Attempt to reconcile the Priesthood ban

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I do not disagree with that. My main point is that I believe that it impossible for us to pinpoint an origination date or person with the current set of documents that we have, i.e. to "reconcile the priesthood ban." In a way, it was reconciled with the 1978 revelation lifting those restrictions. Since I have not received any revelations myself on the matter, maybe I should just bow out.

Glenn

I think I can agree mostly with that ish. I do think what evidence we do have point most strongly to BY though. 

 

With luv,

BD

[katherine the great]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I see things differently than you. Perhaps we are both wrong. Polygamy had a different but important  purpose. In my opinion it was commanded as described by Jacob "to raise up seed", and it did that rapidly and effectively, but that's another discussion. In both cases they went away after their purposes were served. 

It would be interesting to see statistics on that. Polygyny doesn't "raise up seed" any more rapidly or effectively than monogamy. After all, a woman can only produce one child a year at most (twins aside).  The only advantage (in a religious sense) would be that the offspring would be of a better quality somehow than monogamous matings. In other words: "Did polygyny produce more active members of the church than monogamy would have?" I don't know the answer to that. I do know that my family history books are full of instances where the children of polygyny actually turned away from the church because of polygyny. They felt robbed of their father's attention and resources and resented being forced to fend for themselves at a young age. This is only my own family history though. I'm not sure if there are really records available to really test the number of polygamous offspring who stayed to build up the church.

[DemonsAway]

This is the problem I have and it has to do with revelation. Why is the church always behind the rest of society? It's not until racial equality is publicly accepted that the church changes its policies. Polygamy didn't stop because of divine revelation, it stopped because the government stepped in. If the church ever changed their stance on homosexuality, they'd be again, years behind the rest of society. And I'm not trying to argue homosexuality and whether the church will change their stance. I'm just making the point that if God where involved in all of this then the revelation would be coming from him first, then society wouldn't be the ones playing catch-up, not the other way around.

Furthermore, if God was okay with slavery and against interracial marriage at one point then what changed his mind? If God was always against slavery and for interracial marriage then why didn't he make it known thousands of years ago? Seems like obvious questions to me but no one ever seems to bring them up.

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

I think I can agree mostly with that ish. I do think what evidence we do have point most strongly to BY though. 

 

With luv,

BD

The biggest problem that I have in regards to the priesthood restriction (or polygamy) is the cognitive and spirtual dissonance that is presented by the different interpretations. I am perfectly okay with looking at out leaders past and present as the human beings that they are and do not imagine that they are somehow immune to error because of their high callings, i.e. that they could make mistakes, even doctrinal errors. But then, there is the fact that they are supposedly called of God and are subject to His desires before anything else and are led by God. That is the purpose of having prophets.

So, now we have a prophet that is at the he head of the church that makes a grievous error and a laissez-faire God for some reason allows those errors to be perpetrated for decades in the case of polygamy and over a century in the case of the lineage restriction on the priesthood. This laissez-faire God ("the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever") contrasts with the God of the Old Testament such as in the case of Jonah the prophet who was given a quick course correction when he erred.

No one has proposed a plausible, scriptural answer as to why God allowed those practices to continue in error for so long. At this point in time I do not have an answer. As I noted, the only thing that has occurred in my life time is the 1978 revelation removing the restriction. And I am happy with that and will wait for further light and knowledge.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

50 minutes ago, DemonsAway said:

Polygamy didn't stop because of divine revelation, it stopped because the government stepped in.

CFR... 

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, DemonsAway said:

This is the problem I have and it has to do with revelation. Why is the church always behind the rest of society? It's not until racial equality is publicly accepted that the church changes its policies. Polygamy didn't stop because of divine revelation, it stopped because the government stepped in. If the church ever changed their stance on homosexuality, they'd be again, years behind the rest of society. And I'm not trying to argue homosexuality and whether the church will change their stance. I'm just making the point that if God where involved in all of this then the revelation would be coming from him first, then society wouldn't be the ones playing catch-up, not the other way around.

Furthermore, if God was okay with slavery and against interracial marriage at one point then what changed his mind? If God was always against slavery and for interracial marriage then why didn't he make it known thousands of years ago? Seems like obvious questions to me but no one ever seems to bring them up.

I think that in a big way, societies are the ones playing catch-up in that they are typically moving further away from Zion as a whole. Any societal more reflects the group’s acceptance of both secular (economic and political) and religious or spiritual values, and LDS believe that only in a Zion society these influences enjoy an inspired equilibrium (the Lord looks at the whole picture).

So a society may be further ahead in secular sense but not in a spiritual sense. It can be argued in the case of plural marriage, an advanced appreciation of revealed religion was lacking in the society at large. Or that the Church was not responding to the civil rights movement in the USA per se but to the pressure for global expansion of the restored Gospel into those areas of the world with black African populations (the Lord’s timing in lifting the ban, whatever its origin). With regards to the religious experience of gay members, the Church simply places a higher value on the spiritual than the political or scientific ramifications of her moral code.

I think God guides His people according to the circumstances of their times, since He knew all along, and still knows, that it would not be a proper probation for His children if he overrode their faith and agency by ensuring that Zion remained uncompetitively ahead both temporally and spiritually in every age of the earth’s existence. Instead, Zion is established within a larger societal setting and often ignored until the adversary feels threatened.

So I think if you look at the scriptural details, there is evidence that sometimes He acknowledged the ingrained practice of slavery in His commandments and laws and condemned inter[racial/ethnic/religious] marriage for His people, and at other times He condemned the former and acknowledged the latter -- whatever is expedient for the preservation of the covenants among His people at the time, which is the highest priority. The covenants can be kept regardless of the social pressures that may distract one from doing so, and those to whom the covenants are not extended are under no condemnation.

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, katherine the great said:

It would be interesting to see statistics on that. Polygyny doesn't "raise up seed" any more rapidly or effectively than monogamy. After all, a woman can only produce one child a year at most (twins aside).  The only advantage (in a religious sense) would be that the offspring would be of a better quality somehow than monogamous matings. In other words: "Did polygyny produce more active members of the church than monogamy would have?" I don't know the answer to that. I do know that my family history books are full of instances where the children of polygyny actually turned away from the church because of polygyny. They felt robbed of their father's attention and resources and resented being forced to fend for themselves at a young age. This is only my own family history though. I'm not sure if there are really records available to really test the number of polygamous offspring who stayed to build up the church.

The Law of Consecration and polygamy, or actually polygyny as you more accurately note, are two of the most difficult concepts for human beings to live because they both involve mastering natural human traits of greed and jealousy. They both require that men and women rise above their natural selves and really love our neighbor as ourselves and forgo greed jealously and like emotions. We do not know how many good polygamous marriages that happened because most of our reports are on the bad ones. Jacob/Israel is one of the bad ones with favoritism and jealousy rampant in the family and only a hew righteous seed. 

It would be interesting if some historian could take upon himself or herself that task of researching a large number of polygamous families and how the offspring turned out as to church activity.

Glenn

[katherine the great]

27 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

CFR... 

 

Um. The Manifesto? "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." Although that certainly doesn't exclude the possibility that revelation was involved as well. 

[katherine the great]

1 hour ago, DemonsAway said:

This is the problem I have and it has to do with revelation. Why is the church always behind the rest of society? It's not until racial equality is publicly accepted that the church changes its policies. Polygamy didn't stop because of divine revelation, it stopped because the government stepped in. If the church ever changed their stance on homosexuality, they'd be again, years behind the rest of society. And I'm not trying to argue homosexuality and whether the church will change their stance. I'm just making the point that if God where involved in all of this then the revelation would be coming from him first, then society wouldn't be the ones playing catch-up, not the other way around.

Furthermore, if God was okay with slavery and against interracial marriage at one point then what changed his mind? If God was always against slavery and for interracial marriage then why didn't he make it known thousands of years ago? Seems like obvious questions to me but no one ever seems to bring them up.

Because we are a "stiff-necked" people? I personally don't think God was ever okay with slavery or against interracial marriage. I think He just works with the faulty, mortal clay that we are and attempts to enlighten us as we go. 

[cinepro]

15 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Evidence of this is that the lifting of the Ban did not result in schisms or mass defections. In fact, I don't know anyone who left the Church because of it. I don't believe that could have happened even 20 years previously. When it happened the Church was in a great position to immediately maximize missionary efforts in the countries of Africa and Latin America. I see this as an orderly process to resolve a volatile problem that won't completely go away until the Savior comes again.

 

Another huge problem I have with the argument that "the members weren't ready for blacks to have the priesthood or go to the Temple" is that it places a punishment on every righteous (and innocent) black person in the Church for the sins of the Church members with no penalty on the white Church members themselves.

From reading the Bible, I would expect God to be more of the "screw you LDS, if your racist attitudes mean more to you than the gospel, don't let the door hit you on the way out" kind of God than the "oh, these white Mormons are such snowflakes that if they're asked to treat black people equally in regards to the Gospel their testimonies will break, so I'll just deny the innocent and righteous black members the priesthood and Temple blessings until some future date."

Remember all that talk from President Benson about the Church being under "condemnation" because of pride and not reading the Book of Mormon?  Well what if Heber J. Grant, George Albert Smith and David O. McKay all repeatedly and consistently told the Church members that they were under condemnation for being racist bigots?

Of course, then you might have some confused LDS who sit there thinking "Wait, the only reason I think that is because that's what the Prophets and Apostles have been telling me my whole life...(?)"

Truly, the gospel is simply wonderful and wonderfully simple.

Edited July 23, 2017 by cinepro

[Guest]

19 hours ago, katherine the great said:

It would be interesting to see statistics on that. Polygyny doesn't "raise up seed" any more rapidly or effectively than monogamy. After all, a woman can only produce one child a year at most (twins aside).  The only advantage (in a religious sense) would be that the offspring would be of a better quality somehow than monogamous matings. In other words: "Did polygyny produce more active members of the church than monogamy would have?" I don't know the answer to that. I do know that my family history books are full of instances where the children of polygyny actually turned away from the church because of polygyny. They felt robbed of their father's attention and resources and resented being forced to fend for themselves at a young age. This is only my own family history though. I'm not sure if there are really records available to really test the number of polygamous offspring who stayed to build up the church.

Just to touch on this issue a bit, as not to hijack the thread. Every example of polygamy in the Bible, was a "tragedy". Bad Fathers, lonely Mothers, and wayward children, leading to anything but a stronger more obiedent offspring (seed). I would point to polygamy in the Book of Mormon, but there simply was none, except that which was laid waste by the sermon of Jacob. It is no wonder Joseph took so long bringing it to light, he had to know as a Seer, the beginning and the end, including those who would one day use it to split the Church. Those who would use it to destroy the lives of the "lost boys of Utah and other States". One more institution that happily ended before I found the Church. Because in that day as in this day, and any other day, I have been and always will be a "one woman man"...going on 42 years, and into Eternity. 

Edited July 24, 2017 by Bill "Papa" Lee

[katherine the great]

6 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Because in that day as in this day, and any other day, I have been and always will be a "one woman man"...going on 42 years, and into Eternity. 

You're a good man Papa Lee!

 

[Guest]

15 hours ago, katherine the great said:

You're a good man Papa Lee!

 

Not sure if I am, but I am trying to be one. I am only thankful God has given me the time to get more things right. God help me if I fail at being a good husband, father and Papa, and maybe one day a great Papa, while still in the flesh. If I fail at those callings, little else will matter to God or myself. But, I thank you for the kind comment. 

Edited July 24, 2017 by Bill "Papa" Lee

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

CFR...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmunds–Tucker_Act

Also:

Quote

 

On November 1, 1891, Wilford Woodruff spoke at the Cache Stake Conference in Logan. Referring to the Manifesto, he said,

“The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question . . . 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.”

 

 

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

The Law of Consecration and polygamy, or actually polygyny as you more accurately note, are two of the most difficult concepts for human beings to live because they both involve mastering natural human traits of greed and jealousy. They both require that men and women rise above their natural selves and really love our neighbor as ourselves and forgo greed jealously and like emotions. We do not know how many good polygamous marriages that happened because most of our reports are on the bad ones. Jacob/Israel is one of the bad ones with favoritism and jealousy rampant in the family and only a hew righteous seed. 

It would be interesting if some historian could take upon himself or herself that task of researching a large number of polygamous families and how the offspring turned out as to church activity.

Glenn

https://www.amazon.com/Mormon-Polygamous-Families-Life-Principle/dp/1589581148/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1500863352&sr=8-1-fkmr1&keywords=jesse+embry+polygamous+families
 

[sunstoned]

5 hours ago, DemonsAway said:

This is the problem I have and it has to do with revelation. Why is the church always behind the rest of society? It's not until racial equality is publicly accepted that the church changes its policies. Polygamy didn't stop because of divine revelation, it stopped because the government stepped in. If the church ever changed their stance on homosexuality, they'd be again, years behind the rest of society. And I'm not trying to argue homosexuality and whether the church will change their stance. I'm just making the point that if God where involved in all of this then the revelation would be coming from him first, then society wouldn't be the ones playing catch-up, not the other way around.

Furthermore, if God was okay with slavery and against interracial marriage at one point then what changed his mind? If God was always against slavery and for interracial marriage then why didn't he make it known thousands of years ago? Seems like obvious questions to me but no one ever seems to bring them up.

Well, Occam's razor would suggest that god had nothing to do with any of this.   

[USU78]

33 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Well, Occam's razor would suggest that god had nothing to do with any of this.   

Argument by assertion! I've been missing that.

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, cinepro said:

Another huge problem I have with the argument that "the members weren't ready for blacks to have the priesthood or go to the Temple" is that it places a punishment on every righteous (and innocent) black person in the Church for the sins of the Church members with no penalty on the white Church members themselves.

From reading the Bible, I would expect God to be more of the "screw you LDS, if your racist attitudes mean more to you than the gospel, don't let the door hit you on the way out" kind of God than the "oh, these white Mormons are such snowflakes that if they're asked to treat black people equally in regards to the Gospel their testimonies will break, so I'll just deny the innocent and righteous black members the priesthood and Temple blessings until some future date."

Remember all that talk from President Benson about the Church being under "condemnation" because of pride and not reading the Book of Mormon?  Well what if Heber J. Grant, George Albert Smith and David O. McKay all repeatedly and consistently told the Church members that they were under condemnation for being racist bigots?

Of course, then you might have some confused LDS who sit there thinking "Wait, the only reason I think that is because that's what the Prophets and Apostles have been telling me my whole life...(?)"

Truly, the gospel is simply wonderful and wonderfully simple.

I don't agree that the ban was a punishment or a penalty. For the entire history of the world, only the smallest handful of people have held the Priesthood (Aaronic or Melchizedek) or received the endowment. That's a whole lot of people under condemnation and getting penalized.

 We are all under condemnation for not reading the Book of Mormon. I prefer the bigger picture.

Edited July 24, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, katherine the great said:

It would be interesting to see statistics on that. Polygyny doesn't "raise up seed" any more rapidly or effectively than monogamy. After all, a woman can only produce one child a year at most (twins aside).  The only advantage (in a religious sense) would be that the offspring would be of a better quality somehow than monogamous matings. In other words: "Did polygyny produce more active members of the church than monogamy would have?" I don't know the answer to that. I do know that my family history books are full of instances where the children of polygyny actually turned away from the church because of polygyny. They felt robbed of their father's attention and resources and resented being forced to fend for themselves at a young age. This is only my own family history though. I'm not sure if there are really records available to really test the number of polygamous offspring who stayed to build up the church.

I would suggest the book "The Letters of Brigham Young to His Sons." https://deseretbook.com/p/letters-brigham-young-his-sons-dean-c-jessee-78545?variant_id=19828-ebook

And consider this:

HC Kimball 66

Brigham Young 56

Lorenzo Snow 42

Wilford Woodruff 34

Orson Pratt 45

Parley Pratt 30

John Taylor 34

Joseph F Smith 45

Willard Richards 27

Orson Hyde 32

Daniel Wells 36

Ezra T Benson 32

George A Smith 20

13 prominent early leaders, 499 children. Some of them had to turn out ok.

Edited July 24, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, DemonsAway said:

This is the problem I have and it has to do with revelation. Why is the church always behind the rest of society? It's not until racial equality is publicly accepted that the church changes its policies. Polygamy didn't stop because of divine revelation, it stopped because the government stepped in. If the church ever changed their stance on homosexuality, they'd be again, years behind the rest of society. And I'm not trying to argue homosexuality and whether the church will change their stance. I'm just making the point that if God where involved in all of this then the revelation would be coming from him first, then society wouldn't be the ones playing catch-up, not the other way around.

Furthermore, if God was okay with slavery and against interracial marriage at one point then what changed his mind? If God was always against slavery and for interracial marriage then why didn't he make it known thousands of years ago? Seems like obvious questions to me but no one ever seems to bring them up.

Everyone is too busy doing their home teaching.

How do you know that God was OK with slavery?

Edited July 24, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[katherine the great]

39 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I would suggest the book "The Letters of Brigham Young to His Sons." https://deseretbook.com/p/letters-brigham-young-his-sons-dean-c-jessee-78545?variant_id=19828-ebook

And consider this:

HC Kimball 66

Brigham Young 56

Lorenzo Snow 42

Wilford Woodruff 34

Orson Pratt 45

Parley Pratt 30

John Taylor 34

Joseph F Smith 45

Willard Richards 27

Orson Hyde 32

Daniel Wells 36

Ezra T Benson 32

George A Smith 20

13 prominent early leaders, 499 children. Some of them had to turn out ok.

Most likely some of them turned out "ok". Most likely some of the children of monogamy turned out okay too. I'm not as interested in what Brigham Young said to his children--more interested in comparing the activity rates (and survival rates) of the offspring of both types of marriage.

[Bernard Gui]

9 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Most likely some of them turned out "ok". Most likely some of the children of monogamy turned out okay too. I'm not as interested in what Brigham Young said to his children--more interested in comparing the activity rates (and survival rates) of the offspring of both types of marriage.

As you wish.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 7/23/2017 at 2:11 PM, katherine the great said:

It would be interesting to see statistics on that. Polygyny doesn't "raise up seed" any more rapidly or effectively than monogamy. After all, a woman can only produce one child a year at most (twins aside).  The only advantage (in a religious sense) would be that the offspring would be of a better quality somehow than monogamous matings.

What you cite as "the only advantage" is THE advantage in a theological sense. It's not just a matter of raising up seed, but raising up seed unto the Lord, and this is done through righteous lineages. When there is a society with more righteous women than men, the way to quickly establish many righteous lineages in as short amount of time as possible is through one righteous man marrying more than one righteous woman.

Quote

In other words: "Did polygyny produce more active members of the church than monogamy would have?" I don't know the answer to that.

I believe it can be intuitively assumed that it did, given the number of Church members today who trace their Mormon lineages through polygamous marriages.

Quote

I do know that my family history books are full of instances where the children of polygyny actually turned away from the church because of polygyny. They felt robbed of their father's attention and resources and resented being forced to fend for themselves at a young age. This is only my own family history though.

This strikes me as anecdotal; there are probably many more instances where the children remained faithful and went on to establish families of their own from which the gospel and its values were transmitted from generation to generation.

Quote

I'm not sure if there are really records available to really test the number of polygamous offspring who stayed to build up the church.

Again, I think this can be intuitively assumed. See above.

I totally agree with Bernard Gui on the matter of plural marriage serving the God-ordained purpose for which it was instituted and lasting as long as it was needed.

 

Edited July 24, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

15 hours ago, katherine the great said:

Most likely some of them turned out "ok". Most likely some of the children of monogamy turned out okay too. I'm not as interested in what Brigham Young said to his children--more interested in comparing the activity rates (and survival rates) of the offspring of both types of marriage.

There were good Church members who were monogamists as well. But the process of raising up seed unto God was facilitated by plural marriages. That lasted until there was a critical mass of Church membership from which the mandate of this last dispensation could be fulfilled: to take the gospel to every nation, kindred, tongue and people. When that critical mass was reached, plural marriage was no longer needed, and it was discontinued.

I'm grateful, though, to our forebears, who undertook the very difficult condition of entering into plural marriage. We are the beneficiaries of their sacrifice and obedience, and I honor them, both women and men.

Edited July 24, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Glenn101]

14 hours ago, katherine the great said:

Um. The Manifesto? "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." Although that certainly doesn't exclude the possibility that revelation was involved as well. 

You missed the point of my CFR. I specifically was asking for a CFR that practice of polygamy was not  ended by revelation.

Quote

“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 Brother Merrill, for Brother Edlefsen, for Brother Roskelley, for Brother Leishman, or 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? …

“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 laid it before my brethren—such strong men as Brother George Q. Cannon, Brother Joseph F. Smith, and the Twelve Apostles. I might as well undertake to turn an army with banners out of its course as to turn them out of a course that they considered to be right. These men agreed with me, and ten thousand Latter-day Saints also agreed with me. … Why? Because they were moved upon by the Spirit of God and by the revelations of Jesus Christ to do it.” (Discourses of Wilford Woodruff,pp. 214–16.)

That was what I wished to point out.

Glenn

Edited July 24, 2017 by Glenn101
emphasis