Ephraim temple announcement revelation or caving to public pressure

[Stargazer]

9 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Hello Ahab.

What makes you think this is an Ahab sockpuppet? Doesn't sound like him. The account has also been around since 2013, and this is the only post available in the database.

Since you seem to be an expert on the subject, how many Ahab sockpuppets have you identified so far?

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, of course. But I think you're being unjustifiably specific on how the Lord doesn't work.

Have you made a particular study of how prophets receive revelation? Especially the forms of contact or means of revelatory expression that the Lord has never used?  What other forms might you believe the Lord does not use?

Consistent with my earlier remarks about 3 Nephi 11, I do not think the Lord foments or inspires contention to put pressure on His servants to cave in to the opposition. Neither do I think He would take any approach that  contradicts those outlined in the scriptures.

[Stargazer]

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Consistent with my earlier remarks about 3 Nephi 11, I do not think the Lord foments or inspires contention to put pressure on His servants to cave in to the opposition. Neither do I think He would take any approach that  contradicts those outlined in the scriptures.

Hmmm. I don't think He does, either. Is that what you thought I was saying? If so, either you misunderstood me, or I didn't express myself accurately. Or both, of course.

[Fair Dinkum]

10 hours ago, webbles said:

I'm assuming you mean this line in the church essay:

Edited:

I also re-read the section about President Wilford in the Dialogue article (59-66).  He only authorized polygamous marriages in Mexico.  So he didn't authorize any in the US.  It doesn't look like the US had any polygamous marriages until President Snow allowed Elder Cowley to perform a polygamous marriage in Idaho in 1898 (page 68).  So President Wilford really did obey the revelation.  His later two successors (President Snow and President Smith) probably felt like they had revelation that superseded the Manifesto to allow a limited number of marriages in the US.

Unfortunately this is just not true.  Marriages continued within he boundaries of the united states post manifesto.  I've provided the evidence and you've only referred to a few pages of that article.  Again since you missed it earlier when I posted it.

Quote

The Church president stopped plural marriages in Mexico in 1899 but turned a blind eye to those still occurring in Utah and Idaho.

Quote

In 1901, the Church president continued to refuse to authorize the Juarez Stake president to perform plural marriages in Mexico, but marriages continued there anyway because of the separate avenue established by his counselor. All the while, Latter-day Saints of prominent Church position continued to enter into polygamy in Utah on the basis of still another authorized avenue.The Church president compounded the confusion by authorizing several apostles individually to marry plural wives at the same time he refused to give the apostles generally that permission.

 

Edited May 11, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[Fair Dinkum]

10 hours ago, webbles said:

I'm assuming you mean this line in the church essay:

Edited:

I also re-read the section about President Wilford in the Dialogue article (59-66).  He only authorized polygamous marriages in Mexico.  So he didn't authorize any in the US.  It doesn't look like the US had any polygamous marriages until President Snow allowed Elder Cowley to perform a polygamous marriage in Idaho in 1898 (page 68).  So President Wilford really did obey the revelation.  His later two successors (President Snow and President Smith) probably felt like they had revelation that superseded the Manifesto to allow a limited number of marriages in the US.

So God provided a revelation for polygamy, Then changed his mind and provided another revelation reversing himself in 1890, then changed his mined again and re-reversed himself in the 1980 after Pres Woodriff died and then again reversed himself once again after 1904?  You sure have a fickle God.  This may be...or it could have been that church leaders were just having a difficult time coming to the realization that legal polygamy was NOT going to be allowed in the United States and yet wanted their cake too.  Sometimes the truth is just that simple.

[CA Steve]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Since you seem to be an expert on the subject, how many Ahab sockpuppets have you identified so far?

Given your criteria for being an expert is a sample of one, I'll stick with that I suppose.

I will also admit to probably being wrong here. 

 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Hmmm. I don't think He does, either. Is that what you thought I was saying? If so, either you misunderstood me, or I didn't express myself accurately. Or both, of course.

I don't remember  More likely that your post just prompted another related thought for me.

[Kenngo1969]

14 hours ago, Stargater said:

... If Wilford Woodruff stopped the practice of plural marriage, you can damn well bet it was because the Lord gave a revelation to do it. ...

I'm appalled ... appalled, I tell you    ... by such language!    (On occasion, I've been known to swear on the Board.  Hell, they don't call me the "J. Golden Kimball" of Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board for nothing!)    

Welcome to the board!  

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Megalodon said:

You need to see a shrink in any case.

Hilarious!

[webbles]

3 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Unfortunately this is just not true.  Marriages continued within he boundaries of the united states post manifesto.  I've provided the evidence and you've only referred to a few pages of that article.  Again since you missed it earlier when I posted it.

I'm assuming that you must have misread me since I did acknowledge that marriages continued in the US.  But those marriages apparently only occurred after President Woodruff died.

3 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

So God provided a revelation for polygamy, Then changed his mind and provided another revelation reversing himself in 1890, then changed his mined again and re-reversed himself in the 1980 after Pres Woodriff died and then again reversed himself once again after 1904?  You sure have a fickle God.  This may be...or it could have been that church leaders were just having a difficult time coming to the realization that legal polygamy was NOT going to be allowed in the United States and yet wanted their cake too.  Sometimes the truth is just that simple.

You might want to fix the dates as it was confusing a little when I first read it

And maybe you and I have a different Bible because God can sure act pretty "fickle" there as well.

I'm not really saying that God changed His mind, though.  The believe there was a revelation to begin polygamy.  I also believe there was a revelation to end polygamy in 1890.  But that revelation was specifically about following the law of the land.  And that is how it was followed until President Woodruff died.  As for why President Snow and President Smith allowed polygamy to occur inside of the US, I don't know.  I said "probably felt like they had revelation", I didn't say they had a revelation.  It is possible that they actually went against the revelation.

[Stargater]

13 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Polygamy ended because the church had no choice. The federal government was ready to disenfranchise the church and confiscate all of its assets and property including all temples  The church had three options. Be driven further underground to Mexico and Canada and out of USA, abandon polygamy or convince the federal government that it had abandoned polygamy but continue to practice it in deep secrecy. It chose door number three. So it claimed a revelation and continued to practice polygamy. If it had been a real revelation they would have obeyed it. That they did not proves my point that there was no revelation.

Pretty much the same thing occurred with the lifting of the priesthood ban. The church was facing immense pressure from multiple sides. BYU sports boycott, Brazil growth, the racist public relations nightmare, civil rights movement etc. thank goodness President Kimball was a realist and reversed course.

None of these changes, including the recent Manti Temple reversal, would have happened without outside pressure. If you want to claim revelation then revelation is preceded by pressure.  

I foresee that in the near future, there will be a revelation to accommodate same sex marriage. But it’ll be preceded by immense public pressure both within and outside of the church. 

Yes, but plural marriage could not have ended without the consent of the Lord. In this case President Woodruff was shown by the Lord what would happen if the practice of plural marriage continued. He then received divine sanction for ending it. My point is that had Woodruff ended the practice without consulting the Lord, he would have brought down the Lord's wrath himself. 

In the case of King Saul, he assumed that because he was king, he had the authority to offer up sacrifices in the absence of the prophet Samuel. But when Samuel arrived on the scene, he was furious. “Thou hast done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of the Lord thy God, which he commanded thee: for now would the Lord have established thy kingdom upon Israel forever. But now thy kingdom shall not continue.” (1 Samuel 13:13-14)

Thus, acting without authorization brought an end to Saul's kingdom before it had really begun. So even though Door Number Three was the obvious choice, had President Woodruff chosen to end plural marriage on his own, he would have done foolishly, and I believe he would have been removed from his office. Now in the case of the priesthood ban, I think a church president could have acted on his own because there is nothing in church annals restricting the priesthood. But church leaders nevertheless were skittish about reversing it. And in a biography of David O. McKay, he reportedly said he had been told by the Lord that it would be left to another to make the change. Interestingly, it was in the administration of President Spencer W. Kimball, the 12th president of the Church, that the revelation came. In scripture, twelve is the number of the priesthood. Coincidence? Perhaps, but whatever happened in the temple that day, it was a revelation given to a majority of the Twelve and the First Presidency of the Church. I've always wondered whether the members of the Twelve who weren't at the temple that day also received the same revelation, but I've never been able to find that out. (If anyone knows, please reply.)

Regarding same sex marriage and giving the priesthood to women, you will never see that. It goes against everything the Church has ever taught. The scriptures state that even as it was in the days of Noah, even so shall it be in the days of the coming of the Son of Man. Same sex marriages are not of God, nor are sex changes ordained to take place in the temple. If the Church ever made moral changes in these areas, you'd see a major migration away from the Church by rank and file members.

It's like predicting the Church will sponsor a gay parade through Salt Lake City. It's never going to happen regardless of the pressure! You said, “If you want to claim revelation, then revelation is preceded by pressure,” and this is true up to a point. When the Israelites were governed by prophets and judges, the people decided they wanted to be subject to a king. The Lord warned his people of the wickedness that dictators brought to the job; however, when the people persisted, He granted their petition, and we know what happened: taxes, corruption, standing armies, wars and wickedness. So yes, pressure can presage change, but it can only go so far. If the people pressure church authorities to change the moral structure of what it is, the Lord won't grant people what they want, He will, instead, get rid of the people. This is the whole idea behind the parable of the wheat and tares. The two must grow together until the tares can be separated and burned.  👍🤔

 

 

[Stargater]

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm appalled ... appalled, I tell you    ... by such language!    (On occasion, I've been known to swear on the Board.  Hell, they don't call me the "J. Golden Kimball" of Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board for nothing!)    

Welcome to the board!  

Thank you, dammit! Thank you! 

[Stargater]

6 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

So God provided a revelation for polygamy, then changed his mind and provided another revelation reversing himself in 1890, then changed his mined again and re-reversed himself in the 1980 after Pres Woodriff died and then again reversed himself once again after 1904? You sure have a fickle God.  

We don't know what was in God's mind. Joseph Smith is the great prophet of the Restoration. He is the dispensation head. (See article on Messiah ben Joseph by Trevan Hatch.) 

What does this mean? It means that it's very likely that plural marriage was one of those things that had to be restored in our dispensation, the DISPENSATION OF THE FULNESS OF TIMES. The prophet Jacob in the Book of Mormon tells us that plural marriage is not the default way of doing things. It is, in fact, the way God raises up seed in times when His people's numbers are dwindling. It's also a practice that can only come into being by divine commandment, and therefore it is something we can expect to see restored in our dispensation. It was something the Saints found difficult to start and equally difficult to stop, and in each case there were those who were dedicated to stopping it when it was started, and those who were equally dedicated to continuing it when it was stopped. We know that Jacob wrote that the default teaching was monogamy, and that the Lord told him, “For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people. Otherwise, they shall hearken unto these things!” (Jacob 2:29-30) 

“For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people...because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.” (Verse 31) Jacob knew that plural marriage was difficult on women, and that it was particularly difficult on women with wicked husbands. It's not an easy principle to live for women or men, but we know it's especially tough for women, something that really wasn't common knowledge in 1830. 

Plural marriage was a doctrine that had to be restored in this dispensation, and there are those who believe the practice will be continued. But after reading Jacob, I don't know whether this will be the case at all. Perhaps this was a doctrine that was best dispensed with at the beginning. 

The idea that God arbitrarily changes His mind is, I think, narrow minded and doesn't reflect the wisdom and love of the God we find in the Old and New Testaments. As someone who's studied the beliefs and theologies of many of the world's religions, I find the Hebrew/Israelite concept of Deity, its teachings and prophecies exceptionally consistent. No other religion is like it. The Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants and PofGP also consistently reflect it. After reading the Qur'an and assorted works of Seventh Day Adventist prophetess Ellen G. White, I was struck not only by their lack of witnesses, but their lack of depth. Comparing them with our LDS scriptures, they seem more like children's stories. 👍😇

 

[Fair Dinkum]

1 hour ago, Stargater said:

We don't know what was in God's mind. Joseph Smith is the great prophet of the Restoration. He is the dispensation head. (See article on Messiah ben Joseph by Trevan Hatch.) 

What does this mean? It means that it's very likely that plural marriage was one of those things that had to be restored in our dispensation, the DISPENSATION OF THE FULNESS OF TIMES. The prophet Jacob in the Book of Mormon tells us that plural marriage is not the default way of doing things. It is, in fact, the way God raises up seed in times when His people's numbers are dwindling. It's also a practice that can only come into being by divine commandment, and therefore it is something we can expect to see restored in our dispensation. It was something the Saints found difficult to start and equally difficult to stop, and in each case there were those who were dedicated to stopping it when it was started, and those who were equally dedicated to continuing it when it was stopped. We know that Jacob wrote that the default teaching was monogamy, and that the Lord told him, “For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people. Otherwise, they shall hearken unto these things!” (Jacob 2:29-30) 

“For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people...because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.” (Verse 31) Jacob knew that plural marriage was difficult on women, and that it was particularly difficult on women with wicked husbands. It's not an easy principle to live for women or men, but we know it's especially tough for women, something that really wasn't common knowledge in 1830. 

Plural marriage was a doctrine that had to be restored in this dispensation, and there are those who believe the practice will be continued. But after reading Jacob, I don't know whether this will be the case at all. Perhaps this was a doctrine that was best dispensed with at the beginning. 

The idea that God arbitrarily changes His mind is, I think, narrow minded and doesn't reflect the wisdom and love of the God we find in the Old and New Testaments. As someone who's studied the beliefs and theologies of many of the world's religions, I find the Hebrew/Israelite concept of Deity, its teachings and prophecies exceptionally consistent. No other religion is like it. The Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants and PofGP also consistently reflect it. After reading the Qur'an and assorted works of Seventh Day Adventist prophetess Ellen G. White, I was struck not only by their lack of witnesses, but their lack of depth. Comparing them with our LDS scriptures, they seem more like children's stories. 👍😇

 

[JamesBYoung]

I have no idea whether the Church 'caved in' to public pressure.

 

My opinion is that not only was it politic to change the decision but the moral decision as well.

[ksfisher]

A threat stalks the Manti Utah Temple’s Minerva Teichert murals

“(The murals) change all the time because of the moisture that comes into the building,” said Elder Kevin R. Duncan, a General Authority Seventy serving as executive director of the church’s Temple Department.

“That’s really the biggest challenge,” he added. “They’ve been touched up. The fact is, the oldest mural there is, as I understand it, is only about 30% to 40% of the original because it’s been touched up and fixed so many times. That moisture is what’s really harming them. We’ll do what we can during the renovation to try and stop the moisture from coming in, but that’s about all we can do. These things don’t last forever.”

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2021/5/20/22444757/churchbeat-newsletter-threat-to-manti-temple-minerva-teichert-murals-latter-day-saint-lds-mormon

 

The murals in the Salt Lake temple were being touched up all the time as well.  Every six months when the temple was such closed for two weeks for cleaning and refurbishment artists would work on the murals.

Edited May 21, 2021 by ksfisher