New Ow Discussion # 6 - Be The Change

[Sleeper Cell]

Ok but some things that can't be changed. OW can't ask that the fall account having Eve partaking of the fruit first and the things that go along with that can be changed.  

 

Why not?  Actually, Adam was really the first to partake, but the Biblical account was written by the patriarchy (which completely supressed Eve‘s side of the story). However, even the patriarchal version suggests that. from the beginning,  Adam tried to shift the blame to Eve.   

 

See how easy it is.  

[Nofear]

As one who lives among, works with and worships with Utah Mormons constantly, I say this strikes me as caricature.

 

And I'm not sure that's what the complainers have in mind with "Primary voice."

Once during young men's when a our then bishop addressed them he spoke in the mannerism/tone/voice he was wont to use with the primary children. It was distinctly different and not all that appropriate teenage males, though potentially appropriate the former group. I gave him a bit of a ribbing for that and he did not repeat the mannerism with the young men.

[why me]

Once during young men's when a our then bishop addressed them he spoke in the mannerism/tone/voice he was wont to use with the primary children. It was distinctly different and not all that appropriate teenage males, though potentially appropriate the former group. I gave him a bit of a ribbing for that and he did not repeat the mannerism with the young men.

 

When OW criticizes an lds woman's tone in church, they are more or less following what feminists did in the late 60s and early 70s, being critical of a woman's voice. In the past, feminists wanted women to find their own voice as a source of power. They were critical of women's voices that came from the 50s and early 60s, as shown in american TV series, a voice that was scondary to the man's. We can see this in june cleaver or in the TV program hazel which were popular in the past etc.

 

I think that what OW are saying is that lds women must lose their primary voice because such a voice is not a voice for change within the church. They want women to adopt a more masculine voice as a source of power and change. So, their idea does have roots in early feminism during the 60s and early seventies.

 

However, I think that most lds women like their voice and will be unwilling to change and they also may find what OW are saying offensive.

Edited August 5, 2014 by why me

[BlueDreams]

However, I think that most lds women like their voice and will be unwilling to change and they also may find what OW are saying offensive.

This is less toward you specifically, but to also what I've generally read. 

 

I found OW's assumptions about their voices over the top and pushing it. But it doesn't meant that I actually enjoy or like the "primary voice" that is used by a number of the General female leaders. Though not all women sound like that, obviously, there seems to be far less variation in intonation of voice for them than the men.....barring obvious, unavoidable, distinctions like foreign accents. And it probably bothers me in part because no one in my generation comes close to speaking like that. I don't hear that intonation in most of my circles....not in church most the time, not in my program (almost all are LDS), and not my general day to day. The few times I do it's usually with older women from the west. Sometimes it may be their (the General leaders') natural teaching voice, but sometimes it's not. (listen to Linda K. Burton here and here). I'm not one to go as far and assume what OW stated about it. But it doesn't mean that I don't find it odd and wouldn't mind if that became less of the go-to voice for them. And it doesn't mean that I haven't sworn to myself (in my more obnoxious moods) that if I ever had to give a talk at GC, that I would speak in my usual cadence. 

 

Frankly sometimes the tone is grating, though I do usually enjoy their messages (same with all of conference). 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited August 6, 2014 by BlueDreams

[Garden Girl]

I'm with Blue Dreams... sometimes in GC I cringe when a woman will speak in the soft, sing-song "primary voice."   But I do not believe that strong LDS women, like myself, need to try and be more masculine in tone or speech.  One of my favorite quotes from M. Russell Ballard:

 

"We don't need women who want to be like men, sound like men, dress like men, drive like some men, or act like men.  We do need women who rejoice in their womanhood and have a spiritual confirmation of their identity, their value, and their eternal destiny.  Above all, we need women who will stand up for truth and righteousness and decry evil at every turn, women who will simply say, 'Here am I, Lord, send me'."

 

Whenever I give a Sac Mtg talk, no one can mistake my tone as a "primary voice."  Rather, my voice rings firm and true down to my last words as I bear my testimony...

 

GG

[Scott Lloyd]

This is less toward you specifically, but to also what I've generally read. 

 

I found OW's assumptions about their voices over the top and pushing it. But it doesn't meant that I actually enjoy or like the "primary voice" that is used by a number of the General female leaders. Though not all women sound like that, obviously, there seems to be far less variation in intonation of voice for them than the men.....barring obvious, unavoidable, distinctions like foreign accents. And it probably bothers me in part because no one in my generation comes close to speaking like that. I don't hear that intonation in most of my circles....not in church most the time, not in my program (almost all are LDS), and not my general day to day. The few times I do it's usually with older women from the west. Sometimes it may be their (the General leaders') natural teaching voice, but sometimes it's not. (listen to Linda K. Burton here and here). I'm not one to go as far and assume what OW stated about it. But it doesn't mean that I don't find it odd and wouldn't mind if that became less of the go-to voice for them. And it doesn't mean that I haven't sworn to myself (in my more obnoxious moods) that if I ever had to give a talk at GC, that I would speak in my usual cadence. 

 

Frankly sometimes the tone is grating, though I do usually enjoy their messages (same with all of conference). 

 

With luv,

BD

In a way, I can relate to what you are saying here.

 

Over time, I have become increasingly conscious of a tendency among younger people today to phrase almost every declarative sentence as though it were a question, with an upward intonation at the end of the sentence.

 

(As an aside, I saw a hilarious comedy sketch regarding this phenomenon the other night on the BYU-TV program "Studio C." A prosecuting attorney in a court trial was doing this, and it was getting him into great trouble with the judge, the witness, his own client and most everyone else.)

 

I have found this highly grating to listen to. Yet I have trained myself (and, I believe, sucessfully) not to think ill of people who do this and not to judge them harshly, realizing that, probably in most instances, they cannot help it.

 

I would wish for the same sort of patience and forbearance on the part of people who are fussing about this perceived "Primary voice."

 

Edited to add:

 

Here is a Wikipedia entry that describes the phenomenon that I have identified here.

Edited August 6, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[why me]

This is less toward you specifically, but to also what I've generally read. 

 

I found OW's assumptions about their voices over the top and pushing it. But it doesn't meant that I actually enjoy or like the "primary voice" that is used by a number of the General female leaders. Though not all women sound like that, obviously, there seems to be far less variation in intonation of voice for them than the men.....barring obvious, unavoidable, distinctions like foreign accents. And it probably bothers me in part because no one in my generation comes close to speaking like that. I don't hear that intonation in most of my circles....not in church most the time, not in my program (almost all are LDS), and not my general day to day. The few times I do it's usually with older women from the west. Sometimes it may be their (the General leaders') natural teaching voice, but sometimes it's not. (listen to Linda K. Burton here and here). I'm not one to go as far and assume what OW stated about it. But it doesn't mean that I don't find it odd and wouldn't mind if that became less of the go-to voice for them. And it doesn't mean that I haven't sworn to myself (in my more obnoxious moods) that if I ever had to give a talk at GC, that I would speak in my usual cadence. 

 

Frankly sometimes the tone is grating, though I do usually enjoy their messages (same with all of conference). 

 

With luv,

BD

I can understand this. The voices of men at GC can leave much to be desired too. I think that for some strange reason, the  intonation has become a standard way of speaking. But this is neither the fault of men or women who are speaking but of culture in the lds chruch. In the past, the GAs were much more lively and entertaining on the podium. I am sure that BY and JS spoke rather forcibly from the podium, much like a protestant preacher. But for some reason, the tones have become clonish. I have no idea why. But to single out the primary voice is downgrading the women who speak at GC. However,  I would rather have lds women speak like joyce meyer.

[Hermit53]

I'm fairly new to the board and read the last 7 days worth of comments on this topic. Wow does the subject change quickly lol. Please allow me to comment on a couple that caught my attention:

It was stated a few days ago that the changes to allow women the priesthood would require a revelation, but not all changes to Church doctrine that were required by the Lord require revelation to be effective; take the Official Declaration 1, which not a revelation and as stated within it, advice to the members to refrain from plural marriage if they now wish to remain a member of the Church. Of course, the Declaration only negated part of D&C 132, but is that the point? Can PARTS of the revelations given in the past be changed at will without further revelation to satisfy future changing social conditions? 

 

It was also asked whether it was believed that if a Priest says a prayer, etc. incorrectly that the (baptism/sacrement/ordination) would be invalid? The commenter indicated this is overlooked within the Temple...but I've heard the Priest try three or four times before "getting it right" in our Sacrament Meeting, which led me to conclude that the Church believed these recitals to be invalid if not recited correctly. Is there not a guide for this?..Maybe I need to speak to my Church leaders about my concern? They may be misleading others as well...

[why me]

 

I'm fairly new to the board and read the last 7 days worth of comments on this topic. Wow does the subject change quickly lol. Please allow me to comment on a couple that caught my attention:

It was stated a few days ago that the changes to allow women the priesthood would require a revelation, but not all changes to Church doctrine that were required by the Lord require revelation to be effective; take the Official Declaration 1, which not a revelation and as stated within it, advice to the members to refrain from plural marriage if they now wish to remain a member of the Church. Of course, the Declaration only negated part of D&C 132, but is that the point? Can PARTS of the revelations given in the past be changed at will without further revelation to satisfy future changing social conditions? 

 

It was also asked whether it was believed that if a Priest says a prayer, etc. incorrectly that the (baptism/sacrement/ordination) would be invalid? The commenter indicated this is overlooked within the Temple...but I've heard the Priest try three or four times before "getting it right" in our Sacrament Meeting, which led me to conclude that the Church believed these recitals to be invalid if not recited correctly. Is there not a guide for this?..Maybe I need to speak to my Church leaders about my concern? They may be misleading others as well...

 

I  think that ordaining women and girls to the priesthood would require a revelation in the same way that ordaining blacks required a revelation. Plural marriage was not actually stopped. It can still happen again and so no revelation was required. I  believe and I could be wrong about this but plural marriage was stopped because of government law and for political reasons. But certainly if polygamy was legalized and it may be someday soon, the church can very well reinstate the principle.

[Calm]

I'm fairly new to the board and read the last 7 days worth of comments on this topic. Wow does the subject change quickly lol. Please allow me to comment on a couple that caught my attention:

It was stated a few days ago that the changes to allow women the priesthood would require a revelation, but not all changes to Church doctrine that were required by the Lord require revelation to be effective; take the Official Declaration 1, which not a revelation and as stated within it, advice to the members to refrain from plural marriage if they now wish to remain a member of the Church. Of course, the Declaration only negated part of D&C 132, but is that the point? Can PARTS of the revelations given in the past be changed at will without further revelation to satisfy future changing social conditions?

It was also asked whether it was believed that if a Priest says a prayer, etc. incorrectly that the (baptism/sacrement/ordination) would be invalid? The commenter indicated this is overlooked within the Temple...but I've heard the Priest try three or four times before "getting it right" in our Sacrament Meeting, which led me to conclude that the Church believed these recitals to be invalid if not recited correctly. Is there not a guide for this?..Maybe I need to speak to my Church leaders about my concern? They may be misleading others as well...

If you read OD 1, it (or the info included with it iirc) does refer to a revelatory experience...he saw what would happen to the Church if the policy wasn't changed.

I believe the Handbook states to allow three or so tries and then accept it. They don't require perfection to the point of humiliating the young man making the error. It is for the bishop to decide whether it is acceptable or not. I have had bishops be okay with a priest going back over part and redoing it and other bishops or times having them repeat the whole thing. It isn't always consistent.

And if it isn't perfect and neither the priest or the bishop catches it and it gets passed out, they do not redo the whole thing when the bishop is made aware that an error did occur.

Edited August 6, 2014 by calmoriah

[Hermit53]

I  think that ordaining women and girls to the priesthood would require a revelation in the same way that ordaining blacks required a revelation. Plural marriage was not actually stopped. It can still happen again and so no revelation was required. I  believe and I could be wrong about this but plural marriage was stopped because of government law and for political reasons. But certainly if polygamy was legalized and it may be someday soon, the church can very well reinstate the principle.

Thank you...I was going from memory and had forgotten OD 2 was based on revelation. 

[Hermit53]

If you read OD 1, it (or the info included with it iirc) does refer to a revelatory experience...he saw what would happen to the Church if the policy wasn't changed.

I believe the Handbook states to allow three or so tries and then accept it. They don't require perfection to the point of humiliating the young man making the error. It is for the bishop to decide whether it is acceptable or not.

Time for more digging on the Church website...or maybe my memory is just getting bad. Never hurts to refresh....

[Calm]

The OD itself does not so many people assume there was no revelation involved, but in the excerpts provided with it he states something like "I have had many revelations lately..."

[why me]

If you read OD 1, it (or the info included with it iirc) does refer to a revelatory experience...he saw what would happen to the Church if the policy wasn't changed.

 

 

OD1 refers to laws and not to revelation. However, there are excerpts to three addresses where he does mention revelations but actually to OD1 was based on obeying the laws of the land. No revelation was mentioned in OD1.

Edited August 6, 2014 by why me

[Scott Lloyd]

OD1 refers to laws and not to revelation. However, there are excerpts to three addresses where he does mention revelations but actually to OD1. OD1 was based on obeying the laws of the land.

Rather than quibble over content, let's just quote the whole thing here:

 

 

Official Declaration 1

The Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that monogamy is God’s standard for marriage unless He declares otherwise (see 2 Samuel 12:7–8 and Jacob 2:27, 30). Following a revelation to Joseph Smith, the practice of plural marriage was instituted among Church members in the early 1840s (see section 132). From the 1860s to the 1880s, the United States government passed laws to make this religious practice illegal. These laws were eventually upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. After receiving revelation, President Wilford Woodruff issued the following Manifesto, which was accepted by the Church as authoritative and binding on October 6, 1890. This led to the end of the practice of plural marriage in the Church.

To Whom It May Concern:

 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.”

 

Salt Lake City, Utah, October 6, 1890.

Excerpts from Three Addresses by President Wilford Woodruff Regarding the Manifesto

 The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. (Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.)

 It matters not who lives or who dies, or who is called to lead this Church, they have got to lead it by the inspiration of Almighty God. If they do not do it that way, they cannot do it at all. …

 I have had some revelations of late, and very important ones to me, and I will tell you what the Lord has said to me. Let me bring your minds to what is termed the manifesto. …

 The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question, and He also told me that if they would listen to what I said to them and answer the question put to them, by the Spirit and power of God, they would all answer alike, and they would all believe alike with regard to this matter.

 The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?

 The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for … any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people, so that the dead may be redeemed. A large number has already been delivered from the prison house in the spirit world by this people, and shall the work go on or stop? This is the question I lay before the Latter-day Saints. You have to judge for yourselves. I want you to answer it for yourselves. I shall not answer it; but I say to you that that is exactly the condition we as a people would have been in had we not taken the course we have.

 … I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. …

 I leave this with you, for you to contemplate and consider. The Lord is at work with us. (Cache Stake Conference, Logan, Utah, Sunday, November 1, 1891. Reported in Deseret Weekly, November 14, 1891.)

 Now I will tell you what was manifested to me and what the Son of God performed in this thing. … All these things would have come to pass, as God Almighty lives, had not that Manifesto been given. Therefore, the Son of God felt disposed to have that thing presented to the Church and to the world for purposes in his own mind. The Lord had decreed the establishment of Zion. He had decreed the finishing of this temple. He had decreed that the salvation of the living and the dead should be given in these valleys of the mountains. And Almighty God decreed that the Devil should not thwart it. If you can understand that, that is a key to it. (From a discourse at the sixth session of the dedication of the Salt Lake Temple, April 1893. Typescript of Dedicatory Services, Archives, Church Historical Department, Salt Lake City, Utah.)

 

 

[why me]

 

Rather than quibble over content, let's just quote the whole thing here:

 

 

 

Oh...I have the old version in my scriptures where the new introduction is not given. However, the OD1 does refer to laws which does mean that if the law is changed, polygamy could be reinstated.

 

I think that the point is that if women were to be ordained to the priesthood, a revelation would be needed. And this is where OW misses the boat with their Must in their manifesto. For OW, the lord must ordain women so women can achieve equality in the church. No revelation is necessary however, since the lds church is a patriarchal church which is sexist, according to OW.

Edited August 6, 2014 by why me

[JLHPROF]

 

Rather than quibble over content, let's just quote the whole thing here:

 

Official Declaration 1

The Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that monogamy is God’s standard for marriage unless He declares otherwise (see 2 Samuel 12:7–8 and Jacob 2:27, 30). Following a revelation to Joseph Smith, the practice of plural marriage was instituted among Church members in the early 1840s (see section 132). From the 1860s to the 1880s, the United States government passed laws to make this religious practice illegal. These laws were eventually upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. After receiving revelation, President Wilford Woodruff issued the following Manifesto, which was accepted by the Church as authoritative and binding on October 6, 1890. This led to the end of the practice of plural marriage in the Church.

To Whom It May Concern:

 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.”

 

Salt Lake City, Utah, October 6, 1890.

Excerpts from Three Addresses by President Wilford Woodruff Regarding the Manifesto

 The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. (Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.)

 It matters not who lives or who dies, or who is called to lead this Church, they have got to lead it by the inspiration of Almighty God. If they do not do it that way, they cannot do it at all. …

 I have had some revelations of late, and very important ones to me, and I will tell you what the Lord has said to me. Let me bring your minds to what is termed the manifesto. …

 The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question, and He also told me that if they would listen to what I said to them and answer the question put to them, by the Spirit and power of God, they would all answer alike, and they would all believe alike with regard to this matter.

 The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?

 The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for … any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people, so that the dead may be redeemed. A large number has already been delivered from the prison house in the spirit world by this people, and shall the work go on or stop? This is the question I lay before the Latter-day Saints. You have to judge for yourselves. I want you to answer it for yourselves. I shall not answer it; but I say to you that that is exactly the condition we as a people would have been in had we not taken the course we have.

 … I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. …

 I leave this with you, for you to contemplate and consider. The Lord is at work with us. (Cache Stake Conference, Logan, Utah, Sunday, November 1, 1891. Reported in Deseret Weekly, November 14, 1891.)

 Now I will tell you what was manifested to me and what the Son of God performed in this thing. … All these things would have come to pass, as God Almighty lives, had not that Manifesto been given. Therefore, the Son of God felt disposed to have that thing presented to the Church and to the world for purposes in his own mind. The Lord had decreed the establishment of Zion. He had decreed the finishing of this temple. He had decreed that the salvation of the living and the dead should be given in these valleys of the mountains. And Almighty God decreed that the Devil should not thwart it. If you can understand that, that is a key to it. (From a discourse at the sixth session of the dedication of the Salt Lake Temple, April 1893. Typescript of Dedicatory Services, Archives, Church Historical Department, Salt Lake City, Utah.)

 

 

 

 

 

Is this ALL considered to be part of the official declaration?  Because I was under the impression that the actual official declaration was only the part I bolded.  The rest is just supplementary material added (and apparently rewritten) after the official part was declared...however I am glad that the historically false "The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous." was removed in the most recent version.

 

Because if it IS the bold part only, then it is clearly politically motivated, presumably brought about after the vision referred to in the non-bolded parts.  But the "Manifesto" itself as presented to and accepted by the Church is a more limited document than OD1.

 

I have also underlined 3 key parts of the manifesto that must be looked at when understanding the manifesto:

 

1. 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.

Well, this is demonstrably false.  At the time of the Manifesto (1890) plural marriage was still very much being taught and practiced and entered into.  The key phrase here was not "in our Temples or in any other place in  the Territory".  That part was probably nearly true.

 

2. 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.

True, but questionable.  If the prophet of the Church had really "used his influence" there wasn't a GA in the Church that would have ever sealed or authorized another plural marriage.  Anyone can see that there was no force behind this "influence".

 

3.  my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.

I feel a WoW "not by way of commandment" argument coming on.  Advice against living plural marriage is hardly the same thing as a commandment to stop the practice.

[Tacenda]

Answering the OP, maybe some of the change could come from the other side, words from this wonderful woman (thanks to the poster on StayLDS.com for compiling them!).....

 

 

"I don't want anyone to misunderstand what I'm going to say next. The First Presidency has made its opposition to same-sex marriages very clear; as a member of the church I support them in their position. But I want to stress that we can be opposed to a piece of legislation or to a practice and still behave with courtesy and decency toward those who hold other opinions. I would not want anyone to use the First Presidency's stand as an excuse for being hateful or disrespectful toward others..... It is very likely that every person in the Church knows someone - a family member or a friend - who is gay, lesbian or bisexual. I also think it is very likely that many people do not know that they know a homosexual or bisexual person because that person is afraid to reveal that part of him or herself for fear of being rejected, punished, or excluded. I think there is much we do not understand about how such conditions come to be, or what resources are truly helpful. In the meantime, nothing has suspended the commandment of Jesus to love one another and to bear one another's burdens. - Chieko Okazaki, "Disciples," p. 122

 

 

 

“If we are filled with the love of Christ, we will not only see him as he is but we will see others as he sees them. I promise you that barriers of separation within your heart that are holding your sisters at a distance will crumble. They will disappear even in the moment when you realize, in the sacred presence of our Savior, that they exist.”
-Chieko Okazaki, "Being Enough," p. 179

 

 

 

"Elder John K. Carmack had a wonderful article published in the March 1991 Ensign titled "Unity in Diversity. He wrote: "Labeling a fellow Church member an intellectual, a less-active member, a feminist, a South African, and Armenian, a Utah Mormon, or a Mexican, for example, seemingly provides an excuse to mistreat or ignore that person. . . . Each of us should be fair to everyone, especially the victims of discrimination, isolation, and exclusion. Let us be careful not to snicker at jokes that demean and belittle others because of religious, cultural, racial, national, or gender differences. All are alike unto God. We should walk away or face up to the problem when confronted with these common and unworthy practices."
Quoted by Chieko Okazaki, Lighten Up. pg. 22

 

 

 

“You may think that you’re important because of what you do for people--that you’re important to the world because you take care of your children or your grandchildren, or teach lessons or volunteer at the shelter or take the Boy Scouts on hikes. You may think you count because of the salary you earn and because you provide for your family. Certainly those things are important. But those are jobs, chores, functions. They are things that someone else could do. What’s essential about you is who you are. If you’re someone’s spouse or parent or friend or teacher, that’s a relationship, not a set of tasks. What’s essential in that relationship is you, the real you, not just a smoothly functioning job-doer, No one and no thing can make you happy. Only you can do that. And nothing is more essential.” -Chieko Okazaki, "Being Enough," p. 189

 

 

 

“Showing respect for a person’s national or ethnic background is a way of showing respect for that person. It’s a way of saying, ‘Where you come from and how you do things and how you say things is important to me because you are important to me.'” -Chieko Okazaki, "Being Enough," p. 169

 

 

“Kindness without love is not kindness at all. It’s patronage, it’s condescension, it’s smugness and superiority. If you have been the recipient of this species of ‘kindness,’ you know that you would much rather do without it.

But with love, kindness is refreshment and rejoicing. It strengthens bonds and creates new ones. And it’s a tough, patient virtue, not a frilly, fluffy one.

It is significant to me that in the same verse in which Paul says charity is kind, he describes a second virtue, patience, in four different ways: charity ‘suffereth long, . . . is not easily provoked, . . . beareth all things, . . . endureth all things’ (1 Cor. 13:4-7). In other words, a charitable person must endure in patience, endure more than her share, suffer when it is not fair, and suffer ‘long.’ Kindness is not sentimental or weak. It’s tough, strong, and long-lasting.” -Chieko N. Okazaki, "Sanctuary," p. 75

[why me]

 

Answering the OP, maybe some of the change could come from the other side, words from this wonderful woman (thanks to the poster on StayLDS.com for compiling them!).....

 

 

"I don't want anyone to misunderstand what I'm going to say next. The First Presidency has made its opposition to same-sex marriages very clear; as a member of the church I support them in their position. But I want to stress that we can be opposed to a piece of legislation or to a practice and still behave with courtesy and decency toward those who hold other opinions. I would not want anyone to use the First Presidency's stand as an excuse for being hateful or disrespectful toward others..... It is very likely that every person in the Church knows someone - a family member or a friend - who is gay, lesbian or bisexual. I also think it is very likely that many people do not know that they know a homosexual or bisexual person because that person is afraid to reveal that part of him or herself for fear of being rejected, punished, or excluded. I think there is much we do not understand about how such conditions come to be, or what resources are truly helpful. In the meantime, nothing has suspended the commandment of Jesus to love one another and to bear one another's burdens. - Chieko Okazaki, "Disciples," p. 122

 

 

 

 

The problem as I see it is that people use the Christ card to stiffle debate. One side can be passionate in promoting SSM or ordaining women and the side that may oppose these issues must be 'christlike' which basically means, all passionate emotion must be stymied in favor of 'christlike' posts. Of course since we have nothing actually written by christ we have no idea what exactly is christlike writing. I am sure that jesus also wrote senteces and put things down in written form but we have no written record of anything he wrote in his own words. What we do have are people putting words in his mouth in their own writings in the bible.

 

So what does it mean to be courteous?

 

What does it mean to be hateful?

 

What does it mean to be disrespectful?

 

I think that if we attempt to answer these questions we will get many ideas and definitions, which is a problem too.

 

We do know that jesus spoke with emotion and because of it, he offended people at that time. We know this from the bible.

 

To be passionate in defending the church is not hateful or disrespectful to the person one is debating or dialoging with. But I have seen such accusations made by people toward church members on this board when they defend the church's stance on sensitive topics. Debate is debate. 

 

On the other hand I agree with the above post that I quoted. The problem comes when people take it to the extreme and call honest debating for hate and disagreement as being disrespectful. I have seen a lot of hate toward mormons and their faith on other religious boards. But I call hate derrogatory remarks toward church leaders and mocking toward the faith itself. But even then, the other side just calls such remarks the 'truth' when they use such language.

Edited August 8, 2014 by why me