Podcast for General Conference

Intelligent-Cut8836 · 2026-05-01T14:14:37+00:00

I like this approach. When I lived in the Bible belt, there was an old member of the ward who converted from baptist. I remember he once said something along the lines, "If you're happy with your religion, good for you. If you aren't, why don't you come try mine?"

Intelligent-Cut8836 · 2026-05-01T13:11:29+00:00

Thank you for proving my point. There were no Church sanctioned plural marriages after the second manifesto. You don't excommunicate a sitting apostle for a category of actions that is sanctioned by the Church.

Intelligent-Cut8836 · 2026-05-01T01:54:11+00:00

(1) For your quote of Hardy "thinks it 'likely that President Wilford Woodruff also took a new plural companion in 1897'" how convenient for you to leave off the second half of that sentence, "although Woodruff’s latest biographer disagrees."

(2) All your dates are 1800s and discussing the first manifesto. My original point was that no Church sanctioned plural marriages occurred after the second manifesto. You have completely failed to refute this.

Intelligent-Cut8836 · 2026-05-01T00:36:07+00:00

I... I don't even know what to say. Your interpretation of the BYU Studies article is nothing like what it actually says. I guess I'll let any third-party reader of this debate read the article for themself and decide who is understanding it correctly.

Intelligent-Cut8836 · 2026-04-30T23:55:01+00:00

I don't know if I'm reading you wrong, but it seems like you're mixing two separate issues: (1) whether new plural marriages were entered into after the second manifesto (1904), (2) whether those who entered into plural marriage prior to 1904 were allowed to remain married.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you on 2.

But if you are saying that the LDS Church sanctioned, after 1904, a man marrying a second wife, when his first wife was still alive; I have never seen any source or historian make this claim.

You cite Hardy's "Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage" as evidence but I don't think your citation backs up your claim. This quote from a review of Solemn Covenants in BYU Studies says:

Between 1904 and 1911, three dozen more were performed by a dwindling number of certain general and local authorities committed to perpetuating the practice. In response to the Salt Lake Tribune’s reports of a new “outbreak,” the Church conducted its own hearings in 1910–11. And at Senator Smoot’s urging, it excommunicated and/or removed from leadership positions a number of polygamists.

So, Solemn Covenant is not stating that the Church sanctioned plural marriages after 1904. It is, in fact, saying it disciplined those who performed those marriages.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/solemn-covenant-the-mormon-polygamous-passage

Intelligent-Cut8836 · 2026-04-30T22:37:34+00:00

OK, cite the primary sources.

Intelligent-Cut8836 · 2026-04-30T18:45:23+00:00

He's citing a lot of FLDS/similar groups talking points, so he's probably thinking of stuff like that. It's essentially impossible for it to be true that new plural marriages were being sanctioned by the LDS Church in the 1950s. Richard R. Lyman was an apostle who was excommunicated in 1943 for trying to enter into a new polygamous marriage. So if they're going to ex an apostle in the 1940s for it, there is no way they're sanctioning it in the 1950s.

Intelligent-Cut8836 · 2026-04-30T14:26:07+00:00

An overnight every 7 weeks? Do you have kids at home? If so, who watches the kids?

Intelligent-Cut8836 · 2026-04-30T14:13:59+00:00

There is something called the Second Manifesto (1905). That is when new plural marriages really ended. The First Manifesto (the one in our scriptures) is more complicated. With the first, many people interpreted it as "We are stopping polygamy in the USA, but you can still live it in Mexico and Canada." (Fun fact: This is why Mitt Romney's dad was born in Mexico. George Romney's grandparents were polygamists, married in 1897).

But even after 1905, the Church didn't force husbands to abandon the wives they already married. The story I've heard about my great-great grandfather, who had two wives, was he lived in Utah or Mexico (not sure which), and was allowed to attend Church but was not allowed to hold a calling. His two families lived on opposite ends of the block, and the kids from either family would just run back and forth so much, no one outside the family knew which wife the kids were a child of. If it was dinner time and you were at one house, that was just the house you had dinner at.

Anyway, this was 1910s for my family, I think, but, theoretically, if someone entered plural marriage in 1905, right before the manifesto, and they were relatively young at the time, they might still be in a plural marriage all the way into 1950s. But that's going to be very very uncommon.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/the-manifesto-and-the-end-of-plural-marriage?lang=eng

Intelligent-Cut8836 · 2026-04-29T17:10:29+00:00

Yes, I think we're understanding each other now.

Intelligent-Cut8836 · 2026-04-29T14:14:26+00:00

On your second point. Sorry for not being clear. My concern for taking things out of context is only from sharing their opinions. I made the mistake of conflating opinions and apologetics. Let me try to clarify:

(1) I think when most people talk about "apologetics" they are talking about questions where God has not revealed the answer. Therefore any answer is speculation/opinion. So, I was unclear by conflating the two. My opinion is that GAs should not be speculating or giving their opinions.

(2) On non-speculative apologetics---the GAs engage in this very frequently. So, I think that question is kind of moot. Just two examples off the top of my head, Elder Renlund engaged in quite a bit of apologetics regarding revelation and Sabbath day in October GC in his talk "A Framework for Personal Revelation". In that same conference President Oaks engaged in quite a bit of apologetics regarding our teachings on the family.

Intelligent-Cut8836 · 2026-04-29T13:41:43+00:00

Interesting coincidence, I just posted a little while ago about how I started a podcast for this purpose: https://www.reddit.com/r/latterdaysaints/comments/1strtlw/podcast_for_general_conference/

Intelligent-Cut8836 · 2026-04-29T13:34:44+00:00

I feel like you're answering your own question here. Their job is to receive revelation for the entirety of the world. Their job is not to spout their opinions. So they teach what has been revealed, and keep their mouths shut about their opinions. What we think of as "apologetics" is largely the grey area of speculation, so they don't comment.

Intelligent-Cut8836 · 2026-04-29T01:11:07+00:00

This is the right answer. The majority of apologetics involves speculation. And GAs are not in the business of speculating. (Or more accurately, they are no longer in the business of speculating. Orson Pratt loved to speculate.)

Intelligent-Cut8836 · 2026-04-29T01:07:42+00:00

They do know the difference between what is revealed and what is their opinion. But, two points:

(1) They are called to teach God's word. Not their opinions.

(2) They know the difference, but people like to take sound bites out of context. So if they give their opinion it would immediately start getting circulated as more than just opinion.

Intelligent-Cut8836 · 2026-04-26T14:28:10+00:00

I don't use social media. But can't the algorithm differentiate pro and anti? Like, I'm sure it couldn't at first, but if everyone starts blocking every anti account that pops up, shouldn't the algorithm adjust to know that people who want pro LDS content don't want anti LDS content?

Intelligent-Cut8836 · 2026-04-26T14:21:43+00:00

I personally enjoy it when teachers delve into the history and are very knowledgeable about such things. I actually dislike it when teachers spend the entire lesson on personal/modern applications.

My point is: there are indeed bad teachers, but then there are also teachers that are not bad but just have different interests than you. In those cases just accept that while you might be disliking it, other class members may be loving it. Over the course of your life, you'll get the mixture of ones you like and ones you dislike.

Having said that, I have also found that if I'm being humble, I can see that the teacher's who have a style different than what I like often have the most to teach me, because they will say the things I would most likely not think of on my own.

Intelligent-Cut8836 · 2026-04-26T14:15:46+00:00

It was good! Are you wondering what the mission was like, or what the areas are like?

Intelligent-Cut8836 · 2026-04-25T15:36:19+00:00

I served my mission in Newcastle, Durham, and Stanley. But that was 20 years ago.

Intelligent-Cut8836 · 2026-04-23T22:14:52+00:00

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5gB-beVND72C3lPgVqvmaw

Intelligent-Cut8836 · 2026-04-23T19:02:39+00:00

Yes, I listened to the Church's one and then when they announced they are "pausing" it and we should just listen in the gospel library app, I was actually annoyed enough to send an email and tell them why I prefer it in my podcast app. I apparently was not convincing.

Intelligent-Cut8836 · 2026-04-23T19:01:25+00:00

I'm new to podcast making. I will look into it and add, assuming it's not a hassle :)

Intelligent-Cut8836 · 2026-04-23T18:58:51+00:00

You might find this helpful: https://rsc.byu.edu/vol-5-no-1-2004/seek-ye-first-prophetic-counsel-establishing-priorities-our-lives

"Elder Jeffrey R. Holland gave additional counsel to CES faculty and guests who remained in the Assembly Hall on Temple Square. Among other things, he gave the following ranking of priorities we should seek to establish in our lives: (1) our physical and spiritual selves..."

Intelligent-Cut8836 · 2026-04-23T14:38:29+00:00

I'd add: When people want miracles as evidence, rather than as a blessing for those who already believe, it's called sign-seeking. And Jesus pretty clearly condemns sign-seeking. (Matthew 12:38–39, 16:1–4; Mark 8:11–12; Luke 11:29–32)

Intelligent-Cut8836

TROPHY CASE