Polygamy, Reasons For It. And Where Is The Rest?

[Azariah]

I know Cal, but honestly where but the anti sites provide JoD quotes, usually.

As I said before, I did a Google search for specific keywords and picked a site that had those two quotes from the JoDs. I provided links to the Journals so anyone who wanted to see the context would be able to quite easily. I honestly don't know what this phobia or stigma of "anti" websites comes from.

[Azariah]

There are almost 6000 hits for "Journal of Discourses" on the Maxwell Institute site. There are 82,500 hits for the same on lds.org.

So, are you going to address the quotes from the JoDs? Or just complain that the quotes can be found on "anti" websites?

[thesometimesaint]

That the JoD is neither published by the Church nor is it accepted by the Church as doctrine. It is normally considered polite to allow someone to define their own beliefs.

[Azariah]

That the JoD is neither published by the Church nor is it accepted by the Church as doctrine. It is normally considered polite to allow someone to define their own beliefs.

Since the church (and by "church" I'm referring to the men in leadership positions within the LDS church who have written articles for teaching purposes) has quoted extensively from the JoDs, it seems obvious that the JoDs is a legitimate source of information concerning what the church has taught in the past and may continue to teach in the present.

[thesometimesaint]

Nope.

http://www.mormonnew...mormon-doctrine

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

The JoD is neither published by the Church nor accepted as doctrine.

As to polygamy See OD1

Official Declaration—1

Press dispatches having been sent for political purposes, from Salt Lake City, which have been widely published, to the effect that the Utah Commission, in their recent report to the Secretary of the Interior, allege that plural marriages are still being solemnized and that forty or more such marriages have been contracted in Utah since last June or during the past year, also that in public discourses the leaders of the Church have taught, encouraged and urged the continuance of the practice of polygamy—

I, therefore, as President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, do hereby, in the most solemn manner, declare that these charges are false. We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice, and I deny that either forty or any other number of plural marriages have during that period been solemnized in our Temples or in any other place in the Territory.

One case has been reported, in which the parties allege that the marriage was performed in the Endowment House, in Salt Lake City, in the Spring of 1889, but I have not been able to learn who performed the ceremony; whatever was done in this matter was without my knowledge. In consequence of this alleged occurrence the Endowment House was, by my instructions, taken down without delay.

Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.

There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of my associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy; and when any Elder of the Church has used language which appeared to convey any such teaching, he has been promptly reproved. And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.

Wilford Woodruff

President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

President Lorenzo Snow offered the following:

“I move that, recognizing Wilford Woodruff as the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the only man on the earth at the present time who holds the keys of the sealing ordinances, we consider him fully authorized by virtue of his position to issue the Manifesto which has been read in our hearing, and which is dated September 24th, 1890, and that as a Church in General Conference assembled, we accept his declaration concerning plural marriages as authoritative and binding.”

The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous.

Salt Lake City, Utah, October 6, 1890.

Edited November 29, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Azariah]

Nope.

http://www.mormonnew...mormon-doctrine

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

The JoD is neither published by the Church nor accepted as doctrine.

I never said it was. Tilting at windmills I see.

Instead of beating on an argument I never made, how about you address what I actually posted.

[Azariah]

http://www.lds.org/t...ourses?lang=eng

I fully understand that the JoDs is not published by the LDS church and that it is not (by itself) an authoritative source of LDS doctrine.

"The Journal of Discourses is not an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is a compilation of sermons and other materials from the early years of the Church, which were transcribed and then published. It included some doctrinal instruction but also practical teaching, some of which is speculative in nature and some of which is only of historical interest."

and

"The Journal of Discourses includes interesting and insightful teachings by early Church leaders; however, by itself it is not an authoritative source of Church doctrine."

However, this does not prohibit or preclude it's use, especially when discussing LDS church history and specific church practices and teachings in the 19th century. In other words, it's a source of interesting information about the LDS church and gives us another viewpoint when studying church history.

Edited November 29, 2012 by Azariah

[Scott Lloyd]

I never said it was. Tilting at windmills I see.

Instead of beating on an argument I never made, how about you address what I actually posted.

As there has been considerable back-and-forth since your initial post(s), how about you crystallize or summarize the question/comment/argument you want discussed here?

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.lds.org/t...ourses?lang=eng

I fully understand that the JoDs is not published by the LDS church and that it is not (by itself) an authoritative source of LDS doctrine.

"The Journal of Discourses is not an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is a compilation of sermons and other materials from the early years of the Church, which were transcribed and then published. It included some doctrinal instruction but also practical teaching, some of which is speculative in nature and some of which is only of historical interest."

and

"The Journal of Discourses includes interesting and insightful teachings by early Church leaders; however, by itself it is not an authoritative source of Church doctrine."

However, this does not prohibit or preclude it's use, especially when discussing LDS church history and specific church practices and teachings in the 19th century. In other words, it's a source of interesting information about the LDS church and gives us another viewpoint when studying church history.

Sure. We can discuss it wall you want. However let's make sure we also discuss it in the light of what is currently taught as doctrine. Otherwise we are setting up a double standard. IE; If my nonLDS grandmother believed the moon was made of green cheese. Would that mean that her church taught it as doctrine. IE; That Peter, of the Bible, believed that all Christians should become Jews first have much bearing on how all Christians believe now?

[Azariah]

Sure. We can discuss it wall you want. However let's make sure we also discuss it in the light of what is currently taught as doctrine. Otherwise we are setting up a double standard. IE; If my nonLDS grandmother believed the moon was made of green cheese. Would that mean that her church taught it as doctrine. IE; That Peter, of the Bible, believed that all Christians should become Jews first have much bearing on how all Christians believe now?

Of course not, however, if you can't tell the difference between your nonLDS grandmother's personal odd beliefs vs the preaching/teaching sermons of a man who is revered as a "prophet of God" who was the President of the LDS Church, then I think you've got bigger problems.

[Scott Lloyd]

Of course not, however, if you can't tell the difference between your nonLDS grandmother's personal odd beliefs vs the preaching/teaching sermons of a man who is revered as a "prophet of God" who was the President of the LDS Church, then I think you've got bigger problems.

While being reductio ad absurdum, thesometimesaint's analogy does nonetheless illustrate a point: that a Church leader has the right to hold personal, perhaps changeable, opinions without having those opinions regarded as binding upon the entire Church of Jesus Christ. Surely this is self-evident.

I'm guessing a Church leader in this day and age, having the benefit of hindsight and past history, likely would be less apt to express such personal opinions from the pulpit as was done in yesteryear. But as pertains to the 19th century, I should think distinguishing between such personal opinions and what has been perennially proclaimed down through the years as authoritative doctrine would require but a modicum of common sense.

Edited November 29, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[DavidB]

This thread is about the reasons for polygamy.

This thread is not about labeling someone an anti-mormon for quote from a former prophet.

This thread is not about what constitutes something binding on the Church; those who wish to engage the topic of what constitutes a personal belief and what is binding are free to create another thread.

[Azariah]

While being reductio ad absurdum, it does nonetheless illustrate a point: that a Church leader has the right to hold personal, perhaps changeable, opinions without having those opinions regarded as binding upon the entire Church of Jesus Christ. Surely this is self-evident.

I'm guessing a Church leader in this day and age, having the benefit of hindsight and past history, likely would be less apt to express such personal opinions from the pulpit as was done in yesteryear. But as pertains to the 19th century, I should think distinguishing between such personal opinions and what has been perennially proclaimed down through the years as authoritative doctrine would require but a modicum of common sense.

Then said "prophet" should keep his opinions to himself and should NOT preach them from the pulpit!

[Scott Lloyd]

Then said "prophet" should keep his opinions to himself and should NOT preach them from the pulpit!

You apparently didn't read my post very carefully. The part where I said:

I'm guessing a Church leader in this day and age, having the benefit of hindsight and past history, likely would be less apt to express such personal opinions from the pulpit as was done in yesteryear.

[DavidB]

Scott and Azariah....please go here to discuss ad nausieum what a prophet says is his personal opinion.

[Azariah]

This thread is about the reasons for polygamy.

This thread is not about labeling someone an anti-mormon for quote from a former prophet.

This thread is not about what constitutes something binding on the Church; those who wish to engage the topic of what constitutes a personal belief and what is binding are free to create another thread.

Thanks for the reminder. I would enjoy discussing the "reasons for polygamy" and not be distracted with off topic comments.

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott and Azariah....please go here to discuss ad nausieum what a prophet says is his personal opinion.

Thanks just the same, frankenstein, I'm pretty much done here.

[Scott Lloyd]

Thanks for the reminder. I would enjoy discussing the "reasons for polygamy" and not be distracted with off topic comments.

Then perhaps you'd like to respond to my post #58 -- using authoritative sources this time.

[Azariah]

You apparently didn't read my post very carefully. The part where I said:

No, I didn't miss it. But, if you would like to continue this line of thought, then you can start a new thread and show us how Brigham Young was merely expressing his opinions and not trying to teach a particular principle.

ETA: I just saw DavidB's post #65.

Edited November 29, 2012 by Azariah

[Scott Lloyd]

No, I didn't miss it. But, if you would like to continue this line of thought, then you can start a new thread and show us how Brigham Young was merely expressing his opinions and not trying to teach a particular principle.

I don't think that's necessary. I believe I and others here have been clear about distinguishing between established, authoritative doctrine and the past expression of opinion. (For a review, see my post #61.)

Edited November 29, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Azariah]

As there has been considerable back-and-forth since your initial post(s), how about you crystallize or summarize the question/comment/argument you want discussed here?

If you go back to Tacenda's post #17, you will see the reason why I quoted Brigham Young from the Journal of Discourses. Edited November 29, 2012 by Azariah

[Azariah]

Scott, since this thread is about discussing the Reasons for Polygamy, would you like to discuss the Brigham Young quote found in the Journal of Discourses?

Volume 3 page 266

http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/JournalOfDiscourses3/id/9595/rec/3

and

Volume 11 page 269

http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/JournalOfDiscourses3/id/9607/rec/11

Or are you going to skirt the issue by claiming the JoDs is not "authorized" or "authoritative"?

[Scott Lloyd]

If you go back to Tacenda's post #17, you will see the reason why I quoted Brigham Young from the Journal of Discourses.

Rather than insisting that we divine from someone else's comment what it is that you're getting at, wouldn't it be better if you expressed your meaning yourself as clearly as you can?

[Azariah]

Rather than insisting that we divine from someone else's comment what it is that you're getting at, wouldn't it be better if you expressed your meaning yourself as clearly as you can?

If you are ignorant of the flow of the discussion, perhaps you shouldn't have stuck your nose in it.

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott, since this thread is about discussing the Reasons for Polygamy, would you like to discuss the Brigham Young quote found in the Journal of Discourses?

Volume 3 page 266

http://contentdm.lib...3/id/9595/rec/3

and

Volume 11 page 269

http://contentdm.lib.../id/9607/rec/11

Or are you going to skirt the issue by claiming the JoDs is not "authorized" or "authoritative"?

Is this thread about what Brigham Young said in this or that cherry-picked quote, or is it about what constitutes authoritative Church doctrine regarding the reasons for plural marriage?