Who's Your Favorite Church President And Why?

[manol]

On 12/10/2025 at 10:47 AM, JVW said:

I wish the LDS prophets acted more like prophets. It's like we got a Moses, a bright flash in the pan, and then everything just fizzled out. It's one of my complaints about the current church, it feels more like being part of a corporation than it does like a Biblical or BoM-type Israelite church, at least outside of the temple.

Imo “the next level” of teaching could still come through the President of the LDS Church; the LDS Church's “open canon” concept leaves that door open moreso than it is for most belief systems.

Personally I think “the next level” will be the Teaching of the Coming of Christ.

What might that look like?  Maybe something like this:

“Brothers and sisters, all are alike unto God.  Joseph Smith once said that if he told us who he really was, he would be accused of blasphemy.  Likewise if you were told who and what you really are, and who and what every single person really is, you would probably call it blasphemy.

“At one time Christ said, “I am the light of the world”.  At another time he said, “you are the light of the world”.  He was telling us who and what we really are.

“When you take the Sacrament, you take upon yourself the name “Christ”.  The Sacrament is an affirmation of who and what you really are.

“Christ teaches, “I am the Vine and you are the Branches.”  He is telling us who and what we really are.

“The Coming of Christ happens one person at a time.  It is as if you keep your first name, but find out that your true surname is actually “Christ”.  And so is everyone else's, even the least of these, whether they know it or not.

“The Coming of Christ begins with deliberately aligning oneself to Christ.  One deliberately chooses to think only those thoughts that are aligned with Christ, to the best of one's ability in the moment.  It is not necessary to know in advance what those thoughts will be; the intention itself invites the Consciousness of Christ.

“This is a process which takes time and effort, but to the extent that a person becomes a vessel for the Consciousness of Christ, Christ has come.  At first just for an instant, and then another, and then another...”

Of course, I could be completely wrong.

 

Edited December 11, 2025 by manol

[The Nehor]

56 minutes ago, manol said:

Imo “the next level” of teaching could still come through the President of the LDS Church; the LDS Church's “open canon” concept leaves that door open moreso than for most belief systems.

Personally I think “the next level” will be the Teaching of the Coming of Christ.

What might that look like?  Maybe something like this:

“Brothers and sisters, all are alike unto God.  Joseph Smith once said that if he told us who he really was, he would be accused of blasphemy.  Likewise if you were told who and what you really are, and who and what every single person really is, you would probably call it blasphemy.

“At one time Christ said, “I am the light of the world”.  At another time he said, “you are the light of the world”.  He was telling us who and what we really are.

“When you take the Sacrament, you take upon yourself the name “Christ”.  The Sacrament is an affirmation of who and what you really are.

“Christ teaches, “I am the Vine and you are the Branches.”  He is telling us who and what we really are.

“The Coming of Christ happens one person at a time.  It is as if you keep your first name, but find out that your true surname is actually “Christ”.  And so is everyone else's, even the least of these, whether they know it or not.

“The Coming of Christ begins with deliberately aligning oneself to Christ.  One chooses to think only those thoughts that are aligned with Christ.  It is not necessary to know in advance what those thoughts will be; the intention itself invites the Consciousness of Christ.

“This is a process which takes time and effort, but to the extent that a person becomes a vessel for the Consciousness of Christ, Christ has come.  At first just for an instant, and then another, and then another...”

Of course, I could be completely wrong.

 

I’d walk if this happens. Not necessarily because I liked the old conception of the Second Coming better. I think I might like this new version better…..maybe. I would just lose trust that any of the leaders have any idea what they are talking about. If they can flipflop on that much revelation in the canon and in repeated apostolic teaching then nothing is sure.

[MustardSeed]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I’d walk if this happens. Not necessarily because I liked the old conception of the Second Coming better. I think I might like this new version better…..maybe. I would just lose trust that any of the leaders have any idea what they are talking about. If they can flipflop on that much revelation in the canon and in repeated apostolic teaching then nothing is sure.

I feel that way now about a lot of things, some of them fundamental to what I believed we were all about. 

[JVW]

7 hours ago, manol said:

Imo “the next level” of teaching could still come through the President of the LDS Church; the LDS Church's “open canon” concept leaves that door open moreso than for most belief systems.

Personally I think “the next level” will be the Teaching of the Coming of Christ.

What might that look like?  Maybe something like this:

“Brothers and sisters, all are alike unto God.  Joseph Smith once said that if he told us who he really was, he would be accused of blasphemy.  Likewise if you were told who and what you really are, and who and what every single person really is, you would probably call it blasphemy.

“At one time Christ said, “I am the light of the world”.  At another time he said, “you are the light of the world”.  He was telling us who and what we really are.

“When you take the Sacrament, you take upon yourself the name “Christ”.  The Sacrament is an affirmation of who and what you really are.

“Christ teaches, “I am the Vine and you are the Branches.”  He is telling us who and what we really are.

“The Coming of Christ happens one person at a time.  It is as if you keep your first name, but find out that your true surname is actually “Christ”.  And so is everyone else's, even the least of these, whether they know it or not.

“The Coming of Christ begins with deliberately aligning oneself to Christ.  One chooses to think only those thoughts that are aligned with Christ.  It is not necessary to know in advance what those thoughts will be; the intention itself invites the Consciousness of Christ.

“This is a process which takes time and effort, but to the extent that a person becomes a vessel for the Consciousness of Christ, Christ has come.  At first just for an instant, and then another, and then another...”

Of course, I could be completely wrong.

 

Hey Manol, I know you're not LDS. I thought you were agnostic but are you actually Christian? The way you write makes me feel like you believe in Jesus more than I do.

Also, I'm with Nehor, if the Second Coming teachings changed from "we are preparing for the Second Coming" to "we are the fulfillment of the Second Coming as we convert" I'd probably find another church. But you present a nice concept.

[manol]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I’d walk if this happens. Not necessarily because I liked the old conception of the Second Coming better. I think I might like this new version better…..maybe. I would just lose trust that any of the leaders have any idea what they are talking about. If they can flipflop on that much revelation in the canon and in repeated apostolic teaching then nothing is sure.

Maybe this new concept of Christ doesn't necessarily destroy; maybe it fulfills.  

Then again maybe it is "new wine" which would burst the old bottle, i.e. the old paradigm. 

I don't know where Christ might call you or anyone else to be of service.  I think it could be precisely where you are.

But regardless of where the path takes you, recall that we are "required to forgive all men" (which is a particularly Christ-like function!), and imo that includes those in positions of authority whose actions fall short of the expectations we placed on them. 

 

4 hours ago, JVW said:

Hey Manol, I know you're not LDS. I thought you were agnostic but are you actually Christian?

Ha!  I've been called worse. 

I'm not affiliated with any group; I just happen to speak "Mormon" more fluently than other dialects.

If I had to pick a category, I'd call myself a "long-path universalist".  And imo Christ is the path.  The Way.  The Truth of who and what we are.  The Life-Form that we are.  The Tao. 

 

4 hours ago, JVW said:

The way you write makes me feel like you believe in Jesus more than I do.

Ime "God does now reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God".  But imo that is happening mostly through channels other than the leadership of the LDS Church. 

Ime if we seek, we will find.

 

4 hours ago, JVW said:

Also, I'm with Nehor, if the Second Coming teachings changed from "we are preparing for the Second Coming" to "we are the fulfillment of the Second Coming as we convert" I'd probably find another church. But you present a nice concept.

I do not think the term "Second Coming" appears anywhere in the scriptures.  Imo we should have been calling it "the Coming of Christ" rather than "the Second Coming of Christ" all along. 

If there is anything to the concept of "we are called to literally be the Coming of Christ", other witnesses will show up besides some random guy on an internet discussion board who puts his spin on a few quotes.  If there is anything to it, it will begin to taste delicious to your soul.  If it is in the ballpark, it will lead you to love God and to believe in Christ... in a new and more participatory way.  

And if not, well I've been wrong before and will undoubtedly be wrong again. 

Edited December 11, 2025 by manol

[Tacenda]

On 12/9/2025 at 2:56 PM, Calm said:

Pres Hinckley as well, though didn’t have to warm up to him.  He came across to me as gentle, informed, articulate, actually engaging with people rather than just preaching at them.  He was comfortable in front of a mic or audience which helps me relax and enjoy the conversation (even though one person is speaking out loud, it’s still a conversation to me with my inner commentary).  He gave me a sense of security, which I always appreciate.

He felt grandfatherly to me (based on my two grandfathers which may not be the typical grandfather vibe for others).

I should have added, it was when he became the prophet that I grew to admire him/like/love him. Not sure if it was the mantle he was given, or just me, that changed. But really, the years of listening to his great talks too. And like Sister Kimball, I really liked Sister Hinckley, they were darling! 

I agree with you on what you've said here as well!! 

[InCognitus]

On 12/9/2025 at 2:27 PM, JVW said:

What was it about President Nelson that you liked so much?

Here is one other reason I like President Nelson.  He gave this awesome talk at the end of the October 2024 General Conference, "The Lord Jesus Christ Will Come Again", and quoted Isaiah 45:5 twice in his talk, and the second time was when he said:

"I bear my solemn witness that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. I am His disciple. I am honored to be His servant. At His Second Coming, 'the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.' That day will be filled with joy for the righteous!"

And then he picked THIS as the closing song:

What a way to close that talk and that conference!

[Navidad]

Wilford Woodruff - President; Stephen L Richards - Apostle

Edited December 19, 2025 by Navidad

[JVW]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Wilford Woodruff - President; Stephen L Richards - Apostle

Why Wilford and I'm not familiar with Stephen L Richards, was he a 19th century apostle or a more recent one?

[MiserereNobis]

President Nelson

Because he acknowledged the centrality of Rome to Christianity when he dedicated the temple there and had all of the apostles attend (which, according to my quick research, is the first time that all 15 have gathered for a dedication outside of the US).

 

[sunstoned]

I have always liked Hugh B Brown.  He was never the prophet, but he did serve in the First Presidency under President David O. McKay.  He supported the civil rights movement in the 1960's, and like  Elder Uchtdorf, he was released from the Presidency when McKay died.

[Navidad]

On 12/19/2025 at 9:42 AM, JVW said:

Why Wilford and I'm not familiar with Stephen L Richards, was he a 19th century apostle or a more recent one?

I liked Wilford because of this emphasis on eschatology. He had an amazing vision that was never approved as revelation, but he persevered in his interest. I also admire his son who was also an apostle. He and his wife died in a manner connected with Mexico. 

Stephen L Richard was a twentieth century apostle and first counselor to David O McKay in the presidency in the 1950s. He was a brilliant man with a rare intellect. He was so advanced, he may have been the only apostle in history to have his entire general conference speech from 1932 (I think) erased from the general conference record. It was a delightful speech, but way ahead of its time. Read it sometime. It was great. It is also a wonderful church trivia question! Several in the Richards family were leaders in the church hierarchy for many years. Richard's grandfather Willard was very close to Joseph Smith. I like Stephen because he was smart, a bit of a radical and served faithfully inpsite of being ahead of his time. Oh, and also because his middle name was L - just L, no period, no short form for any other name. I don't think I have ever heard of that before - another great trivia question! 

Edited December 20, 2025 by Navidad
fix typo

[webbles]

32 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I liked Wilford because of this emphasis on eschatology. He had an amazing vision that was never approved as revelation, but he persevered in his interest. I also admire his son who was also an apostle. He and his wife died in a manner connected with Mexico. 

Stephen L Richard was a twentieth century apostle and first counselor to David O McKay in the presidency in the 1950s. He was a brilliant man with a rare intellect. He was so advanced, he may have been the only apostle in history to have his entire general conference speech from 1932 (I think) erased from the general conference record. It was a delightful speech, but way ahead of its time. Read it sometime. It was great. It is also a wonderful church trivia question! Several in the Richards family were leaders in the church hierarchy for many years. Richard's grandfather Willard was very close to Joseph Smith. I like Stephen because he was smart, a bit of a radical and served faithfully inpsite of being ahead of his time. Oh, and also because his middle name was L - just L, no comma, no short for any other name. I don't think I have ever heard of that before - another great trivia question! 

That's a cool piece of trivia.  Here's an online version of the talk - https://www.scribd.com/document/106979967/Richards-Stephen-L-Bringing-Humanity-to-the-Gospel-1932-Conf-Talk.

[Kenngo1969]

On 12/10/2025 at 9:47 AM, JVW said:

I agree with you. I wish the LDS prophets acted more like prophets. It's like we got a Moses, a bright flash in the pan, and then everything just fizzled out. It's one of my complaints about the current church, it feels more like being part of a corporation than it does like a Biblical or BoM-type Israelite church, at least outside of the temple.

This isn't a judgment of you, since I don't know you and I lack any mantle that would require me to sit in judgment of you, My Young Padawan.  If any adjustments in attitude be required, caveat lector.  I'll tend to my own garden, and leave you to tend to yours.  But, perhaps your "outside-of-the-Temple" caveat is the key, there.  Personally, I find that if I have become prone to be critical of those who are called to preside over me, to paraphrase something Shakespeare wrote once, "the fault, Dear JVW [Dear Kenngo1969], is not in 'our prophets.'  It is in ourselves." 

If I had been alive in Moses's time, would I have said, "What?!  Manna from heaven ... again?!! "   If I had been alive in Joseph Smith's time, would I have said, "Leave Missouri?!  But, this is Zion! "?  If I had been alive in Brigham Young's time, would I have said, "Leave Nauvoo ... for Rocky Mountains and desert?"[1]  It might well be true (I have no reason to doubt it: I'm simply "hedging my bets" here as a rhetorical device) that, eventually, you, I, and everyone else who is faithful will receive our own seer stone, but ... why wait?    If, indeed, it is true that miracles are happening all around us, but we have become so dulled, so desensitized, that we do not see them [indeed, that we refuse to see them], is it really going to make all that much more of a difference if, finally, President Dallin H. Oaks does something we consider to be truly spectacular?  Or will we simply say, "Meh, he's just 'another flash in the pan'!"?  

If any of us is wondering what, truly, is there to get excited about in the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, [not just in Joseph Smith's time, or in Brigham Young's time, or in President Russell M. Nelson's time, but right now] perhaps we should consider asking a recent convert if we can warm ourselves by the light of his or her fire by asking the convert that question.

_________________________________

END NOTE

1. I'm reminded of the old "Mormon Rap," which had a line something along the lines of, "I wish I could've seen the look on Brother Brigham's face when he said, 'Yes, Baby, this is the place!'"  I would change that line to, "I wish I could've seen the look on everybody else's face when Brother Brigham said, 'Yes, Baby, this is the place!"   

 

[JVW]

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

This isn't a judgment of you, since I don't know you and I lack any mantle that would require me to sit in judgment of you, My Young Padawan.  If any adjustments in attitude be required, caveat lector.  I'll tend to my own garden, and leave you to tend to yours.  But, perhaps your "outside-of-the-Temple" caveat is the key, there.  Personally, I find that if I have become prone to be critical of those who are called to preside over me, to paraphrase something Shakespeare wrote once, "the fault, Dear JVW [Dear Kenngo1969], is not in 'our prophets.'  It is in ourselves." 

If I had been alive in Moses's time, would I have said, "What?!  Manna from heaven ... again?!! "   If I had been alive in Joseph Smith's time, would I have said, "Leave Missouri?!  But, this is Zion! "?  If I had been alive in Brigham Young's time, would I have said, "Leave Nauvoo ... for Rocky Mountains and desert?"[1]  It might well be true (I have no reason to doubt it: I'm simply "hedging my bets" here as a rhetorical device) that, eventually, you, I, and everyone else who is faithful will receive our own seer stone, but ... why wait?    If, indeed, it is true that miracles are happening all around us, but we have become so dulled, so desensitized, that we do not see them [indeed, that we refuse to see them], is it really going to make all that much more of a difference if, finally, President Dallin H. Oaks does something we consider to be truly spectacular?  Or will we simply say, "Meh, he's just 'another flash in the pan'!"?  

If any of us is wondering what, truly, is there to get excited about in the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, [not just in Joseph Smith's time, or in Brigham Young's time, or in President Russell M. Nelson's time, but right now] perhaps we should consider asking a recent convert if we can warm ourselves by the light of his or her fire by asking the convert that question.

_________________________________

END NOTE

1. I'm reminded of the old "Mormon Rap," which had a line something along the lines of, "I wish I could've seen the look on Brother Brigham's face when he said, 'Yes, Baby, this is the place!'"  I would change that line to, "I wish I could've seen the look on everybody else's face when Brother Brigham said, 'Yes, Baby, this is the place!"   

 

I understand what you're saying, I'm not sure how much I agree with it so I'm going to explore it in this response.

I am not a terribly righteous person. I haven't had a temple recommend in around 3 years, and recently I felt like I wanted to return and my Bishop said, "No". So that is definitely a factor in my perspective.

I think there are two types of being critical. There is the kind that is fault-finding. It is focused on only seeing what is lacking, what is wrong with the person or the institution. There is baggage, anger, bitterness, cold-hearted feelings. There are people on this forum that I know you get that kind of feel when reading there posts. There are many people I know in real life that have those kinds of feelings and its evidenced in the way they talk and act.

The other kind of being critical is an attempt to be objective and call it like I see it. For example, your response to me was a critical response that I would put in this category. I don't think you hate me or feel bitter towards me or are judging me. If I was in a position of authority over you I don't think you would trust me less or have less desire to follow me. You just called it like you saw it and we're all good. We are all human and our goal is to seek truth and see reality as it really is.

In my heart, I am the latter. I hold no animosity, grudges, or pain against the church or church leadership. But Isaiah can be a crazy old kook and an unsurpassed poetic holy man at the same time. They don't have to me mutually exclusive, and it's not critical of me to point out his weakness. In conversation I defend Isaiah, and feel even better about it because I'm not blind to his weakness. Am I making sense?

Let me give a real life example that I may have already given before. Once upon a time I was worthy and felt the companionship of the Holy Ghost. Some things happened (in which I did not sin) at a doctor's appointment that left me feeling anxious and without God's presence in my heart. The next day I was still feeling uneasy and asked God why I can't feel Him even though I haven't sin. Within a day or two He responded to my query with the answer, "You need to forgive the government.". Within a week my heart had changed and the bitterness was replaced with forgiveness.

Now, before I forgave the government, I was keenly aware of all of the stupid crap it's doing. It's basically an abusive entity that I have no way of escaping. After I forgave the government, I was still keenly aware of how bad and corrupt it is, and in the years sense I've become even more aware. Yet my heart is not bitter, and my commentary on the government shifted from attacks to dispassionate commentary.

The fact is, the church is ran like a corporation, it uses soft language. Every church leader has done dumb stuff. My old mission president Devin Durrant, awesome guy, very warm and kindhearted, gave a General Conference talk while he was in the Sunday School General Presidency. After the talk his son set up a website selling T-shirts with his GC talk slogan on it. Rightly got called out for profiting off of his sermon. Shut the site down. Is he a great man? Yes. Will I defend him? Absolutely. Was that website a bad decision? Yes. If the prophet did it would I criticize that choice? Certainly. Would I be breaking temple covenants? I don't think so. https://kutv.com/news/local/lds-church-leader-apologizes-for-ponderize-merchandise-website

If I asked you for a list of 5 miracles performed by President Nelson I bet you could do it. If I asked you for a list of 1 thing President Nelson did that was human and not God inspired, could you do it? If people can't see the humanity in the prophets at what point does their view of the prophet become idol worship? On the other hand, to your point, if someone can list 5 faults but not see 1 miracle then they are dismissing the vehicle God is using to communicate with the world and set up His Earthly Kingdom.

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, JVW said:

... If I asked you for a list of 5 miracles performed by President Nelson I bet you could do it. If I asked you for a list of 1 thing President Nelson did that was human and not God inspired, could you do it? If people can't see the humanity in the prophets at what point does their view of the prophet become idol worship? On the other hand, to your point, if someone can list 5 faults but not see 1 miracle then they are dismissing the vehicle God is using to communicate with the world and set up His Earthly Kingdom.

You're correct that I can do the former, and, also, you're correct in your implication (if I understand you correctly ) that I cannot do the latter.  I cannot do the latter, not necessarily because I agree with absolutely everything President Nelson ever did (though I'm not saying whether I have or whether I haven't, whether I might or whether I might not ), but because I don't consider it to be my role to do so.  [I'm not calling anyone out here for lack of faithfulness: I don't work for the ACME Judgment Company: If you need approval, you approve, and if you need disapproval, you disapprove.  You look in the mirror.  You weed your own garden.  And I will do the same.]

The Church of Jesus Christ (see what I did there? ) is not an organization that is run according to democratic principles in which the majority rules.  (It is not "Vox Populi, Vox Dei."  Right is right even if nobody says it, believes it, or does it, and wrong is wrong even if everybody says it believes it, or does it.)  If, indeed, President Nelson or anyone else who ever occupies the position of Prophet and President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ever were to do something that is inconsistent with God's will that is serious enough to impact the overall direction of the Church, deciding that this occurred and what to do about would be well above my pay grade. 

And even if the vast majority of members of the Church of Jesus Christ were to agree that President Nelson had done something untoward, deciding that this occurred and what to do about it would still be well above my pay grade.  (Whether he and Wendy exchanged a slightly cross word on January 31, 2019 probably wouldn't qualify. )It is my understanding that the way things work, if President Nelson or President Oaks or anyone who might succeed the latter were to do something untoward that has a material adverse effect on the direction of the Church of Jesus Christ (meaning that, whatever it is, it is not in harmony with God's will), the Presiding Bishopric and "twelve high priests" (who could be, but, if I understand it, do not have to be, members of the Twelve: Doctrine and Covenants 107).  Or, God could simply say, "I am able to do mine own work" (see 2 Nephi 27:19-23) and take care of the matter directly.   

[Tacenda]

On 12/20/2025 at 12:08 AM, sunstoned said:

I have always liked Hugh B Brown.  He was never the prophet, but he did serve in the First Presidency under President David O. McKay.  He supported the civil rights movement in the 1960's, and like  Elder Uchtdorf, he was released from the Presidency when McKay died.

My husband has a collection of cassette tapes from serving a mission and one of them was with Hugh B. Brown, I liked listening to him.

[JVW]

On 12/24/2025 at 4:13 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

You're correct that I can do the former, and, also, you're correct in your implication that I cannot do the latter.  I cannot do the latter, not necessarily because I agree with absolutely everything President Nelson ever did, but because I don't consider it to be my role to do so.

I don't know if I believe you are being honest here. You honestly believe that your role is to blindly support the prophet and view him as more than a man? The way you explain your role further down in the post makes sense, but the way you apply it here is not the same. Also, I believe that you agree with everything the prophets have done, including president Nelson, because you are coming across as one who views the prophets as infallible in all ways except for consciously acknowledging it. Which is fine. I don't take any issue with people who view the prophets that way. But I do think that view has a subtle detrimental effect on a person.

I promise I hold no ill feelings towards you and am not passing condemning judgments against you. I am making judgments based on our conversation that I'm using to inform what I choose to type, which I believe is a healthy thing to do. And I'm happy to be corrected in any cases where my judgment is wrong.

On 12/24/2025 at 4:13 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

The Church of Jesus Christ (see what I did there? )

This tiny sentence fragment is the reason why I am leaning towards believing that you view the prophets as infallible. This isn't the church of Jesus Christ. It's the church of Jesus Christ and the church of Latter-day Saints. It belongs to both, and is run by both in a covenant relationship. Any Saint who speaks can speak God's word, we all have the gift of prophecy and revelation. And any Saint (including the prophet) who speaks can speak as a Saint out of the goodness of their heart, in error. I believe that using discernment is our role. It is important to discern when the prophets are speaking as Saints and the effort needed to do that is a powerful Godly relationship building tool. In my own personal experience I have seen many cases where the prophet speaks his opinion and also God's word at separate points during the same General Conference talk. This happens all the time, do you disagree?

If I think about how people can be God's proxy I can see it in two ways: like an on/off switch, and like a sunrise gradient. If someone is giving a priesthood blessing they are "on", but the words they speak are on a gradient. So the blessing could be anywhere between 10% God's word and 90% God's word. On average, if I were to grade various groups of people then Jesus was obviously 100%. A wicked man still can do a lot of good in the world, so maybe the lowest case I'd give a 5%. A true Christian I'd rank around 25% and a righteous priesthood holder I'd maybe cap out at 35%-40%. Where would I rank a prophet? I would rank them maybe 50% max. In the end, we are all human regardless of how purified we've become. I do not view a prophet as 100% in the gradient, or 100% in the on/off switch.

My favorite thing to discuss in relation to this topic is The Letter. https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/first-presidency-message-covid-19-august-2021

Quote

Dear Brothers and Sisters:

We find ourselves fighting a war against the ravages of COVID-19 and its variants, an unrelenting pandemic. We want to do all we can to limit the spread of these viruses. We know that protection from the diseases they cause can only be achieved by immunizing a very high percentage of the population.

To limit exposure to these viruses, we urge the use of face masks in public meetings whenever social distancing is not possible. To provide personal protection from such severe infections, we urge individuals to be vaccinated. Available vaccines have proven to be both safe and effective.

We can win this war if everyone will follow the wise and thoughtful recommendations of medical experts and government leaders. Please know of our sincere love and great concern for all of God’s children.

The First Presidency

Russell M. Nelson
Dallin H. Oaks
Henry B. Eyring

How much of the Letter is God speaking? How much of it is a Saint speaking? According to what you've written, your role is to accept this letter as scripture because anything short of that is breaking temple covenants. Is that correct?

On 12/24/2025 at 4:13 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

is not an organization that is run according to democratic principles in which the majority rules.  (It is not "Vox Populi, Vox Dei."  Right is right even if nobody says it, believes it, or does it, and wrong is wrong even if everybody says it believes it, or does it.)  If, indeed, President Nelson or anyone else who ever occupies the position of Prophet and President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ever were to do something that is inconsistent with God's will that is serious enough to impact the overall direction of the Church, deciding that this occurred and what to do about would be well above my pay grade.

I agree with you. When it comes to whether or not a prophet is fallen or wicked then roles absolutely have a place here. It is well above my paygrade as well. In the case of Brigham Young with polygamy, the roles of the members who followed it was to follow Brigham and obey him, and God supported them in their roles in very beautiful and tender ways. And those who had the role to determine whether the prophet was fallen executed their roles and determined that his hands and heart were pure before God and he was ok making his best judgments for the church.

In the future if the prophet reveals that gay sealings are ok. It is not my role to rebel against the prophet. But It is my role to approach God, discern truth from error, and act according to the witness I receive from God regardless of whether the prophet was acting for God or not. I imagine you would agree with me here. However, if my personal revelation and discernment resulted in me believing that gay sealing are an abomination and the prophet is in error, I do not believe that I would be breaking my temple covenants. I think that this point is where we disagree. I believe that truth is a synonym for God and to stand up for, and speak, truth is to stand up for God. And that the prophet doesn't always speak the truth because he is merely a Saint.

On 12/24/2025 at 4:13 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

And even if the vast majority of members of the Church of Jesus Christ were to agree that President Nelson had done something untoward, deciding that this occurred and what to do about it would still be well above my pay grade.

Agreed.

On 12/24/2025 at 4:13 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

It is my understanding that the way things work, if President Nelson or President Oaks or anyone who might succeed the latter were to do something untoward that has a material adverse effect on the direction of the Church of Jesus Christ (meaning that, whatever it is, it is not in harmony with God's will), the Presiding Bishopric and "twelve high priests" (who could be, but, if I understand it, do not have to be, members of the Twelve: Doctrine and Covenants 107).  Or, God could simply say, "I am able to do mine own work" (see 2 Nephi 27:19-23) and take care of the matter directly.   

Yes. I don't think that this will ever happen. I believe that God has taken care of many matters personally, but we will never know because God is extremely good at not getting caught.

I'm sorry for being so wordy. I try so hard to make my posts concise but they never are. I wish I was a better communicator. Thanks for taking time to consider what I've written.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, JVW said:

try so hard to make my posts concise but they never are. I wish I was a better communicator.

If you ever worry too much about this, just remember they have me to compare you to and therefore you have a very good chance of appearing relatively reasonable in your amount of verbiage. 😛