From Wilford Woodruff's Nov. 1, 1891 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Sleeping in EQ · 12-20-2007, 02:30 PM

Speech in Logan, as published in the Deseret News and as recorded in Clark's "Messages of the First Presidency." The emphasis is mine:

I have had some revelations of late, and very important ones to me, and I will tell you what the Lord has said to me. Let me bring your minds to what is termed the manifesto. The Lord has told me by revelation that there are many members of the Church throughout Zion who are sorely tried in their hearts because of that manifesto, and also because of the testimony of the Presidency of this Church and the Apostles before the Master in Chancery. Since I received that revelation I have heard of many who are tried in these things, though I had not heard of any before that, particularly. Now, the Lord has commanded me to do one thing, and I fulfilled that commandment at the conference at Brigham City last Sunday, and I will do the same here today. The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question, and He also told me that if they would listen to what I said to them and answer the question put to them, by the spirit and power of God, they would all answer alike with regard to this matter. 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 head 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... 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 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 know there are a good many men, and probably some leading men, in this Church who have been tried and felt as though President Woodruff had lost the Spirit of God and was about to apostatize. Now, I want you to understand that he has not lost the Spirit, nor is he about to apostatize. He has told me exactly what to do, and what the result would be if we did not do it. I have been called upon by friends outside of the Church and urged to take some steps with regard to this matter. They knew the course which the Government were determined to take. This feeling has also been manifested more or less by members of the Church. 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 Geo. Q. Cannon, Brother Jos. 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.

MikeWaters · 12-20-2007, 02:33 PM

So was he lying? Or was it something a bit more complex, like God commanding him to tell the people it was over, but also commanding him to continue in private?

tooblue · 12-20-2007, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

So was he lying? Or was it something a bit more complex, like God commanding him to tell the people it was over, but also commanding him to continue in private?

Lied? If he was already married to more than one woman, how was he to set aside the marriage covenants he had made? Could he simply walk away from the emotional and finacial commitment?

Plural marriage had to have been phased out over time, not summarily stopped ... 'Honey it's over -take your kids, find a home, a means of support and get on with your life -I'm sticking with wife number three, I like her pot roast best!'

Come on Mike -you're smarter than that!

MikeWaters · 12-20-2007, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tooblue

Lied? If he was already married to more than one woman, how was he to set aside the marriage covenants he had made? Could he simply walk away from the emotional and finacial commitment?

Plural marriage had to have been phased out over time, not summarily stopped ... 'Honey it's over -take your kids, find a home a means of support and get on with your life -I'm sticking with wife number three, I like her pot roast best!'

Come on Mike -you're smarter than that!

I'm saying that while he said it was a revelation to stop, that he remained complicit it new polygamous marriages well after 1890. At least, that is what I understand.

If the revelation was really to stop and end it, why didn't he?

Sleeping in EQ · 12-20-2007, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

So was he lying? Or was it something a bit more complex, like God commanding him to tell the people it was over, but also commanding him to continue in private?

Your questions have me thinking of Carmon Hardy's Solemn Covenant (a nice treatment of Mormon polygamy). Hardy has some circumstantial evidence that President Woodruff was married to an additional wife after the manifesto. Hardy's Works of Abraham book is newer, but Solemn Covenant would make a great book of the month.

tooblue · 12-20-2007, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I'm saying that while he said it was a revelation to stop, that he remained complicit it new polygamous marriages well after 1890. At least, that is what I understand.

If the revelation was really to stop and end it, why didn't he?

All evidence points to the fact that he did -the church stopped practicing polygamy! Reasonable people can accept the idea that it was phased out over time. I'm not aware of definative evidence that he married another woman after the fact, no more than you are.

Let's be careful not to impose 21st century sensabilities onto the people of that time frame. What status in society in general did woman hold in that time frame? The practice of promising and courtship was much more complex than one might want to believe. It wasn't as cut and dried as that sixteen year old is cute, I'm gonna get me one of those as Seattle would have you believe.

MikeWaters · 12-20-2007, 03:16 PM

Was there anything about the announcement and revelation that was to indicate it would be halted over a 15 year period?

If it is not just a little bit scandalous, why have so many apologists gotten so upset about assertions as such?

Sleeping in EQ · 12-20-2007, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tooblue

All evidence points to the fact that he did -the church stopped practicing polygamy! Reasonable people can accept the idea that it was phased out over time. I'm not aware of definative evidence that he married another woman after the fact, no more than you are.

Let's be careful not to impose 21st century sensabilities onto the people of that time frame. What status in society in general did woman hold in that time frame? The practice of promising and courtship was much more complex than one might want to believe. It wasn't as cut and dried as that sixteen year old is cute, I'm gonna get me one of those as Seattle would have you believe.

Yea, it's not like Brigham Young gave one of his daughters to Wilford Woodruff as a wife for a birthday present or anything. Oh, wait...

TB there are hundreds of documented post-manifesto plural marriages, many of them authorized by members of the First Presidency and Apostles.

tooblue · 12-20-2007, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Yea, it's not like Brigham Young gave one of his daughters to Wilford Woodruff as a wife for a birthday present or anything. Oh, wait...

TB there are hundreds of documented post-manifesto plural marriages, many of them authorized by members of the First Presidency and Apostles.

I understand such situations occured, I am not arguing against. I am however arguing against the indignation found in the tone of Mike's post. We are talking about an isolated people and culture, and even economy. A tenent of the cultural success was plural marriage. You cannot simply remove the practice from it's environs and expect the culture, economy and people to easily move on and survive.

To suggest the church could summarily stop the practice is absurd ... in many regards as absurd as suggesting GM can just stop making vehicules that run on regular gasoline.

Indy Coug · 12-20-2007, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tooblue

I understand such situations occured, I am not arguing against. I am however arguing against the indignation found in the tone of Mike's post. We are talking about an isolated people and culture, and even economy. A tenent of the cultural success was plural marriage. You cannot simply remove the practice from it's environs and expect the culture, economy and people to easily move on and survive.

To suggest the chruch could summarily stop the practice is absurd ... in many regards as absurd as suggesting GM can just stop making vehicules that run on regular gasoline.

I'm not sure how you can argue that they couldn't summarily stop new polygamous unions, if they really wanted to.

12-20-2007, 02:30 PM	#1
Sleeping in EQ Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: The People's Republic of Monsanto Posts: 3,085	From Wilford Woodruff's Nov. 1, 1891 Speech in Logan, as published in the Deseret News and as recorded in Clark's "Messages of the First Presidency." The emphasis is mine: I have had some revelations of late, and very important ones to me, and I will tell you what the Lord has said to me. Let me bring your minds to what is termed the manifesto. The Lord has told me by revelation that there are many members of the Church throughout Zion who are sorely tried in their hearts because of that manifesto, and also because of the testimony of the Presidency of this Church and the Apostles before the Master in Chancery. Since I received that revelation I have heard of many who are tried in these things, though I had not heard of any before that, particularly. Now, the Lord has commanded me to do one thing, and I fulfilled that commandment at the conference at Brigham City last Sunday, and I will do the same here today. The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question, and He also told me that if they would listen to what I said to them and answer the question put to them, by the spirit and power of God, they would all answer alike with regard to this matter. 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 head 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... 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 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 know there are a good many men, and probably some leading men, in this Church who have been tried and felt as though President Woodruff had lost the Spirit of God and was about to apostatize. Now, I want you to understand that he has not lost the Spirit, nor is he about to apostatize. He has told me exactly what to do, and what the result would be if we did not do it. I have been called upon by friends outside of the Church and urged to take some steps with regard to this matter. They knew the course which the Government were determined to take. This feeling has also been manifested more or less by members of the Church. 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 Geo. Q. Cannon, Brother Jos. 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. __________________ "Do not despise the words of prophets, but test everything; hold fast to what is good; " 1 Thess. 5:21 (NRSV) We all trust our own unorthodoxies.

12-20-2007, 02:33 PM	#2
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	So was he lying? Or was it something a bit more complex, like God commanding him to tell the people it was over, but also commanding him to continue in private?

12-20-2007, 03:16 PM	#7
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	Was there anything about the announcement and revelation that was to indicate it would be halted over a 15 year period? If it is not just a little bit scandalous, why have so many apologists gotten so upset about assertions as such?