Common Tactic

[majick275]

I would submit to you that WIlford Woodrufs statements go beyond the scope of that particular situation. This is from the curent version of the D&C (the manifesto) :

*The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. (Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.)

It matters not who lives or who dies, or who is called to lead this Church, they have got to lead it by the inspiration of Almighty God. If they do not do it that way, they cannot do it at all. . . .*

I take this to mean that this is a universal, eternal principle. There is also some question as to “leading the church astray” strictly within the scope of that situation though. Notice the careful wording in the manifesto itself. It never claims to have ended polygamy, it claims that polygamy isn’t being taught and that no NEW polygamous relationships were entered into within the Utah territory.

Notice also the lack of “thus saith the Lord” or even a commandment to stop. He rather states his own intention to comply and says that he will use his influence to have the members do the same. This seems very different in comparison to the tone of other “canonized” instructions to the “saints”.

He ends by carefully stating that during the sepcified time nothing he said encouraged polygamy and that other leaders were reproved if they did. He certainly does NOT say anything that I would take to mean that the practice must stop universally. One could possibly extrapolate that, as he references the Law in this matter, that it should stop where it is illegal.

So by “sola scriptura” LDS doctrine it would seem to be still permitted in those locations where it is legal. (however it should be noted that it may only be AUTHORIZED by the president of the church and we have NO reason to believe that this has happend in the last 80+ years)

 

[ben_dy]

majick275:

So by “sola scriptura” LDS doctrine it would seem to be still permitted in those locations where it is legal. (however it should be noted that it may only be AUTHORIZED by the president of the church and we have NO reason to believe that this has happend in the last 80+ years)

I don’t have my copy of the D&C handy right now but where is it written that plural marriages must be authorized by the church president? As I recall (and I don’t have the whole memorized!) there is mention of the first wife’s ‘consent’ but later an admonition that if wives won’t accept the law of plural marriage that they will be ‘destroyed’ (which is a pretty strong indicator that it’s best to ‘consent’).

Ben

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Casen;

You wrote;

Sure, that’s ok. In any case LDS don’t believe prophets are infallible…

Excuse me but … :bigyikes:
Are you saying that you can’t trust everything that an LDS prophet says in matters of doctrine? Doesn’t that situation lead to confusion about what is and is not LDS doctrine? How can you tell when an LDS prophet is stating doctrine and when he’s just speculating? In the Catholic Church it’s fairly well defined as to when the Pope is exercising the infallibility of his office. Is there an LDS equivalent?

Apologies if I seem less informed than the ex-LDS members of this discussion, but I’m just one of those “honest Catholics sincerely seeking information” that was mentioned above.

Peace

 

[majick275]

ben_dy:

I don’t have my copy of the D&C handy right now but where is it written that plural marriages must be authorized by the church president? As I recall (and I don’t have the whole memorized!) there is mention of the first wife’s ‘consent’ but later an admonition that if wives won’t accept the law of plural marriage that they will be ‘destroyed’ (which is a pretty strong indicator that it’s best to ‘consent’).

Ben

The part where only one man holds the keys to this earth and that man is JS, etc. read along in section 132. Basically it says that the prophet is the only one who holds the keys to the sealing ordinance.

Of course if we are going truly “sola sciptura”… it doesn’t say anywhere that he can delegate those keys so everyone who wasn’t sealed by the prophet isn’t sealed by proper priesthood authority.

 

[Tmaque]

amgid:

That was not the point of my debate with majick though. The point I was making was that President Woodruff’s assertion God would not allow the president of the Church to lead the Church astray did not mean that he was incapable of making a mistake in doctrine. It meant that he could not wilfully, purposefully, intentionally lead the Church astray.

So, God would allow the LDS president to lead the church away accidentally?

amgid:

Suspicious only if you do not believe!

Suspicious to anyone with a little objectivity. There are things in my Church’s history I find suspicious and I can admit they are suspicious.

amgid:

The doctrine has not changed, but the practice has been suspended, in compliance with the requirements of the law. Those are two different things. Our doctrine also teaches us that “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law” (Articles of Faith 12). We are also commanded to “Be subject to the powers that be, until he reigns whose right it is to reign” (D&C 58:22; Romans 13:1). We are also told “He that keepeth the laws of God, hath no need to break the laws of the land” (D&C 58:21). We are doing what the Lord has commanded us to do.

The practice has been suspended until when? The Celestial kingdom? Are you saying that any LDS ordinance can be suspended? Baptism, confirmation, temple ordinances? I’ve not heard that one before…interesting.

As far as the Church suspending the practice simply because it was illegal goes, that argument doesn’t fly. Polygamy was illegal for almost 30 years before the Manifesto, nothing changed until the Church was in danger of losing property and power. In addition, all those that had been living polygamy before the Manifesto were permitted to continue in their “illegal” activity. If the LDS Church of the late 19th century was that concerned with the laws of the US Govt. they would have suspended the practice much sooner, AND they would not have allowed those living polygamy to continue to do so beyond 1890. They did what they had to do to avoid action by the government, nothing more. This is what makes the claim that the Manifesto was the result of a revelation, suspicious.

amgid:

The two situations are not comparable. I am sure that if Congress had passed a law that we should all now go an commit adultery with our neighbor’s wives, or steal goods our of our neighbor’s store, or bear false witness against our neighbor, or deny Jesus Christ and pray to Beelzebub instead… that the Church would not have obeyed such laws, regardless of the consequences. In the case of the early Christians that you have mentioned, the actual Christian religion itself was made illegal. You were breaking the law if you were a Christian. People were forced worship the traditional idols of Rome as evidence that they were not Christians, or that they had abandoned that religion. That is a very different situation from the LDS vs. US Government case.

I think they are comparable. It shows the level of commitment to one’s faith. In the 2nd great persecution, all that was required was to make on offering to a Roman god. And, a pinch of incense was enough to satisfy the law. We have written history of many Christians being executed for refusing to offer a tiny pinch of incense. On the other hand, we have history of LDS Church leaders changing the very doctrines of their church to avoid losing property and power. The early Christians didn’t run away from persecution. On the contrary, they went to their deaths smiling. They wouldn’t have changed (and didn’t) one tiny aspect of their doctrine or practices simply because Rome said they should.

I think, had they been LDS, we would find that the rules had been changed to allow a little incense to be “donated” to pagan churches. And, you would be arguing that it was just their way of being charitable to other religions.

 

[amgid]

majick275:

I would submit to you that WIlford Woodrufs statements go beyond the scope of that particular situation. This is from the curent version of the D&C (the manifesto):

You have misunderstood the Manifesto, as well as Wilford Woodruff’s remarks. Human infallibility is not a part of divine program. Men are by nature fallible, and liable to err in doctrine as well as on matters of personal conduct. No prophet that has ever lived on earth claimed to be infallible, and never has been. In section one of the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord addresses the early leadership of the Church in these words:

D&C 1:

24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

25 And inasmuch as they erred {i.e. in doctrine} it might be made known;

26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent.

So you see, nobody, not even the prophet, is immune from error in doctrine, or even from sinning. But that is a very different thing from deliberately lying to the Church, pretending to have received a commandment from the Lord to abandon a long-standing Church practice, apparently under pressure form the government, when in fact he hasn’t. That is something that the Lord cannot allow to happen. It is His Church, and He must ensure that when He chooses to speak to it, His voice is clearly heard. That is what President Woodruff meant when he said that the Lord will not allow the President to lead the Church astray.

amgid

 

[amgid]

Robert in SD:

Are you saying that you can’t trust everything that an LDS prophet says in matters of doctrine? Doesn’t that situation lead to confusion about what is and is not LDS doctrine? How can you tell when an LDS prophet is stating doctrine and when he’s just speculating? In the Catholic Church it’s fairly well defined as to when the Pope is exercising the infallibility of his office. Is there an LDS equivalent?

There sure is. I refer you to my posts #17 and #32 in the thread called “Can even a ‘true’ prophet have false revelations?”

Apologies if I seem less informed than the ex-LDS members of this discussion, but I’m just one of those “honest Catholics sincerely seeking information” that was mentioned above.

You are very welcome.

amgid

 

[catholic-rcia]

I don’t know if this has been mentioned, but let me take a shot. I had a conversation with a staunch elderly Mormon here in Northern Utah. We talked about lying and truth. He told me that it was ok to lie if it brought another to the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Mormonism). He asked me “what is a lie anyway, can you tell me what a lie is?” I was kinda side struck in this, because I had only heard of these things. I witnessed it first hand. I was also told that because it was ok to lie to be careful in a conversation with one of the LDS faith. Because you can end up very deep in the mud. That it is best to stick with the subject of whom Christ is, compared to who we are. When you get deep into this you can help another with Christ come to understand the difference between Creator and Created. Colossians 1:16- To find out possibly for the first time that God loves each of His creation as we were yesterday, as we are now and how we will be tomorrow. That through a personal relationship with His only Son we can find peace and happiness, not by any works we do now or in the future. He loves us as we are right now, in this we respond, a weight is lifted. Then we have an awesome responsibility to tell others because it no longer is about ourselves. They come to the Sacraments of the Church (Christ) to spend the rest of their lives healing in the company of others. Including the Holy family along with all the Saints and Angels. Where Christmas and Easter become 24 / 7.

 

[Casen]

catholic-rcia:

I don’t know if this has been mentioned, but let me take a shot. I had a conversation with a staunch elderly Mormon here in Northern Utah. We talked about lying and truth. He told me that it was ok to lie if it brought another to the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Mormonism). He asked me “what is a lie anyway, can you tell me what a lie is?” I was kinda side struck in this, because I had only heard of these things. I witnessed it first hand. I was also told that because it was ok to lie to be careful in a conversation with one of the LDS faith. Because you can end up very deep in the mud.

I don’t think your anecdotal story tells us anything about the LDS faith. I once rented a room from a Catholic woman and we had many conversations about religion. She told me it was much better to pray to Mary because she, as the mother of God, was more important that Jesus. I won’t assume she was articulating true Catholic doctrine if you won’t assume your elderly Mormon friend was articulating LDS doctrine. Is it possible… just possible that my Catholic friend and your Mormon acquaintance were each stating their personal feelings… that are not in harmony with the gospel.

 

[majick275]

I think my position on the manifesto leans more toward the belief that Wilford Woodruff was being a pragmatist. I don’t see polygamy as a divine principle nor do I find reason to believe that JS was instructed by God to practice it. therefore I find no divine guidance in his manifesto.

I DO find the manifesto as reason to believe that LDS doctrine definitely is NOT “sola scriptura”.

I also find WiIlford Woodruff’s manifesto to be so carefully worded as to be somewhat deceptive.

I also fail to see how any of amgids references can show the “prophet” to be acceptably fallible in matters of doctrine when instructing the church. They all remind us that prophets can sin and make mistakes,etc. on a personal level and still have to work out their salvation like the rest of us. That’s fine. I dont have a problem with that. I still think though that this manifesto reinforces waht I believe to be LDS doctrine that the “prophet” can’t direct the church to follow false doctrine by intent OR by mistake. THAT is something that I see as very significant.