Page 2 of 2

Re: Happy 1886 Revelation Day

Posted: September 28th, 2023, 4:54 pm
by ransomme
Robin Hood wrote: September 28th, 2023, 4:16 pm
Luke wrote: September 28th, 2023, 3:01 pm
Robin Hood wrote: September 28th, 2023, 2:56 pm

Can you post it?
I think it would inform the discussion.
“24 Sunday I was some better this Morning. I went to Ovando Beebe & found him quite sick with the Lumbago. We administered to him. I Attended A meeting with the Lawyiers at the Gardo in the Evening. They wanted me to Make some Concessin to Court upon Poligamy & other Points and I spent Several Hours alone & Enquired of the Lord and received the following:
Revelation given to Wilford Woodruff, Sunday Nov 24, 1889. Thus Saith the Lord, to my Servant Wilford, I the Lord have heard thy prayers and thy request, and will answer thee by the voice of my spirit. Thus Saith the Lord, unto my Servants the Presidency of my church, who hold the Keys of the Kingdom of God on this earth. I the Lord hold the destiny of the courts in your midst, and the destiny of this nation, and all other nations of the earth in mine own hands, and all that I have revealed, and promised and decreed concerning the generation in which you live, shall come to pass, and no power shall stay my hand.
Let not my servants who are called to the Presidency of my church, deny my word or my law, which concerns the salvation of the children of men. Let them pray for the Holy Spirit, which shall be given them to guide them in their acts. Place not yourselves in jeopardy to your enemies by promise. Your enemies seek your distruction and the distruction of my people. If the Saints will hearken unto my voice, and the counsel of my Servants, the wicked shall not prevail.
Let my servants, who officiate as your counselors before the courts, make their pleadings as they are moved upon by the Holy spirit, without any further pledges from the Priesthood.*** I the Lord will hold the courts, with the officers of government, and the nation responsible for their acts towards the inhabitants of Zion.
I, Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, am in your midst. I am your advocate with the Father. Fear not little flock, it is your father’s good pleasure to give you the Kingdom. Fear not the wicked and ungodly. Search the Scriptures, for they are they which testify of me, also those revelations which I have given to my servant Joseph, and to all my servants since the world began, which are recorded in the records of divine truths. Those revelations contain the judgments of God which are to be poured out upon all nations under the heavens which include great Babylon.
These judgments are at the door. They will be fulfilled as God lives. Leave judgment with me, it is mine saith the Lord. Watch the signs of the times, and they will show the fulfillment of the words of the Lord.
Let my servants call upon the Lord in mighty prayer, retain the Holy Ghost as your constant companion, and act as you are moved upon by that spirit, and all will be well with you. The wicked are fast ripening in iniquity, and they will be cut off by the judgments of God. Great events await you and this generation, and are nigh at your doors. Awake, O, Israel, and have faith in God, and His promises, and he will not forsake you. I the Lord will deliver my Saints from the dominion of the wicked, in mine own due time and way. I cannot deny my word, neither in blessing nor judgments. Therefore let mine Anointed gird up their loins, watch and be sober, and keep my commandments. Pray always and faint not, exercise faith in the Lord and in the promises of God; be valient in the testimony of Jesus Christ. The eyes of the Lord and the Heavenly Hosts are watching over you and your acts. Therefore be faithful until I come. I come quickly to reward every man according to the deeds done in the body. Even so, amen.” (Wilford Woodruff, Journal, 24 November 1889, CHL)

*** The transcription of this revelation in the diary of L. John Nuttall includes the words “and they shall be justified” at the end of this sentence (L. John Nuttall, Diary, 27 November 1889, HBLL).

Two contemporary journal entries concerning how the revelation was received and understood by the Brethren:

“Bro. Young felt it will be a proper time to state in Court that instructions have been given by the Presidency that no more plural marriages shall be solemnized, etc. Pres. Cannon was not in favor of such action and said that Pres. Woodruff was the only one to decide that. Bro. Young suggested that to have time to see Pres. Woodruff, the attorneys should ask to have the case continued till Monday morning. This was approved and it was proposed that Bro. Young see Pres. Woodruff tomorrow. . . . Bro. D. R. Bateman called for me with a buggy this evening and took me to the Gardo House. I found Pres. Woodruff there. He with Pres. George Q. Cannon had met this afternoon with Bro. John W. Young, LeGrand Young, Jas. H. Moyle and R. W. Young to consider the matters as presented and talked upon yesterday, and the question was left with Pres. Woodruff to decide. The President told me of this and said that he had made the subject a matter of prayer and by the voice of the spirit he was directed to write, after he had concluded writing which he was doing when I arrived. He asked me to copy a revelation which he had received—I did so. Having heard Bro. J. W. Young’s reasoning, I felt very much worked up in my feelings for I did not feel that as a Church we could assume the position in regard to Celestial Marriage which he seemed to desire should be taken, and when Pres. Woodruff commenced talking to me this evening I felt that he had become converted and actually trembled, for I know such had not been Pres. Woodruff’s feelings before, but as I wrote at his dictation, I felt better all the time and when completed I felt as light and joyous as it is possible to feel, for I was satisfied that Pres. Woodruff had received the word of the Lord. When Pres. Jos. F. Smith returned and read the revelation he was moved to tears and expressed his approval and acceptance of the word of the Lord to His Servants and Saints. We all felt well and thankful to the Lord.” (L. John Nuttall, Diary, 23 and 24 November 1889, HBLL)

“During our meeting a revelation was read which Pres. Woodruff received Sunday evening, Nov. 24th. Propositions had been made for the Church to make some concessions to the Courts in regard to its principles. Both of Pres. Woodruff’s counselors refused to advise him as to the course he should pursue, and he therefore laid the matter before the Lord. The answer came quick and strong. The word of the Lord was for us not to yield one particle of that which He had revealed and established. He had done and would continue to care for His work and those of the Saints who were faithful and we need have no fear of our enemies when we were in the line of our duty. We are promised redemption and deliverance if we will trust in God and not in the arm of flesh. We were admonished to read and study the Word of God, and to pray often. The whole revelation was filled with words of the greatest encouragement and comfort, and my heart was filled with joy and peace during the entire reading. It sets all doubts at rest concerning the course to pursue.” (Abraham H. Cannon, Diary, 19 December 1889, HBLL)
Thanks Luke.
I find it interesting that this was received only a few months before the Manifesto was issued.
Something must have happened during that time for the leading men of the church, who knew of the 1889 revelation, to do an about face in 1890.
Any ideas?
Yeah, they were beguiled. Polygamy is a whoredom and an abomination.

WW also didn't listen to what he said was a revelation about trusting the Lord concerning finances. Instead, WW made deals with the devil...errr bankers.

And so on...

Re: Happy 1886 Revelation Day

Posted: September 28th, 2023, 10:25 pm
by Bjǫrnúlfr
Luke wrote: September 28th, 2023, 1:20 pm The 1890 Manifesto was not a revelation—as admitted in the leaders’ own journals and private meetings. It was a political ruse (though still a major error).
Can you please provide the journal entries and minutes of meetings were the leaders involved in issuing the manifesto admitted that it wasn’t a revelation and just a political ruse?

Re: Happy 1886 Revelation Day

Posted: September 29th, 2023, 7:39 am
by Telavian
Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: September 28th, 2023, 10:25 pm Can you please provide the journal entries and minutes of meetings were the leaders involved in issuing the manifesto admitted that it wasn’t a revelation and just a political ruse?
If it wasn't a political ruse, then why did polygamous marriages continue after that point?
The LDS church admits that "the ending of the practice after the Manifesto was ... gradual."
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/top ... early-utah

To get around the manifesto then members performed marriages in Canado, Mexico, or even international waters. Does this sound like following a revelation?
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/top ... l-marriage

Why was a second manifesto needed?

Re: Happy 1886 Revelation Day

Posted: September 29th, 2023, 7:49 am
by Luke
Telavian wrote: September 29th, 2023, 7:39 am
Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: September 28th, 2023, 10:25 pm Can you please provide the journal entries and minutes of meetings were the leaders involved in issuing the manifesto admitted that it wasn’t a revelation and just a political ruse?
If it wasn't a political ruse, then why did polygamous marriages continue after that point?
The LDS church admits that "the ending of the practice after the Manifesto was ... gradual."
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/top ... early-utah

To get around the manifesto then members performed marriages in Canado, Mexico, or even international waters. Does this sound like following a revelation?
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/top ... l-marriage

Why was a second manifesto needed?
The Second Manifesto didn’t stop them either. Joseph F. Smith continued to authorise them, usually by ordaining others to perform marriages and then telling them to keep quiet. It was in the 1920s when the crackdown really started.

It smacks of a smoker who keeps on telling you he’s quit when he hadn’t actually quit. And not a word of revelation to be found.

Re: Happy 1886 Revelation Day

Posted: September 29th, 2023, 7:50 am
by Bjǫrnúlfr
Telavian wrote: September 29th, 2023, 7:39 am
Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: September 28th, 2023, 10:25 pm Can you please provide the journal entries and minutes of meetings were the leaders involved in issuing the manifesto admitted that it wasn’t a revelation and just a political ruse?
If it wasn't a political ruse, then why did polygamous marriages continue after that point?
The LDS church admits that "the ending of the practice after the Manifesto was ... gradual."
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/top ... early-utah

To get around the manifesto then members performed marriages in Canado, Mexico, or even international waters. Does this sound like following a revelation?
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/top ... l-marriage

Why was a second manifesto needed?
Some of the leaders may have believed that even though God ended the general practice of plural marriage that he made exceptions for a few secret plural marriages to still be performed. They may also have believed that the general practice of plural marriage was only stopped within the United States.

Which is why the journal entries and minutes of meetings would be helpful in understanding exactly what they thought about the manifesto.

Re: Happy 1886 Revelation Day

Posted: September 29th, 2023, 7:50 am
by Luke
Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: September 28th, 2023, 10:25 pm
Luke wrote: September 28th, 2023, 1:20 pm The 1890 Manifesto was not a revelation—as admitted in the leaders’ own journals and private meetings. It was a political ruse (though still a major error).
Can you please provide the journal entries and minutes of meetings were the leaders involved in issuing the manifesto admitted that it wasn’t a revelation and just a political ruse?
Yes I’ll put them up when I’ve got a minute, I have them in my files somewhere

Re: Happy 1886 Revelation Day

Posted: September 30th, 2023, 3:32 pm
by Luke
Bjǫrnúlfr wrote: September 28th, 2023, 10:25 pm
Luke wrote: September 28th, 2023, 1:20 pm The 1890 Manifesto was not a revelation—as admitted in the leaders’ own journals and private meetings. It was a political ruse (though still a major error).
Can you please provide the journal entries and minutes of meetings were the leaders involved in issuing the manifesto admitted that it wasn’t a revelation and just a political ruse?
viewtopic.php?p=1425166#p1425166

Re: Happy 1886 Revelation Day

Posted: October 1st, 2023, 11:17 am
by SJR3t2
JS only fought against polygamy
1835 D&C section 101, last edition while Joseph Smith was alive. The only major church that removed it was the LDS church. It states one man and one wife, to marry in public where everyone can see it, and that polygamy is a crime.
https://seekingyhwh.org/resources/marriage/

Re: Happy 1886 Revelation Day

Posted: October 2nd, 2023, 3:08 am
by Luke
SJR3t2 wrote: October 1st, 2023, 11:17 am JS only fought against polygamy
1835 D&C section 101, last edition while Joseph Smith was alive. The only major church that removed it was the LDS church. It states one man and one wife, to marry in public where everyone can see it, and that polygamy is a crime.
https://seekingyhwh.org/resources/marriage/
As mythical as leprechauns

Re: Happy 1886 Revelation Day

Posted: October 2nd, 2023, 9:22 am
by JLHPROF
SJR3t2 wrote: October 1st, 2023, 11:17 am JS only fought against polygamy
1835 D&C section 101, last edition while Joseph Smith was alive. The only major church that removed it was the LDS church. It states one man and one wife, to marry in public where everyone can see it, and that polygamy is a crime.
https://seekingyhwh.org/resources/marriage/
It was removed because it wasn't a revelation. It was an organizational policy statement that no longer applied. It was basically the Church Handbook on marriage pre-D&C 110 events. It was never restored truth.

Re: Happy 1886 Revelation Day

Posted: October 2nd, 2023, 10:04 am
by Telavian
JLHPROF wrote: October 2nd, 2023, 9:22 am It was removed because it wasn't a revelation. It was an organizational policy statement that no longer applied. It was basically the Church Handbook on marriage pre-D&C 110 events. It was never restored truth.
Do you have any evidence for this?

Re: Happy 1886 Revelation Day

Posted: October 2nd, 2023, 8:12 pm
by SJR3t2
Luke wrote: October 2nd, 2023, 3:08 am
SJR3t2 wrote: October 1st, 2023, 11:17 am JS only fought against polygamy
1835 D&C section 101, last edition while Joseph Smith was alive. The only major church that removed it was the LDS church. It states one man and one wife, to marry in public where everyone can see it, and that polygamy is a crime.
https://seekingyhwh.org/resources/marriage/
As mythical as leprechauns
Time will tell, time will tell.

Re: Happy 1886 Revelation Day

Posted: October 2nd, 2023, 8:13 pm
by JLHPROF
Telavian wrote: October 2nd, 2023, 10:04 am
JLHPROF wrote: October 2nd, 2023, 9:22 am It was removed because it wasn't a revelation. It was an organizational policy statement that no longer applied. It was basically the Church Handbook on marriage pre-D&C 110 events. It was never restored truth.
Do you have any evidence for this?
I can read. There's not one word in there attributed to the Lord.
Please show the part of this "revelation" that came from the Lord instead of the contemporary tradition?
Let's look:
------------------------
ON MARRIAGE.
According to the custom of all civilized nations, marriage is regulated by laws and ceremonies: therefore we believe, that all marriages in this church of Christ of Latter Day Saints, should be solemnized in a public meeting, or feast, prepared for that purpose: and that the solemnization should be performed by a presiding high priest, high priest, bishop, elder, or priest, not even prohibiting those persons who are desirous to get married, of being married by other authority.-We believe that it is not right to prohibit members of this church from marrying out of the church, if it be their determination so to do, but such persons will be considered weak in the faith of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Marriage should be celebrated with prayer and thanksgiving; and at the solemnization, the persons to be married, standing together, the man on the right, and the woman on the left, shall be addressed, by the person officiating, as he shall be directed by the holy Spirit; and if there be no legal objections, he shall say, calling each by their names: “You both mutually agree to be each other’s companion, husband and wife, observing the legal rights belonging to this condition; that is, keeping yourselves wholly for each other, and from all others, during your lives.” And when they have answered “Yes,” he shall pronounce them “husband and wife” in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and by virtue of the laws of the country and authority vested in him: “may God add his blessings and keep you to fulfill your covenants from henceforth and forever. Amen.”
The clerk of every church should keep a record of all marriages, solemnized in his branch.
All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into this church, should be held sacred and fulfilled. Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again. It is not right to persuade a woman to be baptized contrary to the will of her husband, neither is it lawful to influence her to leave her husband.
-------------------

There is not a single instruction given by the Lord in this. It's all we believe, never once the Lord says. They don't even require God to have any part in marriage for it to be valid. In fact I would argue it goes against the pattern of the garden where the first marriage is sanctified by God himself and his authority and not the state. God's authority joins. In this section the only mention of God is hope that he "may bless".
This is no revelation.

Compare D&C 132
------------------------
2 Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter.
3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.

12 I am the Lord thy God; and I give unto you this commandment—that no man shall come unto the Father but by me or by my word, which is my law, saith the Lord.
24 This is eternal lives—to know the only wise and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent. I am he. Receive ye, therefore, my law.

Yep. I know which one came from God.

Re: Happy 1886 Revelation Day

Posted: October 2nd, 2023, 8:54 pm
by Telavian
JLHPROF wrote: October 2nd, 2023, 8:13 pm I can read. There's not one word in there attributed to the Lord.
Please show the part of this "revelation" that came from the Lord instead of the contemporary tradition?
Thats not very compelling evidence. Are you saying that unless it says "Thus saith the Lord" then it can't be from God?

Re: Happy 1886 Revelation Day

Posted: October 2nd, 2023, 9:08 pm
by JLHPROF
Telavian wrote: October 2nd, 2023, 8:54 pm
JLHPROF wrote: October 2nd, 2023, 8:13 pm I can read. There's not one word in there attributed to the Lord.
Please show the part of this "revelation" that came from the Lord instead of the contemporary tradition?
Thats not very compelling evidence. Are you saying that unless it says "Thus saith the Lord" then it can't be from God?
No, but when they specifically claim it as the beliefs of the Church leadership written by its leaders and begins by referencing civilized custom and traditions and requires no involvement of God in marriage then I think it's safe to say that God had no part in that document.
I'll say it again, it's a policy statement. It might as well be the Church Handbook because it's not divine scripture.
Even if you both believe and agree with what it says both its provenance and content are based in the philosophy of man and their traditions.
It doesn't say anything bad, any sectarian Church could find nothing objectionable in it. I have no problem with anyone believing or following what it says.
But it's NOT the word of God on marriage. It never claimed to be.

Re: Happy 1886 Revelation Day

Posted: October 2nd, 2023, 9:34 pm
by Telavian
JLHPROF wrote: October 2nd, 2023, 9:08 pm No, but when they specifically claim it as the beliefs of the Church leadership written by its leaders and begins by referencing civilized custom and traditions and requires no involvement of God in marriage then I think it's safe to say that God had no part in that document.
I'll say it again, it's a policy statement. It might as well be the Church Handbook because it's not divine scripture.
Even if you both believe and agree with what it says both its provenance and content are based in the philosophy of man and their traditions.
It doesn't say anything bad, any sectarian Church could find nothing objectionable in it. I have no problem with anyone believing or following what it says.
But it's NOT the word of God on marriage. It never claimed to be.
I can agree that it sounds like policy.

However based on that criteria then you would also have to reject many sections like D&C 48, 74, 85, 102, 116, 121, 122, 123, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 134, 135, 138. Those are just after a quick search of the D&C.
I would think at least half of the D&C could be rejected based on the policy criteria.