Answers To Common Questions - New Era, March '15

[why me]

 

 

I think that Joseph Smith receiving a revelation and practicing it among an exclusive group of church members while preaching something different is not consistent with how we view a prophet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I  don't think that he was preaching something different. However, the members were very much aware what would happen if this got out among the mobs. All heck would brreak loose and people would have died. So, he needed to be careful what he said in public. If you were a member back then, and experienced persecution in missiouri and ohio etc, would you want polygamy to be made public in Warsaw? Joseph needed to protect the saints and as we can see, his fear was well justified since polygamy was one reason why he was murdered.

Edited March 2, 2015 by why me

[rockpond]

I  don't think that he was preaching something different. However, the members were very much aware what would happen if this got out among the mobs. All heck would brreak loose and people would have died. So, he needed to be careful what he said in public. If you were a member back then, and experienced persecution in missiouri and ohio etc, would you want polygamy to be made public in Warsaw? Joseph needed to protect the saints and as we can see, his fear was well justified since polygamy was one reason why he was murdered.

 

Exactly.  So in public he taught monogamy while he and a handful of others practiced polygamy.  The Section 132 wasn't published until the saints were in Utah.

[Jeanne]

How come I am he only smart alec on the board?

[why me]

Exactly.  So in public he taught monogamy while he and a handful of others practiced polygamy.  The Section 132 wasn't published until the saints were in Utah.

If you were a member at that time, living in nauvoo, would you want polygamy to be made public? Probably not. The antimormons were looking for an excuse to ransack nauvoo and polygamy would be a great reason to do so. We need to remember that once the saints left nauvoo, polygamy began in ernest. Why? And do you really think that these members did not know what was going on? Many of JSs wives followed his coffin right behind emma.

[rockpond]

If you were a member at that time, living in nauvoo, would you want polygamy to be made public? Probably not. The antimormons were looking for an excuse to ransack nauvoo and polygamy would be a great reason to do so. We need to remember that once the saints left nauvoo, polygamy began in ernest. Why? And do you really think that these members did not know what was going on? Many of JSs wives followed his coffin right behind emma.

 

I'm not saying that there weren't reasons to keep it a secret.  And yes, I imagine that by his death, it had become less of a secret but that was several years into the practice.

 

None of that changes the point I was making in post #106.  How Section 132 and OD1 actually came to be, how they were actually received, and how they were actually understood does not seem entirely consistent with how many Church members today understand them (IMO, obviously).  So you have this gap between how members view the role of prophets and revelation today and what actually happened.  Then, as the article states:  "because of the internet", members are discovering that gap and it's causing cognitive dissonance for some and a resultant loss of membership, family strife, etc.

[KevinG]

How come I am he only smart alec on the board?

 

You are among an elite group of smart aleks.  See my sig.

[Danzo]

I would advocate that prophets follow their own revelations from God.  From the Second Manifesto: 

 

 

 

Again, I think your are comparing actual people with mythological people.

 

In real life (and can be pointed out from numerous examples in the scriptures), prophets struggle with understanding and following the  the revelations in the scriptures.

 

Prophets are not a different species of human.

[Danzo]

 

Can you point me to any statements from a prophet backing this up?  I'm not really sure how this would work in any situation.  If a client tells me I need to provide them an important report by the end of the week and I don't deliver, I can't imagine getting away with the excuse that they provided no "or else" clause.  I expect it would only be more significant if God revealed to me an Official Declaration and I didn't obey.

 

I do not believe the first manifesto contains an  "Or else"

 

The second one does.

 

your example is also ambiguous. Your client could, among other things

1. Go to someone else

2. ask for the report by another date

3. accept the report not being done

4. If a contract was signed, sue for breach of contract (the remedy usually specified in the contract)

 

Let me ask you a question.

 

If the elders quorum president asks you to go home teaching and you don't, what happens?

 

If the bishop asks you to give a talk and you don't, what happens?

 

If the bishop asks you to serve a mission and you don't, what happens?

 

Most commandments in the church don't have an institutional "Or else" attached.  This particular one didn't until 1904.  After that several people (including members of the 12) tested the or else and found that it was taken more seriously this time.

 

It may be sad that the lord has to tell his servants more than once to do something, but it certainly is not unprecedented in the scriptures or church history. I know I have often had to be told to do something many times before it sinks in.  I would hope that the lord will be merciful to me as well.

 

Edited March 2, 2015 by Danzo

[Danzo]

The LDS Church Official stance is that the Manifesto was "authoritative and binding". 

 

"Whitney then read the Manifesto, and Lorenzo Snow, President of the Quorum of the Twelve, moved that the document be accepted as “authoritative and binding.” A vote was then taken, which was “unanimous”.

 

yes, but did it say what would happen if it wasn't followed?

No sacrament?

Couldn't go to the ward socials?

Had to wash the toilets?

Forced to listen to the high counselor every Sunday?

 

A law without a consequence is just a suggestion.

[theplains]

In real life (and can be pointed out from numerous examples in the scriptures), prophets struggle with understanding and following the  the revelations in the scriptures.

 

Prophets are not a different species of human.

 

The first example in the LDS faith was Joseph Smith.  After claiming to see Heavenly Father

and Jesus Christ, he seemed to go back to his old ways, maybe becoming even worse.

 

"During the space of time which intervened between the time I had the vision and the year

eighteen hundred and twenty-three—having been forbidden to join any of the religious sects

of the day, and being of very tender years, and persecuted by those who ought to have

been my friends and to have treated me kindly, and if they supposed me to be deluded to

have endeavored in a proper and affectionate manner to have reclaimed me—I was left to

all kinds of temptations; and, mingling with all kinds of society, I frequently fell into many

foolish errors, and displayed the weakness of youth, and the foibles of human nature; which,

I am sorry to say, led me into divers temptations, offensive in the sight of God. In making this

confession, no one need suppose me guilty of any great or malignant sins. A disposition to

commit such was never in my nature. But I was guilty of levity, and sometimes associated

with jovial company, etc., not consistent with that character which ought to be maintained by

one who was called of God as I had been. But this will not seem very strange to any one who

recollects my youth, and is acquainted with my native cheery temperament.

 

Odd that Joseph Smith could say that he was led into various temptations that were offensive

in the sight of God and yet say that no one could accuse him of any great or malignant sins.

 

Seems like he did not have the wisdom to understand his own statement.

 

Regards,

Jim

[Danzo]

which is false and misleading

 

While I also feel that the answer given could be more accurate, telling someone that something said was "False and Misleading" is usually interpreted as an accusation of bearing false witness, or lying.

 

I see no evidence here of deliberate deceitfulness, as you seem to believe.

 

1890 was certainly the beginning of the end. 

 

I hope you don't tell that to everyone that you believe gives information that is not precise enough for you.

[JLHPROF]

 

The first example in the LDS faith was Joseph Smith.  After claiming to see Heavenly Father

and Jesus Christ, he seemed to go back to his old ways, maybe becoming even worse.

 

"During the space of time which intervened between the time I had the vision and the year

eighteen hundred and twenty-three—having been forbidden to join any of the religious sects

of the day, and being of very tender years, and persecuted by those who ought to have

been my friends and to have treated me kindly, and if they supposed me to be deluded to

have endeavored in a proper and affectionate manner to have reclaimed me—I was left to

all kinds of temptations; and, mingling with all kinds of society, I frequently fell into many

foolish errors, and displayed the weakness of youth, and the foibles of human nature; which,

I am sorry to say, led me into divers temptations, offensive in the sight of God. In making this

confession, no one need suppose me guilty of any great or malignant sins. A disposition to

commit such was never in my nature. But I was guilty of levity, and sometimes associated

with jovial company, etc., not consistent with that character which ought to be maintained by

one who was called of God as I had been. But this will not seem very strange to any one who

recollects my youth, and is acquainted with my native cheery temperament.

 

Odd that Joseph Smith could say that he was led into various temptations that were offensive

in the sight of God and yet say that no one could accuse him of any great or malignant sins.

 

Seems like he did not have the wisdom to understand his own statement.

 

Regards,

Jim

 

 

WOW, that is one major misrepresentation of the truth.

 

A 14 year old boy guilty of levity and joviality.  Nobody would even consider those sins today...he probably broke a window with a rock or pulled his sisters pigtails.

 

I think it is you that lacks the wisdom to understand his statement.

[Danzo]

 

The first example in the LDS faith was Joseph Smith.  After claiming to see Heavenly Father

and Jesus Christ, he seemed to go back to his old ways, maybe becoming even worse.

 

"During the space of time which intervened between the time I had the vision and the year

eighteen hundred and twenty-three—having been forbidden to join any of the religious sects

of the day, and being of very tender years, and persecuted by those who ought to have

been my friends and to have treated me kindly, and if they supposed me to be deluded to

have endeavored in a proper and affectionate manner to have reclaimed me—I was left to

all kinds of temptations; and, mingling with all kinds of society, I frequently fell into many

foolish errors, and displayed the weakness of youth, and the foibles of human nature; which,

I am sorry to say, led me into divers temptations, offensive in the sight of God. In making this

confession, no one need suppose me guilty of any great or malignant sins. A disposition to

commit such was never in my nature. But I was guilty of levity, and sometimes associated

with jovial company, etc., not consistent with that character which ought to be maintained by

one who was called of God as I had been. But this will not seem very strange to any one who

recollects my youth, and is acquainted with my native cheery temperament.

 

Odd that Joseph Smith could say that he was led into various temptations that were offensive

in the sight of God and yet say that no one could accuse him of any great or malignant sins.

 

Seems like he did not have the wisdom to understand his own statement.

 

Regards,

Jim

 

 

I do not believe I understand your point.

You are saying you judge his sins to be more serious the he thought they were?  Did he consult with you first?

How is that relevant?

Edited March 3, 2015 by Danzo

[JLHPROF]

1890 was certainly the beginning of the end. 

 

In much the same way my resolution of this January 1st to stop drinking soda was the beginning of the end...mmm, time for another root beer.

[Danzo]

In much the same way my resolution of this January 1st to stop drinking soda was the beginning of the end...mmm, time for another root beer.

Do you have any data on polygamous marriage rates before 1890 vs after 1890?

 

Did the 1890s have less, more or the same rate of polygamous marriages as the 1880s?

[JLHPROF]

Do you have any data on polygamous marriage rates before 1890 vs after 1890?

 

Did the 1890s have less, more or the same rate of polygamous marriages as the 1880s?

 

Oh of course there were fewer.  I was just being facetious.

 

The issue isn't "was 1890 the beginning of the end" as you stated. 

The issue is "was 1890 MEANT to be the beginning of the end?"

 

I would argue that while you are correct, the manifesto started the end of plural marriage, that the leaders of the Church based on their actions did not intend plural marriage to actually end.

 

Just as even though I had a New Years resolution to stop drinking soda, and I might even have managed to lower the quantity so far this year, I know full well that I'm not going to give it up completely..

[Danzo]

Oh of course there were fewer.  I was just being facetious.

 

The issue isn't "was 1890 the beginning of the end" as you stated. 

The issue is "was 1890 MEANT to be the beginning of the end?"

 

I would argue that while you are correct, the manifesto started the end of plural marriage, that the leaders of the Church based on their actions did not intend plural marriage to actually end.

 

Just as even though I had a New Years resolution to stop drinking soda, and I might even have managed to lower the quantity so far this year, I know full well that I'm not going to give it up completely..

 

MEANT by whom?

 

The LORD?

 

President Woodruff? (at the time? Later?)

The members of the church?

 

It probably meant different things to different people at different times

 

Even today, It means different things to different people.

 

I think only the opinion of the first one on my list makes any difference.

[omni]

Again, I think your are comparing actual people with mythological people.

 

In real life (and can be pointed out from numerous examples in the scriptures), prophets struggle with understanding and following the  the revelations in the scriptures.

 

Prophets are not a different species of human.

 

According to Quinn, over the next 13 years following the Manifesto, members of the Presidency published 24 denials that new plural marriages were being performed.  Human indeed...

[omni]

I do not believe the first manifesto contains an  "Or else"

 

 

 

Do you find OD1 to be ambigious?  The editorial staff of the Deseret Evening News sure didn't.  Just days after the Manifesto they published the following editorial:

 

"Anyone who calls the language of President Woodruff's declaration 'indefinite'

must be either exceedingly dense or determined to find fault. It is so definite

that its meaning cannot be mistaken by any one who understands simple English."

 

A few days later it added, "dense or determined to find fault. It is so definite

that its meaning cannot be mistaken by any one who understands simple English."

 

I would have to agree, I don't see anywhere in OD1 where it states new plural marriages will be allowed in Mexico, Canada, and even Utah.  

 

 

 

If the elders quorum president asks you to go home teaching and you don't, what happens?

 

If the bishop asks you to give a talk and you don't, what happens?

 

If the bishop asks you to serve a mission and you don't, what happens?

 

 

 

I don't see how this remotely is the same as home teaching, giving a talk, or serving a mission.  Practicing polygamy is an excommunicatable offense, and while it may not have been in 1890, it was soon after.  The same cannot be said for home teaching.

[Danzo]

According to Quinn, over the next 13 years following the Manifesto, members of the Presidency published 24 denials that new plural marriages were being performed.  Human indeed...

 

Yes, indeed.

 

They were probably unkind to small animals too. Maybe they stole from babies as well.

 

Now that we know you have judged them unworthy, we can move on to someone else. Maybe we can get your  thumbs up or down on everyone in the church.

 

There was I time when I, too thought church leaders walked on water.  Then I was called as one. 

[Tacenda]

Are you asking about this: "These aren't just minor historic details. These are facts that change fundamental teachings on the role of prophets and revelation."

I think that Joseph Smith receiving a revelation and practicing it among an exclusive group of church members while preaching something different is not consistent with how we view a prophet.

That Wilford Woodruff could receive a revelation and have it rejected by the apostles also seems inconsistent with how we view their role today.

Thanks Rockpond.

[Danzo]

 

 Practicing polygamy is an excommunicatable offense, and while it may not have been in 1890, it was soon after.  

 

My point.  It wasn't in 1890. It wasn't until 1904.  You seem to be judging the leadership in 1893 by 1904 standards. 

Do you want to be held today to the 2020 standards? or do you just hold other people to standards that don't exist yet.

[omni]

Yes, indeed.

 

They were probably unkind to small animals too. Maybe they stole from babies as well.

 

 

 

I wouldn't go that far, but perhaps they can be accused of being too jovial or engaging in the occasional wrestling match…at least that's what I keep hearing in church whenever a prophet's humanness or imperfections are brought up.

 

 

 

There was I time when I, too thought church leaders walked on water.  Then I was called as one. 

 

 

Nice straw man.  I don't know if even the most pious LDS demands perfection from the prophets, but I would think most would expect them to not make repeated statements declaring they are doing something when they most certainly are not.

[Danzo]

  I don't know if even the most pious LDS demands perfection from the prophets, but I would think most would expect them to not make repeated statements declaring they are doing something when they most certainly are not.

 

What did the saints at that time think of the statements?

 

Did they know about the statements?

 

Were they OK with them?

 

Or is this a big secret you just found out about?

[omni]

What did the saints at that time think of the statements?

Did they know about the statements?

Were they OK with them?

Or is this a big secret you just found out about?

I don't know what they thought, but think it's reasonable to assume that most who weren't "in the know" took the leaders words at face value.