Contradictions Between Book of Mormon, D&C, and POGP?

[_gdemetz]

Not funny to me. You need to look closely at the history of that. That was not an official revelation. The official one came much later. There was no revelation on demand! Albion, you again? I think a lot of this is over your head.

[_Drifting]

Not funny to me. You need to look closely at the history of that. That was not an official revelation. The official one came much later. There was no revelation on demand! Albion, you again? I think a lot of this is over your head.

The first 'revelation' came in 1890 saying the practice of polygamy was to stop immediately.
The second 'revelation' came in 1904 when it became apparent that the Prophet and Apostles had ignored the instruction God gave in 1890.

In 1889 in the face of increasing hardships and the threat of government confiscation of Church property, including temples, Wilford Woodruff, President of the Church at the time, prayed for guidance. He was inspired to issue a document that officially ended the sanction of plural marriage by the Church. The document, called the Manifesto, was accepted by Church members in a general conference held in October 1890 and is published in the Doctrine and Covenants as Official Declaration 1 (see also “Excerpts from Three Addresses by President Wilford Woodruff Regarding the Manifesto” following Official Declaration 1).

Just as the practice of plural marriage among the Latter-day Saints began gradually, the ending of the practice after the Manifesto was also gradual. Some plural marriages were performed after the Manifesto, particularly in Mexico and Canada. In 1904, President Joseph F. Smith called for a vote from the Church membership that all post-Manifesto plural marriages be prohibited worldwide.

Courtesy of LDS.org (official Church source)

[_gdemetz]

That's right, he was inspired to stop the churches sanctions of plural marriage, but it was not an official revelation which by proper procedure would be approved by the first presidency and the quorum of the twelve, and plural marriages continued, although not officially sanctioned by the church. Therefore, the "revelation on demand" to stop all polygamy that the evil conspirators wanted at that time was not given! It was given at another time when the Lord was ready!

[_Drifting]

That's right, he was inspired to stop the churches sanctions of plural marriage, but it was not an official revelation which by proper procedure would be approved by the first presidency and the quorum of the twelve, and plural marriages continued, although not officially sanctioned by the church. Therefore, the "revelation on demand" to stop all polygamy that the evil conspirators wanted at that time was not given! It was given at another time when the Lord was ready!

gdemetz, your fingers are writing words that your brain hasn't authorised for publication.

Here is what it states at the bottom of Official Declaration 1, given in 1890.

 “I move that, recognizing Wilford Woodruff as the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the only man on the earth at the present time who holds the keys of the sealing ordinances, we consider him fully authorized by virtue of his position to issue the Manifesto which has been read in our hearing, and which is dated September 24th, 1890, and that as a Church in General Conference assembled, we accept his declaration concerning plural marriages as authoritative and binding.”

The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous.
Salt Lake City, Utah, October 6, 1890.

[_gdemetz]

FAIR backs up correctly what I stated:

"INTERPRETING THE MANIFESTO"

"President Woodruff did not frame the matter as a declaration from the first presidency and the twelve (which would be required for any official change in doctrine or practice). Rather, he spoke of the manifesto as a "duty" on his part, which the Lord required. Even the wording of the manifesto reflects this-it does not speak of "we the first presidency and the council of the twelve," but simply of Wilford Woodruff in the first person singular. The wording is careful and precise: "I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and use my influence over the members of the church over which I preside to do likewise...And now I publicly declare that my advise to the Latter-Day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land." Thus, president Woodruff announces a personal course of action, but does not commit other general authorities of the church-he even issues "advise," rather than a "command" or "instruction." No other signatures or authorities are given, other than his own."

"A useful comparison can be made with official declaration 2, which follows the prescribed pattern for church government."

"... the first presidency announced that a revelation had been received by President Spencer W. Kimball {who} has asked that I advise the conference that after he had received this revelation...he presented it to his counselors, who accepted it and approved it. It was then presented to the quorum of the twelve apostles, who unanimously approved it, and was subsequently presented to all other general authorities, who likewise approved it unanimously."

Anyway, good point. I sure hope Albion doesn't see this! If he does, he will be confused as heck!

[_Dr. Shades]

Therefore, the "revelation on demand" to stop all polygamy that the evil conspirators wanted at that time was not given!

So, are they "evil consiprators" who are trying to stop the FLDS church from marrying each other polygamously?

[_Drifting]

FAIR backs up correctly what I stated:

"INTERPRETING THE MANIFESTO"

"President Woodruff did not frame the matter as a declaration from the first presidency and the twelve (which would be required for any official change in doctrine or practice). Rather, he spoke of the manifesto as a "duty" on his part, which the Lord required. Even the wording of the manifesto reflects this-it does not speak of "we the first presidency and the council of the twelve," but simply of Wilford Woodruff in the first person singular. The wording is careful and precise: "I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and use my influence over the members of the church over which I preside to do likewise...And now I publicly declare that my advise to the Latter-Day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land." Thus, president Woodruff announces a personal course of action, but does not commit other general authorities of the church-he even issues "advise," rather than a "command" or "instruction." No other signatures or authorities are given, other than his own."

"A useful comparison can be made with official declaration 2, which follows the prescribed pattern for church government."

"... the first presidency announced that a revelation had been received by President Spencer W. Kimball {who} has asked that I advise the conference that after he had received this revelation...he presented it to his counselors, who accepted it and approved it. It was then presented to the quorum of the twelve apostles, who unanimously approved it, and was subsequently presented to all other general authorities, who likewise approved it unanimously."

Anyway, good point. I sure hope Albion doesn't see this! If he does, he will be confused as heck!

Two things.

1. FAIR is not an official Church source and does not speak for the Church. It is purely an outpouring of individuals personal views and opinions.
2. The declaration in the canon (official Church source) says that the Church assembled at General Conference and voted unanimously (something your FAIR reference avoids mentioning completely)Thereby officially committing every single member and Church Authority to that course of action. Crumbs, it's even published as scripture.

See if you can find an official Church reference that agree's with FAIR's opinion that the Prophet, President Woodruff, was only speaking as a man and voicing purely his own (uninspired, unauthorised) view on what should happen.

[_gdemetz]

Good question, Dr. Shades. Joseph Smith believed in the principle of live and let live, so to speak. He believed in the right to worship God according to the dictates of conscience, and he believed in allowing others the same opportunity. Having received revelations from God concerning this, he felt it a right and obligation to practice it. The LDS belief, of course, is that the prophet of the church is the one who has the "keys" of authority to act on revelation from God, with the sustaining support of the other apostles, etc. Therefore, even though, we don't believe that the FLDS would have authority from God to authorize polygamy, we would have no right to demand that they stop, other than to warn them as a brother that we felt like what they were doing was not right. However, if the government would try to stop them, then that would be another matter. I personally would like to see them become united with us again, and that polygamy would be established for all who wanted to practice it.

[_gdemetz]

Drifting, so what? The church voted to sustain the actions of the prophet. I, as well as FAIR, am discussing the truths of what those actions really were and what they really meant. Yes, the church sustained what he said, but what did he really say? Yes, the church sustained what he said, but was it received as just an official proclamation or as an official revelation? We are stating that it was the former. Had this been an official revelation on demand as the government seemed to want, then there would have been no need for the second stronger manifesto to be issued.

[_Drifting]

Drifting, so what? The church voted to sustain the actions of the prophet. I, as well as FAIR, am discussing the truths of what those actions really were and what they really meant. Yes, the church sustained what he said, but what did he really say? Yes, the church sustained what he said, but was it received as just an official proclamation or as an official revelation? We are stating that it was the former. Had this been an official revelation on demand as the government seemed to want, then there would have been no need for the second stronger manifesto to be issued.

The second declaration was needed because the General Authorities and Apostles and Presidency who voted to sustain the 1890 manifesto didn't sustain the 1890 manifesto. In actual fact, what the leaders were doing was conning the membership and the government into believing action was being taken to stop polygamous couplings whilst they themselves secretly continued the practice.

As for the difference between a proclamation and a revelation, the Church membership gets to vote on the latter but not the former. For example, the Family proclamation was not voted on. That the 1890 manifesto was voted into the canon makes it a revelation.

Now, you've had enough time to find one, so show us an official Church reference that supports your claim that the 1890 manifesto that was voted on in 1890 was not a revelation from God and was only Wilford voicing his own opinion.