Jump to content

webbles

Members
  • Content Count

    785
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

834 Excellent

About webbles

  • Rank
    Senior Member: Divides Heaven & Earth

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I'm assuming that you must have misread me since I did acknowledge that marriages continued in the US. But those marriages apparently only occurred after President Woodruff died. You might want to fix the dates as it was confusing a little when I first read it And maybe you and I have a different Bible because God can sure act pretty "fickle" there as well. I'm not really saying that God changed His mind, though. The believe there was a revelation to begin polygamy. I also believe there was a revelation to end polygamy in 1890. But that revelation was specifically about
  2. I'm assuming you mean this line in the church essay: Edited: I also re-read the section about President Wilford in the Dialogue article (59-66). He only authorized polygamous marriages in Mexico. So he didn't authorize any in the US. It doesn't look like the US had any polygamous marriages until President Snow allowed Elder Cowley to perform a polygamous marriage in Idaho in 1898 (page 68). So President Wilford really did obey the revelation. His later two successors (President Snow and President Smith) probably felt like they had revelation that superseded the Manifesto to a
  3. Can you point me to the pages that have that? I've read that paper before and I don't remember it saying that the marriages occurred inside the USA. Edited: I skimmed it again to see what I could find and did find references to Elder Cowley performing polygamous marriages in the United States.
  4. That's an interesting reading of the history. The government already disenfranchised the church in the Edmunds-Tucker act in 1897. The government already started to confiscate all of the assets. A lot of the land was "sold" to members of the church (I believe I read somewhere that the Logan temple was sold to the community). Many of the leaders were already living in hiding. Some leaders had already gone to prison. Yet the church held on for 3 more years. The revelation was about ceasing practicing where the laws of the land prohibit. It was not ceasing polygamy completely. As far
  5. Since you know (or knew) Elder Rasband, how do you explain his statement (or the paraphrasing by the reporter)? Do you think he doesn't think that the protests had any part in the decision? Or does he not know about them? Or what? You have a better understanding of Elder Rasband than I do, so I'd like to know what you think he meant.
  6. I've checked various lawsuits that include the CPB and they say that CPB is a "Utah Corporation sole" (see https://cite.case.law/idaho/123/410/ as one case from 1993 and https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/594/791/1902517/ as another case from 1987). Not sure what to make of the Cayman Island.
  7. Really? That's not at all what I meant. I really want to see what was actually said. SL Trib doesn't quote Elder Rasband so it is very possible that SL Trib is making an assumption about what Elder Rasband said, just like you and I are making assumptions on what he said. Instead of arguing over what we think he said or what we think SL Trib thinks he said, it would be so much better to actually argue over what he said.
  8. I'm not certain that that claim was actually made. I just did a search for articles about the Manti and Ephraim temple announcement and read them. Here's the list of articles that I read: Only one of those articles makes the claim that the protests had no role in the revelation. That is the SLTrib article. And its quote is: Does anybody know if it is possible to get the full video/notes/transcript/etc from the interview? I've found two videos on youtube that have parts of the interview, but none of them include the claim.
  9. The only person, as far as I know, that denied the public outcry is Elder Rasband. And I haven't yet found the actual interview where Elder Rasband denies it. So I'm not sure if we can say "they went out of their way". It is possible that the interview specifically asked him and he responded that way. Or it could have been that when they asked him what prompted the change, he didn't mention the outcry. I'd really love to see the actual interview.
  10. I have read your earlier posts. I've also read lots of articles about the renovations. I have not seen any claim that the decision to renovate Manti was a revelation. I also haven't seen any claim that the decision to remove the murals was a revelation. The only revelations that I've seen, in regards to the temple renovations, is the decision to build the Ephraim temple, the decision to keep the Manti murals, and "the Lord’s hand guiding us in modifying several aspects of the renovation". Can you please show me where it is claimed that the decision to renovate Manti (or even Salt Lake
  11. But with the Tooele temple, they did say that it was a reaction to the protests from the people of Erda. So, why can't this be a revelation?
  12. I think you are ascribing more things to revelation than even the First Presidency is. Where does it say that the decision to renovate the Manti temple was a revelation? Where does it say that the decision to remove the murals was a revelation?
  13. I think we were told why the murals were removed - https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/salt-lake-manti-temples-update-march-2021
  14. I looked through some articles about the Tooele temple change. And they actually acknowledged the protests from the people living in the area: https://www.deseret.com/faith/2021/1/21/22242578/lds-mormon-church-jesus-christ-tooele-temple-utah-recount-battle So, in this situation, the First Presidency does acknowledge that it was the concerns of the people that prompted the change. That would seem to indicate that the Manti/Ephraim decision was not influenced by the concerns of the people.
×
×
  • Create New...