Though not really the point of his post, Hellmut of at Beyond Ourselves brought up an interesting note in his Sex and Salvation post.
One finds the following point made in the Official Declaration 2:
In early June of this year, the First Presidency announced that a revelation had been received by President Spencer W. Kimball extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members of the Church.
In contrast, Official Declaration 1 has this to say:
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.
There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of my associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy; and when any Elder of the Church has used language which appeared to convey any such teaching, he has been promptly reproved. And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.
Can we say that both of these declarations, given their different natures (one based in revelation one in response to legal pressures), are equal in authority?
Official Declaration-1 seems to me to be an anti-revelation revelation. We know that, at least on a limited basis, plural marriages went on in a more or less accepted fashion (by at least some of the Church leadership) until Joseph F. Smith’s Second Manifesto in 1904. I fully believe Official Declaration-1 is a revelation, in the sense of God bluffing the Gentiles in order to fulfill His own purposes (kind of like Abraham lying about his wife).
If you could be troubled to read the accompanying lengthy footnotes to Declaration 1, you would realize that it is just as based in revelation as Official Declaration 2.
Kim,
I am offended that you would put forth an opinion such as this but not include the whole written subject of Official Declaration 1.
Kudos to Itbugaf for his comment above, as I was just about to say EXACTLY the same thing. Twisting the scriptures to create controversy (whether you meant it this way or not) is in my OPINION a very serious issue. I believe I have lost a little bit of respect for your site here Kim.
For those who might be reading further here is the part that is missing…
“…I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had the Spirit upon me for a long time. But what I want to say is 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… …I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write.”
This is 2nd to last paragraph of the Official Declaration #1 of Wilford Woodruff.
So, it appears to me to be PRETTY DARN DIFINITIVE that BOTH were revelation from God, and no amount of banter and specualtion further to this will change my opinion.
K.
Then why state it was given as a result of laws passed? Why state the declaration as his intention to obey the law? If it was a revelation in the same vein as President Kimball’s was, why not simply declare to the saints that the Lord had commanded him that the practice be abolished? After all, one would think that the saints of the time would have found the Lord’s word more binding than the state’s law.
I think you had better go back and read Official Declaration 1 Kim, seriously.
K.
Kris,
For your benefit, I have read the OD1 for the sixth time in the last 24 hours. Now, was I supposed to find something? The reason you asked me to reread it was unclear.
As I was reading it, I did notice a few things; things like:
Was that what I supposed to find?
Kim, obviously you were supposed to find what Kris already quoted in #3, along with the other material surrounding it, which makes it abundantly clear that President Woodfruff was basing this declaration in revelation.
You’re too smart not to see that, so why are you playing coy and pretending to miss the point?
Too bad talking to God is only worthy of a footnote and not inclusion in the actual proclamation…
If only talking to God had not been in such abundance at the time, I’m sure it would have.
Too bad you think the Prophet should be required to simultaneously disclose the details of the revelatory experience every time he announces something that’s based on revelation.
…or just wear the ‘I just spoke to God’ hat. Whatever is easier.
everybody chill…
Obviously it was a revelation. And obviously Pres. Woodruff was up to his neck in the socio-political realities of his day (“God moves in a mysterious way, His wonders to perform”).
re: #7. ltbugaf, Kris asked me to read the OD1, not the accompanying commentary.
OK…read the accompanying commentary.
K.
Yes. Congratualations on pointing out that Kris failed to distinguish between the text above the line and below the line when recommending the reading. I’m sure this opportunity to show smugness was much more rewarding than simply following what you already knew she meant and engaging in the real issue.
Gee wizz. You guys really like each other. Just because people disagree with us does not mean they are evil.
Overseeing an annotation is an honest mistake. Give the guy a break.
Hellmut, as you can see above, the annotation had already been explicitly referred to and quoted from in both the second and third comments.
So then since Kris repeated herself, I will repeat myself:
Then why state it was given as a result of laws passed? Why state the declaration as his intention to obey the law? If it was a revelation in the same vein as President Kimball’s was, why not simply declare to the saints that the Lord had commanded him that the practice be abolished? After all, one would think that the saints of the time would have found the Lord’s word more binding than the state’s law.
Then based on your above reasoning, you conclude that the declaration was not based on revelation? Or do you believe that it was?
If you conclude that it was not based on revelation, do you believe President Woodruff was simply lying when he made the comments that both I and Kris have pointed out?
It’s probably true that “the saints of the time would have found the Lord’s word more binding than the state’s law,” but of course this utterly (and deliberately?) ignores the fact that this declaration was not made merely to “the saints” but to the world, and in particular to the United States Government. Their concern was with compliance to the law, not with the reasons for it.
“…why not simply declare to the saints that the Lord had commanded him that the practice be abolished?”
He did. I can refer you to the same passages yet again, if you like.
He did not declare it in the declaration.
So what? He declared it to the Church in another time and place.
I doubt that was what was going through the minds of the Saints at the time. “It sure sounds like he is saying he is bowing to the pressure of the United States government, but don’t worry. Next year, he will tell us it was received as a revelation.”
And?
And there was a difference between the way this declaration was presented to the saints and the way OD2 was presented, which is the basis for the post.
AND? We are talking semantics now?
K.
It has nothing to do with semantics. One specifically mentioned revelation when issued, and one did not.
I suggest the Prophets must fill out a form in triplicate, stating all pertinent details of where, when, how, and what revelation or NON revelation they have received. The contents of this form must then be read to the members, at and only at the April Conference each year. There must be no mention of the press in said announcement for fear of the perception that the Church is bowing to political pressure. The form must then be published no later than 90 days from said annoucement in a forum herewith to be Our Thoughts. Scrutiny of said announcement must then occur relentlessly by Kim Siever and if found unacceptable, must be withdrawn for corrections in semantics etc etc.
Perhaps that might be a better way to handle revelation? Goodness, I hope more people think like you do Kim. *cringe*
K.
Kris,
You certainly are Canadian. Sarcastic to the core.
Sarcastic yes, at times. I am simply pointing out the ridiculous nature of the semantic badgering of the Official Declaration in question.
Kim, do you really feel that the way the OD is worded and subsequently published and discussed in later times takes away from your testmony?
I think we should let this lie, unless of course you really aren’t seeing Itbugaf and I’s point of view.
BTW I am VERY proud to be Canadian Mary.
K.
OH…I also wonder how you find the time Kim to think of, comment on and keep track of all these threads that are going on. You must be one super duper multitasker to keep this up and take care of your “real life” responsibilities…how do you find the time? Seriously, I was just wondering about it.
K.
Kris,
So am I. I don’t wish to be any other nationality.
Kim never said it took away from his testimony. You don’t know what he went through to gain his very strong and abiding testimony and his dedication to the Gospel. He asks thought provoking questions to find out what other’s thoughts are on different things. However, it seems that many people either deliberately or naively, misunderstand him. Thank goodness he married me, since I do understand him and know what he is saying. Well, that’s what 11 years of marriage creates.
Kris, the wording of the official declarations affects my testimony in no way.
I don’t post as often as you think I do. Friday for example saw 12 hours between comments. I also don’t spend time thinking of post topics. They come to me while praying, reading scriptures, commuting, sitting in Sunday School and elders quorum.
As well, I receive an email every time someone comments on my posts, so that helps me keep up to date on items. The list of recent comments in the sidebar helps as well.
Kim, you seem to think that the internal mentioning of revelation is more important than the actual existence of revelation. Your original post described the two Official Declarations as “one based in revelation one in response to legal pressures.” But in fact, both were based in revelation. So why are you now so concerned about whether the revelatory basis of the Declaration is found in the body of its text or somewhere else? Regardless of where it’s found, it still exists. Contrary to your description, the Declaration was based in revelation, just as much as Official Declaration 2 was.
So then as I asked in #4, why state it was given as a result of laws passed? Why state the declaration as Woodruff’s intention to obey the law?
So then, as I already answered, see #18.
#18 does not address the question as to why President Woodruff stated that the declaration was being issued as a result of laws passed and as his intention to obey the law, rather than stating that it was being issued as a result of revelation he received.
Yes it does: “…this declaration was not made merely to “the saints†but to the world, and in particular to the United States Government. Their concern was with compliance to the law, not with the reasons for it.”
The declaration was a public pronouncement of what the Church was going to do. That it did not explicitly include references to the revelations that brought it about matters not at all. The question is whether the declaration was founded in revelation. The answer, which was staring you in the face from the beginning, is yes.
President Kimball also made his declaration to the world, yet he explicitly starts out the declaration by saying it was received by revelation. It would seem that it mattered to President Kimball that references to the revelations that brought it about were mentioned.
Q: Was Declaration 1 brought about by revelation?
A: Yes.
Q. How do we know?
A: President Woodruff told us of the revelation he received that prompted him to issue the “Manifesto.” His remarks on the topic have, conveniently, been included in the footnote material to Declaration 1.
Q: Can worldly events such as legal pressures serve as a catalyst for revelation? Can they cause a Prophet to seek and receive revelation?
A: Yes. For example, a wife’s complaint about a tobacco-stained floor became a catalyst for Joseph Smith to receive what we now know as Section 89 of the Doctrine & Covenants.
Q: Was the Church’s legal difficulty a catalyst for the revelation that resulted in Declaration 1?
A: Based on President Woodruff’s own description, it certainly appears so.
Q: But it was still a revelation?
A: Yes, unless you believe President Woodruff was deluded or lying when he made the remarks referred to in the Official Declaration 1 footnote material.
Q: Does it matter that the text of the Manifesto (Declaration 1) doesn’t explicitly refer to President Woodruff’s revelatory experience?
A: No. The basis in revelation exists whether it’s mentioned in the text, or mentioned separately. We have no reason to take it less seriously as a revelation just because President Woodruff described the revelation separately.
Q: When Declaration 2 was given, the revelation was more clearly identified right in the text of the Declaration itself. Isn’t there something wrong with Declaration 1 being done differently? Why didn’t President Woodruff do it the same way President Kimball did it?
A: The way revelations are worded often differs from Prophet to Prophet. I imagine President Kimball had reasons for doing what he did the way he did it and President Woodruff had reasons for doing what he did the way he did it. President Woodruff didn’t tell us why he did it this way. But there is no doubt at all about Declaration 1 being based in revelation. President Woodruff’s words–given separately from the Declaration–are unmistakably clear. The Lord showed him what to do, and he did it.
Q: Since Declaration 1 was prompted by revelation, should Kim persist in differentiating Declaration 2 from Declaration 1 by describing the former as “based in revelation” and describing the latter as “in response to legal pressures”?
A: Obviously not. He’s making a false distinction. Both Declarations were prompted by revelation, based in revelation.
“But there is no doubt at all about Declaration 1 being based in revelation.”
Actually, there is a lot of doubt.
Do I believe revelation was involved in the decision to issue the declaration? Yes. Do I believe that the declaration has a foundation in (or is based on) revelation and not in politics? No.
It makes no sense to me whatsoever how someone could read the OD1 and not see that it is based on politics, regardless of whether the decision to issue it or not was revealed through God.
But I think I’ve probably made that more than clear by this point.
If anyone wants to read more about the political background of the Manifesto, the “discussions” of the apostles regarding the change in policy and the aftermath regarding existing and new plural marriages, I highly recommend D. Michael Quinn’s “LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages, 1890 – 1904”, an essay in the Spring 1985 issue of Dialogue.
Kim, I honestly can’t make sense of #40. You say revelation was involved in the giving of the Declaration, but it’s not founded in revelation? Aren’t you contradicting yourself? If revelation was behind the declaration, then it was based in revelation, regardless of what else it may have been based on, or what else may have led up to the revelation.
For some reason, you chose this peculiar phrasing: “…has a foundation in…revelation but not in politics?”
Who said there were no politics involved? Certainly not I. Of course political pressure was involved–it’s what motivated the Prophet to seek the answer he received. And then he did receive an answer. That answer was revelation, unless you don’t believe President Woodruff. It was because of that answer–that revelation–that President Woodruff issued the Manifesto. (In fact, he made it quite clear that political pressure alone would never have been enough to make him depart from the practice of plural marriage–again, all you have to do is read his own words in the footnote material.) So we have political pressure leading to inquiry leading to revelation leading to declaration. How, then, is the Declaration “not based in revelation”?
“Of course political pressure was involved–it’s what motivated the Prophet to seek the answer he received.”
Precisely why the declaration is based on politics.
Actually, if you really want to see how clear President Woodruff was on the Manifesto, read Quinn’s essay.
“Precisely why the declaration is based on politics.”
Fine. Now why do you add the false conclusion that it’s not also based in revelation?
Why does it matter if it was based on politics? I would think many of the Prophets have thought more deeply about a subject and inquired of the Lord more fervently due to the political arena of the times. You don’t think our current Prophet has inquired of the Lord regarding the whole same sex marriage issue and how to handle it?
Obviously, I didn’t understand your original question…did the question change?
K.
“Now why do you add . . . that it’s not also based in revelation?”
Because the history behind the Manifesto spans roughly a decade and started when John Taylor was prophet. The revelation simply confirmed a decision President Woodruff made years previous.
“[Does] it matter if it was based on politics?”
Which was the point of my post.
Tell you what, Kim, you’ve said the reason you don’t often give a straight declaration of what you personally believe is that the opportunity doesn’t come up. So here’s an opportunity:
Tell us what you believe about two questions–they’re simple either/or questions:
1. Was Wilford Woodruff describing revelation or not describing revelation, when he said,
“The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. . . . 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. . . ” ?
2. Was Wilford Woodruff telling the truth, or was he lying, when he made the above statements?
1. He was describing a revelation.
2. I can only assume he is telling the truth.
He says it’s based in revelation. You say you believe him. But you also say it’s not based in revelation. I leave it to others to decide whether you’re making any sense.
Good night.
Where did he say the declaration was based on revelation?