them as an equal partner. Because if the original text had intended "rule with" in the sense of partnership, typically clearer Hebrew words for "with" or "in the company of," such as im or et, would have been used. A Parnership of Sorts I think the verse is typically thought of as describing a fallen state of marriage rather than a prescriptive, divine ideal of hierarchy. The corrupted relationship will now be where the woman will struggle for control ("your desire shall be to/for your husband") and the man will respond with domination ("he shall rule over you"). This is what happens in a sinful world, not what God commands to happen. The rare Hebrew word for "desire" (tesuqah), used in Genesis 3:16 in light of its immediate next use in Genesis 4:7, creates a crucial alternative context. God warns Cain: "Sin is crouching at the door; its desire (tesuqah) is for you, but you must master (or rule) it." The woman's desire in 3:16 is not a lust, but a desire to control her husband, or usurp the man. His rule is then interpreted as a necessary corrective or struggle against her attempt to dominate him, paralleling Cain's need to "master" Sin so it doesn't dominate him. The verse describes a "battle of the sexes" introduced by the Fall, where the wife seeks control, and the husband must rule to prevent their relationship from descending into chaos. It's a balance, "rule" is a form of protection, preventing the total collapse of the family or relationship into a power struggle where one partner (the woman) is consumed by the drive for control. If the man rules justly (not tyrannically) and the woman finds contentment within those boundaries, a sort of functional, albeit hierarchical, partnership can emerge. They operate in balance, with the man acting as the decisive authority, which prevents the relationship from getting dominated by the woman's disruptive desires. Hudson and Miller's "rule with" argument asserting that the word "bet" means God intended them to rule together at this juncture there appears to be a wishful re-reading of the word.

Dude, post it! I'm not in FB, and I almost can't believe this.

There are 200,000 LDS members reported there, and it is a rapid growth area. The Church's presence is heavily concentrated in the South-Eastern and South-Central parts of Nigeria, with significant growth also seen in the West. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints_in_Nigeria While the most severe, targeted violence against Christians is often reported in the northern, Muslim-majority states and increasingly in the Middle Belt. https://globalchristianrelief.org/resources/countries/nigeria/ Our Church's traditional stronghold in the South-East may be less immediately impacted by the violence originating from the far North, but an increasing spread of attacks suggests a risk across the country. The Church is not a named target of the major militant groups like Boko Haram or Fulani militants, in the way that larger traditional Christian denominations are, Catholic, Anglican, Pentecostal Churches are. The LDS Church in Nigeria is a very small minority, it may make them a less obvious and thus less appealing target for groups seeking to make anti-Christian symbolic impacts. Christian targeting is often mixed with ethnic conflicts. In the past, missionaries were sometimes associated with West/America like in the 2007 missionary abduction. Since then, Church largely replaced American/foreign missionaries with local Nigerian missionaries, it has reduced this particular security vulnerability.

After reading The Hebrew Goddess by Raphiel Patai, and Margaret Barker, it stirs in me that the Catholic veneration of Mary as co-redemptrix or co-mediatrix is a mistaken identity, they've confused Mary with the other 'Mother of the Lord' who is indeed a divine feminine, co-redemptrix or co-mediatrix. Before Judaism's late official stance on monotheism, there was a persistent proto-Christian royal cult, angel cult, and a Mother Goddess cult or other female divine beings existing in ancient Israel. The Goddess of Wisdom, Asherah and her virgin daughter Anath, evolved into the Hokhmah the divine Wisdom, who is often depicted In Proverbs as the Lord's female co-worker, the Shekhinah, the Matronit (Matron), the Sabbath Bride, who is separated from and seeks reunification with the masculine aspect of God. She was originally central to the royal cult and early Israelite religion but was later purged from the official Hebrew texts (the Old Testament canon) in monotheistic reforms of King Josiah around 600 BC. But preserved in ancient non-canonical texts and eventually re-emerged in early Christianity as the Holy Spirit and morphed into the veneration of the Virgin Mary. These Marian titles of co-redemptrix and co-mediatrix are a misidentification, where the roles and attributes of the ancient, purged, divine "Mother of the Lord" have been transferred to the historical mother of Jesus, Mary. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, Mary is not the Mother of the Lord in Isaiah 7:11. The Masoretic Text says "Ask a sign for yourself from the LORD your God..." (Isa 7:11) (Hebrew: she'al-lekha 'ot me-'im YHWH 'Elohekha) The crucial word is me-'im, which means "from with" or "from the presence of" the LORD (YHWH). This directs Ahaz to ask for a sign directly from God. The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa), "Ask a sign for yourself from the Mother of the LORD your God..." (Hebrew: she'al-lekha 'ot me-'em YHWH 'Elohekha) The preposition min [from] plus the noun 'em [mother]. The Gospel of the Hebrews, several Church Fathers like Origen and Jerome quote, "My Mother, the Holy Spirit, took me just now by one of my hairs and carried me off to the great Mount Tabor." Directly identifies the Holy Spirit as Jesus's Divine Mother. The Holy Spirit is the agent of Jesus's conception, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God." (Luke 1:35). Jesus saying He and John the Baptist are the children of Wisdom, "Wisdom is justified by Her children" (Matthew 11:19). Solomon equates "the Holy Spirit" with "Wisdom" (Wisdom of Solomon 9:17) The Mother of Christ of Revelation 12 is not Mary, it's the Holy Spirit matching the ancient concept of the Divine Feminine in Judaism and early Christianity. The Shekhinah that accompanied Israel in exile aligns with the Woman's flight to the wilderness. The mother of Jesus and mother to "the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and hold the testimony of Jesus" (Rev 12:17). The Holy Spirit is universally understood as the one who brings the "new birth" and sustains the Church, making her the mother of all believers. The Woman is not human, she has wings, she is "clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars", is the divine Wisdom (Hokhmah). The Spirit is portrayed as hovering/fluttering upon the sea like a bird in Gen 1:2, descending as a dove in Matt 3:16. King Josiah removed the Asherah Yam (She who treads upon the sea), the sun, moon and stars from Solomon's temple. When the Babylonian spirit of the temple of Herod is burned by Rome, the Woman comes back as the bride. The Catholic doctrines of Mary's cooperation in redemption and mediation of all graces grant her a status that critics and even the Vatican's recent guidance here say risks obscuring Christ's unique mediation because the terms imply a parallel, near-divine role. They mistake attributing the roles of the ancient, divine Lady Wisdom to the human Virgin Mary. Catholic Marian maximalism is an unconscious revival of the original Divine Feminine cult, but mistakenly focusing it on a human being, which elevates Mary beyond the traditional Christological boundaries. It very seems like a theological category error conflating the human mother of the historical Jesus with the ancient, cosmic Mother figure of the Lord who is a co-mediatrix.

A French Apostle?! I knew the Church was getting more global, but I didn't realize we were going straight to the international surrender flag jokes this fast. But maybe he'll help change the sacrament water back into wine.

Take all your medicines when you are supposed to. Exercise your mind, not just the body. Easy on the sweets.

Or it's a cycle that just started and there is no Heavenly Grandfather making the next generation unprecedented and so they might worship the Grandfather. LDS are starting to realize there is more than one logical way to interpret the revealed materials if they look passed the unrevealed commentary. There is a possibility that though the prophets have great insights into things, they could be limited in understanding. Even if Joseph Smith thought there was eternal regression, the America was empty in the BOM, or Eden is in Missouri, if it's not written verbatim as a revelation anywhere, it may not be the case. It may not be as neat and tidy as that, if those aren't the words the Lord said. Maybe you just get a promised land to rule over like the Abrahamic covenant says, or maybe its grander and you make your own galaxy, universe or reality ... And maybe in that reality there technically is no Heavenly Grandfather.

Is there a dominion of Heavenly Mother? Latter-day Saints generally believe there is an exalted, divine Mother alongside a Father in Heaven, because the doctrine of exaltation (becoming like God) is taught for both men and women. The general principle of exaltation suggests joint dominion and partnership. The ideal exalted god is described as an eternal marriage unit. The idea of a husband holding "solely" dominion would contradict the principle of eternal partnership, where a worthy man and woman are "heirs together" (1 Peter 3:7) and both receive "all that [the] Father hath" (D&C 84:38). Do offspring worship their divine parent? Latter-day Saints are explicitly taught to worship God the Father. This is a fundamental and non-speculative tenet. The plan of salvation is often thought of as a cycle, it can follow logically that future spirit children created by an exalted couple would worship that couple. But this is a projection of the doctrine and not a core, explicit teaching. The idea that its cycle I think is the logical apologetic leaders used, meant to defend exaltation. That children grow up to be like their parents, and we are children of God. Never really intended to settle who has divine preeminence in the next spiritual generation. Will exalted beings create their own worlds or previous worlds God created? The Church statement explicitly rejects the popularized idea of "getting your own planet." This phrase is seen as speculative folklore, distracting from the central doctrine of becoming like God. A "dominion" is not strictly a planet, its power, rule, authority, or realm. The Church is clarifying that the specifics of how we become like God, like making a planet, are unrevealed and therefore not doctrine. Whether they create a planet for them or preside over an existing realm is speculative. The doctrine of eternal increase (having spirit children) and exaltation (becoming like God) is true, while explicitly disavowing the speculative folk doctrine. Not for being false, but for being unrevealed.