Members who reject the Family Proclamation

[juliann]

1. The Proclamation begins with  ". .  marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God . . "  The indefinite article "a" cannot be modified to mean more than one.  Since the remainder of the Proc uses "man and woman" the addition of "a" in the first paragraph indicates intent to make that clear from the get go.

However, I continually see those that would like to see the Proc canonized also say that polygyny, or "marriage between a man and many women"  awaits us in heaven. (The stock wiggle room qualifiers like "oh, but not everybody will have to!"  that accompany it to be discussed later.)

I would like to understand members who disqualify everything said by modern prophets to hold on to a 19th c. practice can consider themselves to be following THE prophet.

 

2. I think the clearest statement we have that polygamy is over and I mean over, is Pres. Hinckley's Larry King interview. Celestial polygyny advocates typically say he made an off the top of his head comment, i.e., he was wrong, or that he was talking about fundamentalist Mormons not being "doctrinal." That is not only bizarre for our prophet to be telling another group what is doctrinal, as if we see anything else they do as doctrinal, and it does not explain away what he said previously.      

http://www.mormonismi.net/kirjoitukset/larry_king_1998.shtml

Quote

GBH: When our people came west they permitted it on a restricted scale.
LK: You could have a certain amount of...
GBH: The figures I have are from -- between two percent and five percent of our people were involved in it. It was a very limited practice; carefully safeguarded. In 1890, that practice was discontinued. The president of the church, the man who occupied the position which I occupy today, went before the people, said he had, oh, prayed about it, worked on it, and had received from the Lord a revelation that it was time to stop, to discontinue it then. That's 118 years ago. It's behind us.

And he continues,

Quote

GBH: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.

His wording is consistent throughout: permitted, limited, restricted. He describes it as a "practice" not just once but twice, before finalizing that it is not doctrine. Then he says, unequivocally, "It's behind us." He never corrected this, he never reworded it. In contrast he did revisit, in a joking manner, another interview when he was widely criticized for saying we don't talk about deification much.

So I think it very fair to say the burden of proof is on those who try to make this prophet into a messenger of false information and without providing any documentation that his words were rescinded or overruled by Pres. Monson.

 

3. I see these two strong statements as the basis for what is doctrinal in our modern era. I see no way to wiggle out of it. Yet we still have members who want to appeal to earlier prophets over our living prophets.

I have asked for years for a statement by a modern prophet telling women they can expect to see polygyny in the eternities, in essence, monogamy is not the preferred form of marriage.  Polygyny is not a discarded historical practice. (And my question is not about what the relatively few already in this situation, including my relatives, will be doing in heaven!) It is about the messages being given to women right now for reasons I cannot comprehend.

So please do not divert this into a debate over historical polygamy and speculation about their future. This is about the living. Or quotes from two centuries ago. Or men being sealed to multiple women which is offset by posthumous sealings of women to all of their husbands (and the removal of the rule from the CHI  that they must chose only one husband.)

How are these members justifying their speculation about celestial polygyny of post-Manifesto women in direct contradiction of the Proc and without the support of modern and living prophets? 

[VideoGameJunkie]

In regards to polygamy I believe there will be both polygyny and polyandry in the Celestial Kingdom because men whose wife dies or divorce can be sealed to another spouse to spend eternity with all they've been sealed to. Also, women who have been married multiple times, when she dies she can be sealed to all the men she was married to. So Celestial polyandry looks to be in play too. We do temple work to make it so.

Edited February 16, 2016 by VideoGameJunkie

[juliann]

Documentation not speculation, please.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

How are these members justifying their speculation about celestial polygyny of post-Manifesto women in direct contradiction of the Proc and without the support of modern and living prophets? 

I believe that they justify it by citing the fact that we still seal people to multiple spouses in the temple.  This practice requires one to either assume that the polygamous sealings will actually NOT have power in the eternities OR that polygamy IS practiced in the eternities.

Is there another option to consider?

[Buckeye]

The way I've heard it explained is that a marriage is between a man and a women, but that doesn't mean a man cannot have more than one marriage. Kind of like saying, "a covenant is an agreement between God and man/woman" but that doesn't mean there can't be more than one covenant.

FWIW, I'm no fan of polygamy (including polygyny), but I think it's reading to much to view the PotF as undermining the notion that polygamy may be practiced eternally. I don't think that was the intent of the brethren. 

[juliann]

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I believe that they justify it by citing the fact that we still seal people to multiple spouses in the temple.  This practice requires one to either assume that the polygamous sealings will actually NOT have power in the eternities OR that polygamy IS practiced in the eternities.

Is there another option to consider?

 

That becomes a support for polyandry, which isn't my topic. (Most don't really believe that and women don't want it either. The arguments begin with the, usually men, who think they will have the option of more wives and feel justified in telling women this.)  

 

13 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

The way I've heard it explained is that a marriage is between a man and a women, but that doesn't mean a man cannot have more than one marriage. Kind of like saying, "a covenant is an agreement between God and man/woman" but that doesn't mean there can't be more than one covenant.

FWIW, I'm no fan of polygamy (including polygyny), but I think it's reading to much to view the PotF as undermining the notion that polygamy may be practiced eternally. I don't think that was the intent of the brethren. 

How in the world are you supporting this in direct opposition to what it actually says???  DOCUMENTATION! Where do the Brethren say it wasn't their intent?

(I don't mean to sound angry guys, I so appreciate your sharing your thoughts. I see the damage our attempts to reconcile this are doing to women and I think it is time to stop privileging speculation over documentation.)

Edited February 16, 2016 by juliann

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, juliann said:

 

That becomes a support for polyandry, which isn't my topic. (Most don't really believe that and women don't want it either. The arguments begin with the, usually men, who think they will have the option of more wives and feel justified in telling women this.)  

 

How in the world are you supporting this in direct opposition to what it actually says???  DOCUMENTATION! Where do the Brethren say it wasn't their intent?

(I don't mean to sound angry guys, I so appreciate your sharing your thoughts. I see the damage our attempts to reconcile this are doing to women and I think it is time to stop privileging speculation over documentation.)

I agree that current church practice is damaging to women.  But it is current church practice, which means that those who say there will be polygamy in the next life are not speculating -- they are stating a fact that matches what is taught and performed in the temple.  Here is the language directly from Handbook 1, Section 3.6.1.  Underlining added by me for emphasis...

 

Sealing of Living Members after Divorce

Women. A living woman may be sealed to only one husband. If she is sealed to a husband and later divorces, she must receive a cancellation of that sealing from the First Presidency before she may be sealed to another man in her lifetime (see “Applying for a Cancellation of Sealing or a Sealing Clearance” below).

Men. If a husband and wife have been sealed and later divorced, the man must receive a sealing clearance from the First Presidency before another woman may be sealed to him (see “Applying for a Cancellation of Sealing or a Sealing Clearance” below). A sealing clearance is necessary even if (1) the previous sealing has been canceled or (2) the divorced wife is now deceased.

Sealing of Living Members after a Spouse’s Death

Women. A living woman may be sealed to only one husband.

Men. If a husband and wife have been sealed and the wife dies, the man may have another woman sealed to him if she is not already sealed to another man. In this circumstance, the man does not need a sealing clearance from the First Presidency unless he was divorced from his previous wife before she died (see the previous heading for the policy in cases of divorce).

 

How is this policy as enacted in the temple and taught (regarding the sealing power) not a prophetic endorsement of polygamy in the eternities?

 

Edited February 16, 2016 by rockpond

[ksfisher]

I don't have an opionion one way or the other, but the 9th Article of Faith leave open a number of things.

 

"We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."

 

I do believe that we should hold fast to what the prophet is saying now, but be open to change in the future.  Polygamy is not the doctrine of the church right now as President Hinckley is quoted in the OP.  I don't think anything he said rules out a change in the future of in the eternities.  Neither does the Proclamation limit what the Lord may reveal in the future or define what is law in the hereafter.

Above all I believe in a loving Father in Heaven and I trust in his judgement, whatever that may be. 

[VideoGameJunkie]

33 minutes ago, juliann said:

Documentation not speculation, please.

Then why even do the multiple temple sealing as a current practice in the church if it's only speculation? 

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, juliann said:

 

That becomes a support for polyandry, which isn't my topic. (Most don't really believe that and women don't want it either. The arguments begin with the, usually men, who think they will have the option of more wives and feel justified in telling women this.)  

 

How in the world are you supporting this in direct opposition to what it actually says???  DOCUMENTATION! Where do the Brethren say it wasn't their intent?

(I don't mean to sound angry guys, I so appreciate your sharing your thoughts. I see the damage our attempts to reconcile this are doing to women and I think it is time to stop privileging speculation over documentation.)

I believe that Elder Oaks has spoken before about how he believes that he will live polygamously in heaven (since his first wife died and he is sealed to a second wife now).  His wife, if i'm remembering right, has also talked about it.   Would that support the idea that the Apostles and prophets see polygamy as something that is valid in heaven even when it's not on the earth?

[juliann]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I agree that current church practice is damaging to women.  But it is current church practice, which means that those who say there will be polygamy in the next life are not speculating -- they are stating a fact that matches what is taught and performed in the temple.  Here is the language directly from Handbook 1, Section 3.6.1.  Underlining added by me for emphasis...

 

Sealing of Living Members after Divorce

Women. A living woman may be sealed to only one husband. If she is sealed to a husband and later divorces, she must receive a cancellation of that sealing from the First Presidency before she may be sealed to another man in her lifetime (see “Applying for a Cancellation of Sealing or a Sealing Clearance” below).

Men. If a husband and wife have been sealed and later divorced, the man must receive a sealing clearance from the First Presidency before another woman may be sealed to him (see “Applying for a Cancellation of Sealing or a Sealing Clearance” below). A sealing clearance is necessary even if (1) the previous sealing has been canceled or (2) the divorced wife is now deceased.

Sealing of Living Members after a Spouse’s Death

Women. A living woman may be sealed to only one husband.

Men. If a husband and wife have been sealed and the wife dies, the man may have another woman sealed to him if she is not already sealed to another man. In this circumstance, the man does not need a sealing clearance from the First Presidency unless he was divorced from his previous wife before she died (see the previous heading for the policy in cases of divorce).

 

How is this policy as enacted in the temple and taught (regarding the sealing power) not a prophetic endorsement of polygamy in the eternities?

 

Thanks your your reply. It would, unless women are also sealed posthumously to all of their husbands and it is no longer a secret that women are being live sealed to another husband by special permission. (There are previous threads for anyone unfamiliar with this. Even bishops on this board have verified.)  I find the removal of the previous rule that a woman must choose one husband very significant considering they can now be sealed to all of them.

So again, this is only evidence of polyandry, as well. See my above comment about removing that from discussion.

[juliann]

22 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I don't have an opionion one way or the other, but the 9th Article of Faith leave open a number of things.

 

"We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."

 

I do believe that we should hold fast to what the prophet is saying now, but be open to change in the future.  Polygamy is not the doctrine of the church right now as President Hinckley is quoted in the OP.  I don't think anything he said rules out a change in the future of in the eternities.  Neither does the Proclamation limit what the Lord may reveal in the future or define what is law in the hereafter.

Above all I believe in a loving Father in Heaven and I trust in his judgement, whatever that may be. 

Pres. Hinckley said it is behind us.  He isn't the only one, BTW.  Would you say this same thing about everything we hold to be true? We can have no assurances past today regardless of what modern prophets are saying?

 

 

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

I think the clearest statement we have that polygamy is over and I mean over, is Pres. Hinckley's Larry King interview. ? 

Its NOT Over....there are 2 [that I know of] members of the current Q12 that are polygamists including President Nelson

[cinepro]

56 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

The way I've heard it explained is that a marriage is between a man and a women, but that doesn't mean a man cannot have more than one marriage. Kind of like saying, "a covenant is an agreement between God and man/woman" but that doesn't mean there can't be more than one covenant.

 

That's how I've heard it explained as well. 

I guess the question is what happened in situations where Joseph (or someone else) was getting sealed to two women on the same day.  Was it done with one ceremony, or two?  I'm guessing two, so each would be its own individual ordinance (and thus each marriage was between a man and a woman).

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, juliann said:

Thanks your your reply. It would, unless women are also sealed posthumously to all of their husbands and it is no longer a secret that women are being live sealed to another husband by special permission. (There are previous threads for anyone unfamiliar with this. Even bishops on this board have verified.)  I find the removal of the previous rule that a woman must choose one husband very significant considering they can now be sealed to all of them.

So again, this is only evidence of polyandry, as well. See my above comment about removing that from discussion.

You asked for documentation to support how some people believe that polygamy will be practiced in the eternities.  This church policy, regardless of any undocumented exceptions, coupled with current actual practice answers the question posed in your OP.

My documentation does not support polyandry.  Church policy very clearly states that women may only be sealed to one husband.  The information I've provided here only supports polygyny.

Look at the real examples we have before us.  President Nelson, next in line to become prophet, is sealed to two women.  If polygyny is not going to be practiced in the next life, then which wife will President Nelson be with when he dies:  Wendy or Dantzel?

And even if they are all able to mutually agree on just one wife, what does that say of the sealing power?

 

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, juliann said:

Pres. Hinckley said it is behind us.  

He also stated that it is not doctrinal and that he condemns it.  Pretty strong words against a principle that some believe we will be living in the Celestial Kingdom.  

(Great discussion)

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

He also stated that it is not doctrinal and that he condemns it.  Pretty strong words against a principle that some believe we will be living in the Celestial Kingdom.  

(Great discussion)

Really goes to show that we have to be able to live with some ambiguity in church doctrine.

 

[juliann]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I believe that Elder Oaks has spoken before about how he believes that he will live polygamously in heaven (since his first wife died and he is sealed to a second wife now).  His wife, if i'm remembering right, has also talked about it.   Would that support the idea that the Apostles and prophets see polygamy as something that is valid in heaven even when it's not on the earth?

That is the closest we have, I think. However, even he backed away from this in his 2007 PBS interview. http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/elder-oaks-interview-transcript-from-pbs-documentary 

Quote

 

HW: There still is some confusion that polygamy is definitively and unequivocally disallowed in this world. What will happen in the next? There is a perception that polygamy is part of the afterlife. Could you talk a little about that?

DHO: If I talked about that I’d be making doctrinal statements where the prophet has not chosen to make doctrinal statements, so I think I shouldn’t say anything except to affirm that a lot of people, myself included, are in multiple-marriage situations. Look at the significance of that. There are a lot of people that live on this earth that have been married to more than one person. Sometimes those marriages have ended with death; sometimes they’ve ended with divorce. What does the next life mean to them in relation to a covenant they once made and so on? I don’t think those people have much of an answer for that question. It might not bother them because they don’t believe that people will live as married couples in the next life. And if they don’t make and live for the covenants to do that, [as for themselves] they’re right! But for people who live in the belief, as I do, that marriage relations can be for eternity, then you must say, “What will life be in the next life, when you’re married to more than one wife for eternity?” I have to say I don’t know. But I know that I’ve made those covenants, and I believe if I am true to the covenants that the blessing that’s anticipated here will be realized in the next life. How? Why, I don’t know. 

 

He again affirms there is no doctrine.  He has relegated this to a belief or hope based on his covenants. But most significant, although using his situation as an example, he talks about "people in multiple-situation marriages." Not just men. We are again into polyandry and a really messy situation where any wife could remarry after a man's death and accumulate another husband and sealing.

So we are back to polyandry.

 

[JLHPROF]

14 minutes ago, juliann said:

Pres. Hinckley said it is behind us.  He isn't the only one, BTW.  Would you say this same thing about everything we hold to be true? We can have no assurances past today regardless of what modern prophets are saying?

 

 

My thoughts should be no surprise.  IF modern prophets and the proclamation preclude any polygamy in the eternities (and that is a big if), then they are just plain wrong.

The very idea makes a mockery of the ordinances of the temple.
And to say "it's behind us" is also just plain wrong.  Regardless of any speculation on future Celestial polygamy, when I finally meet Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Father Abraham, Father Jacob, Moses, and yes, I believe the Savior, I fully expect all of them to be their with their eternal plural companions.

Whether I personally get some future opportunity to live plural marriage is up to God.  But there will be polygamous society in the future for all that enter the Celestial Kingdom.
 

Edited February 16, 2016 by JLHPROF

[ksfisher]

9 minutes ago, juliann said:

Pres. Hinckley said it is behind us.  He isn't the only one, BTW.  Would you say this same thing about everything we hold to be true? We can have no assurances past today regardless of what modern prophets are saying?

 

 

So I guess we need to decide if when President Hinckley said that he was meaning that it's behind us right now, or right now and forever.  I don't see anything in his words either way. 

And, no, I wouldn't say the same thing about everything.  I don't think that we will ever receive a revelation eliminating the Law of Chastity or instituting child sacrifice.  I don't know if polygamy was an earthly commandment only or if it's the celestial law.  I do know that it is not the doctrine of the church right now.  I don't see it being instituted in the future, but then again I'm not a seer.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

1. The Proclamation begins with  ". .  marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God . . "  The indefinite article "a" cannot be modified to mean more than one. 

I'm not sure about this.  If I say "I think the relationship between a father and a child is important," I am not precluding the possibility that the father can have more than one such relationship at the same time.  

As I understand it, the LDS Church teaches that polygamy (one man having multiple wives at the same time) is sometimes authorized.  My great-great grandfather, Alexander F. Macdonald, was a polygamist.  He married his first wife, and hence had a marriage between "a man and a woman."  When he married his second wife, he had a marriage between "a man and a woman" with her as well.  The first wife and second wife were not married to each other.  There was no marital relationship between the two.

Quote

Since the remainder of the Proc uses "man and woman" the addition of "a" in the first paragraph indicates intent to make that clear from the get go.

However, I continually see those that would like to see the Proc canonized also say that polygyny, or "marriage between a man and many women"  awaits us in heaven. (The stock wiggle room qualifiers like "oh, but not everybody will have to!"  that accompany it to be discussed later.)

With respect, I do not think you are accurately stating the LDS position on this subject.  The "many women" in 19th-century polygamous families did not have marital relationships to each other.  They were not married to each other.  They were each married to their husband only.  You are instead describing a group marriage, which has never been authorized in the LDS Church.

Using sociopolitical terminology (polygamy, polygyny, etc.) to describe LDS doctrinal beliefs and practices can yield some inaccurate or imprecise perceptions of those beliefs and practices.

As for what "awaits us in heaven," I don't really know.  Polygamy is apparently part of the deal.  Abraham was a polygamist.  And according to D&C 132:37, he is now exalted.  Since we know that celestial marriage is a prerequisite for exaltation, at least one of his marriages must have been valid.  And the context of D&C 132:37 seems to suggest that Abraham's polygamy was "accounted unto him for righteousness."  So it seems possible that Abraham's polygamy was not an impediment to exaltation.  It also seems possible (hard to deny, really) that his polygamous marriages were part and parcel of his exaltation.  That is, his plural wives were exalted along with him.  "Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord."  (1 Cor. 11:11).

I am not sure if polygamy is required for exaltation.  I'd need to give that question some real attention and thought.  But I think it's hard to dispute that polygamy is allowed for exalted beings.

Quote

I would like to understand members who disqualify everything said by modern prophets to hold on to a 19th c. practice can consider themselves to be following THE prophet.

I do not fall into this category.

Quote

2. I think the clearest statement we have that polygamy is over and I mean over, is Pres. Hinckley's Larry King interview. Celestial polygyny advocates typically say he made an off the top of his head comment, i.e., he was wrong, or that he was talking about fundamentalist Mormons not being "doctrinal." That is not only bizarre for our prophet to be telling another group what is doctrinal, as if we see anything else they do as doctrinal, and it does not explain away what he said previously.      

http://www.mormonismi.net/kirjoitukset/larry_king_1998.shtml

And he continues,His wording is consistent throughout: permitted, limited, restricted. He describes it as a "practice" not just once but twice, before finalizing that it is not doctrine.

I have always understood Pres. Hinckley to be referring to contemporary polygamy, which is out of harmony with the OD-1, and hence is not presently "doctrinal" (since the "doctrine" applicable today prohibits it).  

If Pres. Hinckley had been asked questions about some splinter sect practicing animal sacrifice, and if he said that such practices are "not doctrinal," he would be correct.  In 1997, animal sacrifice was prohibited under our doctrines.  However, by that he wouldn't be saying that animal sacrifice has never been doctrinal anywhere, ever.

Quote

Then he says, unequivocally, "It's behind us." He never corrected this, he never reworded it. In contrast he did revisit, in a joking manner, another interview when he was widely criticized for saying we don't talk about deification much.

Well, polygamy is "behind us."  Just like animal sacrifice is.  Both are presently prohibited by the doctrines of the Church, and are therefore not "doctrinal."

Quote

So I think it very fair to say the burden of proof is on those who try to make this prophet into a messenger of false information and without providing any documentation that his words were rescinded or overruled by Pres. Monson.

First, I have not observed Latter-day Saints "try[ing] to make this prophet into a messenger of false information," so I'm not sure what you are talking about here.

Second, I think you might be misunderstanding or misinterpreting or misconstruing Pres. Hinckley's remarks.

Third, Pres. Hinckley was not speaking in General Conference.  I don't think he would announce definitive positions on doctrine via Larry King Live.  He was briefly responding off-the-cuff to a question about a complex issue, and issue that must be understood and discussed in context.

Quote

3. I see these two strong statements as the basis for what is doctrinal in our modern era. I see no way to wiggle out of it. Yet we still have members who want to appeal to earlier prophets over our living prophets.

I have asked for years for a statement by a modern prophet telling women they can expect to see polygyny in the eternities, in essence, monogamy is not the preferred form of marriage.  Polygyny is not a discarded historical practice. (And my question is not about what the relatively few already in this situation, including my relatives, will be doing in heaven!) It is about the messages being given to women right now for reasons I cannot comprehend.

So please do not divert this into a debate over historical polygamy and speculation about their future. This is about the living. Or quotes from two centuries ago. Or men being sealed to multiple women which is offset by posthumous sealings of women to all of their husbands (and the removal of the rule from the CHI  that they must chose only one husband.)

How are these members justifying their speculation about celestial polygyny of post-Manifesto women in direct contradiction of the Proc and without the support of modern and living prophets? 

Which members of the Church are you talking about here?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 16, 2016 by smac97

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

He also stated that it is not doctrinal and that he condemns it.  Pretty strong words against a principle that some believe we will be living in the Celestial Kingdom.  

(Great discussion)

It seems, in the context where he said those things, that he was speaking about polygamy in mortality. He specifically uses the example of us obeying laws to support his statements, but those examples have absolutely nothing to do with polygamy in heaven.  Laws obviously have nothing to do with what will or won't be allowed in that life.

[USU78]

My view of the language of the proclamation tends towards smac's, but I've become convinced (and have been for going on 5 years now) that polygyny under section 132 was meant to be an Abrahamic test of the faithful, from which the faithful would be released in G-d's own time, for which the participants would be blessed with a righteous progeny.

The Manifesto and the Second Manifesto were rams-in-the-thicket.

And, to mix a metaphor, the ram would have been visible much earlier had the 2nd Generation not had their sight focused on the furrow instead of the field.

[juliann]

13 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

My thoughts should be no surprise.  IF modern prophets and the proclamation preclude any polygamy in the eternities (and that is a big if), then they are just plain wrong.

 
  .
 

Thanks for the honesty.  I think it is exactly that. The prophets are either right or wrong.

[Gray]

Just now, USU78 said:

My view of the language of the proclamation tends towards smac's, but I've become convinced (and have been for going on 5 years now) that polygyny under section 132 was meant to be an Abrahamic test of the faithful, from which the faithful would be released in G-d's own time, for which the participants would be blessed with a righteous progeny.

The Manifesto and the Second Manifesto were rams-in-the-thicket.

And, to mix a metaphor, the ram would have been visible much earlier had the 2nd Generation not had their sight focused on the furrow instead of the field.

If it were Abrahamic, wouldn't the commandment have been revoked before anyone actually complied?