webbles

never mind as the link was fixed

For me, it was just 2 months. But I know of those who worked with their mission president to leave 4 months earlier. And I agree that 1 year early is different. I have never heard that and I don't believe that is what is happening with Lyons. I expect it to be at least 17 months.

4 months is the earliest I know of.

I doubt the entire year as well. But I also doubt that Ryder is getting an entire year off. I pointed out that his older brother had a similar situation and served 17 months. That is a bit earlier than I've personally heard of but I could see a mission president doing it. I would expect Ryder to be similar. He plans to leave in January which is the same time his brother left. Since his brother went to USC, I don't see this being a BYU thing, just a mission president working with a missionary to figure out what is best for him.

I had a companion that was almost the oldest possible for a young man. I remembered him being almost 30 but I guess he must have just been 27 (left at age 25 and was almost finished). For me, as a 19 year old, he was OLD.

There wasn't an age limit. In the 2010 handbook, it said that women from 19-39 could serve an 18 month mission and women from 40 up could serve a 12 or 18 month mission. No idea when it changed but now it seems that women 30-40 can't go on a mission.

I know that mission presidents have helped "your average Peter priesthood missionary" to leave a mission early just to go to school. It happened for me. I was given a choice of leaving my mission several months early so that I could get into the upcoming semester of college. My mission ended in the middle of a semester. I chose not to but several of my cohort did choose it. This was over 20 years ago. I've heard of it with others since then.

I noticed that some articles talked about his older brother only serving a year. The Church News has him leaving in January ( https://www.thechurchnews.com/members/2023/2/11/23591046/walker-lyons-mission-college-football-recruit-norway-usc-trojans/ ) and then an article in a USC blog has him coming back in June the next year ( https://trojandailyblog.com/walker-lyons-mission-leads-to-usc/ ). It quotes from his mission president and says that it was a collective decision between him and his mission president. So, he served about 17 months. More than a year but not 2 years. But the Church News says he will be serving 2 years so it seems that the shortened mission wasn't pre-planned but something discussed on the mission. I haven't heard of leaving that early, but I do know of missionaries who left after serving 20-22 months so that they can get back into college. So it sounds fairly normal. That's what I would expect Ryder Lyons to do as well.

I've never heard of shortened missions for sport figures (besides a few months like anyone else can do) so I'm betting that it is a mistake by the reporters. But we'll see in 1-2 years whether it is real. I don't see why Lyons would want to get a shorter time. The expected QB to replace Retzlaff is Bear Bachmeier. I believe the plan was for Bear to be the backup to Retzlaff for 1 year and then be the main QB afterwards. That's changed with Retzlaff's transferring, but Bear will probably still be the main QB after 1 year. He would have at least 3 more years as the main QB. If Lyons comes back in 1 year, he has to wait behind Bear for 3 years and would only have 2 years. If he did a normal 2 year mission, then he would only wait behind Bear for 2 years and would have 3 years as the main QB.

I don't think the ratios is 1/3 to 2/3. It says "a third part". So, you just need 3 parts of various sizes. Say you have 100 people. 10 of those people like vanilla, 50 like chocolate, and 40 like strawberry ice cream. The "third part" could refer to either of those parts.

Many of the later revelations in Joseph Smith's day aren't revelations like his earlier ones. For example, we do not have any revelation about baptism of the dead before the first baptism happened. Nor are there any revelations before the first eternal sealing. And section 132 was given because Hyrum asked for it and it was because Hyrum thought it would convince Emma. Joseph didn't think it would work because Joseph had already presented polygamy to Emma before and she possibly did accept it for a short time. The Partridge sisters (who said that Emma knew of their sealings) were sealed in March 1843 and section 132 was written down in July 1843.

I'm not talking about the body of the church. I'm talking about Quorum of 12 Apostles ratifying it.

In 1880, Wilford Woodruff received a revelation. It has never been presented to the Church. But he did present it to the Quorum. You can read the revelation in his journal at https://wilfordwoodruffpapers.org/documents/f9c4ddb9-e338-4942-840c-909d3d269391/page/efed2219-7214-41da-b542-b02b8e0c8949. It is fairly long, from page 67 to page 75. I'm not sure if the Lord spoke to John Taylor here. Yes, it appears to be his handwriting but he told absolutely no one about it. His secretary, L. John Nuttall (who records most of John Taylor's revelations), has journal entries for these days and he is there with John Taylor but writes nothing about any revelation. George Q. Cannon, 1st Counselor to John Taylor, is also there and has journal entries and also writes nothing about a revelation. I don't have a problem with the content of the revelation. It is very similar to others that were presented to the quorum (both before and after) so it isn't something out of the ordinary. I just have a hard time with the fact that no one knew about it at the time. Those who were there had no reason to hide the revelation at the time as it wasn't a new or unique idea.

There are several things done in the early days of the Church that would not be accepted today. For example, being given the priesthood before baptism, having the 3 witnesses ordain apostles, sealings outside of temples, baptism of the dead outside of temples. They were allowed because the Church wasn't fully setup. But by 1886, we had practices and teachings on how revelation is supposed to be ratified. The quorum and 1st presidency was following those practices by 1886. This revelation didn't follow any of the practices of that time.

That's called a captcha. Stands for "Completely Automated Public Turing Test". Many captchas are actually easy for computers to solve. Usually, the captchas also do other work to figure out of you are a human. Like how fast you solve it, the order you solve it, how the mouse moves and the typing speed, or if you've solved a captcha somewhere else and still look human. So you don't even need to see a picture for the captcha for it to make a determination.

Quinn says (page 55 here) The source is Abraham Cannon's diary on April 5 1894. I can't find that diary online so I can't link to it.

I don't think any prophet is in the habit of inventing revelations. But there is a process to make sure that it was an actual revelation. And others of his time followed that process. The revelation that Wilford brought to the quorum wasn't also binding to the body of the Church but he still had it validated by the quorum.

Claiming that it is an authentic revelation is going beyond what we have. It's an authentic document written by John Taylor and that has been known for decades. Even at that time, the apostles would present revelations they received to the quorum and have it voted on whether or not it was a revelation (for example, Wilford Woodruff did that with a revelation he received in Arizona about how polygamy can't be stopped). Taylor apparently didn't tell anyone in the quorum or 1st presidency other than maybe George Q Cannon who was there. And Cannon apparently didn't see it as important because he didn't tell anyone about it when Woodruff brought up the Manifesto. We know that Cannon talked about using concubinage to continue polygamy after the Manifesto but he doesn't mention anything related to the 1886 revelation.

In those years, polygamous groups weren't very organized. I have a family ancestor (brother of a direct ancestor) who entered polygamy around the 1920s and their story of finding someone willing to do the sealing was interesting. It was more or less whispered in the grape vine that there were people with authority and if you asked carefully, you could find a person. So, the council could have existed in those days with very little written evidence. But I don't think it could be considered an "organization". More like a loose affiliation of like minded individuals.

Don't they trace their authority through the "mighty and strong one"? Kind of like a restoration of keys given to one of the LeBaron's and then kept in the family?

It is Loren Woolley that makes the claims. There is very little evidence that John Woolley (his father) ever supported the claims that Loren made. And all the claims from Loren occurred after 1912, so most people who Loren claims to have been there are dead. Some who he claimed were there (like his sister) did not support his statements. Also, I've never heard that the revelation was given through John Taylor to John Woolley. I've only heard it reference John Taylor. John W Taylor, at his excommunication, also makes no references to anything that Loren Woolley and others later said happened. There is a much later story (I think it is from the 1920s or 1930s) that has John W Taylor being there at the meeting after the revelation and standing guard. I think what happened was that the fundamentalists knew the revelation existed and so if the church is lying about its existence, then they must be lying about the rest of what happened. I find it interesting is that Wilford Woodruff received a revelation in 1880 that included the statement "And I say again wo unto that Nation or House or people, who seek to hinder my People from obeying the Patriarchal Law of Abraham which leadeth to a celestial Glory which has been revealed unto my Saints through the mouth of my servant Joseph for whosoever doeth those things shall be damned saith the Lord of Hosts" (https://wilfordwoodruffpapers.org/documents/f9c4ddb9-e338-4942-840c-909d3d269391/page/3e5ee3d2-665c-4e77-a152-12512ef9fe2a). Plus there quite a few statements from apostles in the 1880s about how the church can't give up polygamy or else it would have to give up everything else. I've never seen those revelations, statements, etc used by fundamentalists to argue for the continuation of polygamy. I think the claims from Loren is what made the 1886 revelation the linchpin. Because if the church is lying about it, there must be more that they are hiding.

mormonr says Quinn viewed the original manuscript in 1971 in the archives. And says Elder Peterson stated "They concocted a false revelation, allegedly given to President John Taylor in 1886, in which pretended secret authority was given to continue plural marriages." in 1974. So by the time Elder Peterson made that statement, the Church Historian's office knew that they had the original manuscript. Though, Elder Peterson seems to be talking more about the story around the revelation (the one that Lorin Woolley describes after 1912) since the manuscript has nothing to do with "secret authority". I wonder how much of the denial is more around the story that Lorin Woolley told vs what the actual manuscript contains.

I missed that Saints talks about the revelation.

Pretty cool that we can now look at it.

Wisconsin has a law that exempts religious organizations from paying unemployment tax. See section 108.02(15)(h). Why Wisconsin exempts those? I don't know. But there is several other organizations that are also exempt. This case was whether or not a religiously affiliated group falls in that definition or not. So it isn't saying that religious groups are exempted from unemployment tax nationwide. Just that the Wisconsin law includes religiously affiliated groups.