Related Information to Plural Marriage: In That Day Seven Women Shall...

Plural Marriage: In That Day Seven Women Shall... - Page 47

I see nothing wrong with my post. I don't see why I can't continue to post here if I want to. I am simply telling you my opinion. Just because we don't agree shouldn't mean I am not allowed to give my opinion.

I have said how I interpret the Manifesto and then I have simply said why I don't see how it matters one way or another for me. You can choose to tell me why you disagree with my post, but telling me not to post here seems to be a bit like saying: "I am taking my ball and going home."

Shall Women Day That Marriage Plural

This is not about you posting here or not, I am not saying you should not post here, what I am saying is that with a statement like:

It being enough for you leaves no room for discussion period. In other words if after every message we are going to read 'Well the Prophet said no' then why even post? Everything else becomes a repeat of the last. Like I said before, research what has been given and then return with proofs that the quotes / documents already given within this thread are inaccurate and then I believe we will have a continuance.

Plural Marriage: In That Day Seven Women Shall... Studies Doctrine Mormon

"President Woodruff himself married a new Plural Wife in 1897, Lydia Mountford, who was a Jew, born in Palestine and had lectured widely throughout the United States on Palestine. He married her in September of 1897 on a steamship on the Pacific Ocean, between San Francisco and Portland; and he arranged for an Apostle to perform plural marriages on steamships a month later, and also four months later."

Yes, he was a Prophet at that time (from 1889 until 1898)

https://www.ldshistory.net/pc/postman.htm

Edited: LDS_forever on 11th Sep, 2005 - 7:21pm

Page 47 Shall Women Day That Marriage Plural

I have not found any documentation where Wilford Woodruff claimed that the Lord told him to stop the practice of Plural Marriage. I have seen plenty of documentation where Wilford Woodruff, John Taylor, Lorenzo Snow, and Joseph F. Smith all said that if the practice of plural marriage were to be stopped within the Church, it would be a sign of apostacy within the Church, and would indicate that the Church had submitted to Babylon.

There is also this little written revelation from John Taylor, that he approved.

Finally, in answer to LDS_Forever's question, the people in the Tabernacle were stunned when the Manifesto was read. They did NOT unanimously approve it. Almost none of the practicing polygamists were present, as they were in hiding, and those who believed in the principle were so stunned that they abstained from any action at the time. I don't know if any actually opposed it, or if anyone was even given an opportunity to oppose it. However, it is well documented that the Saints most certainly did NOT all approve of it. That particularly included the majority of the General Authorities, including the Apostles.

Shall Women Day That Marriage Plural

What documents are you refering to?. In the back of the scriptures after the Official Declaration I you will find the following:

"President Lorenzo Snow offered the following:

"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.


This document is stating that the members voted unanimously to stop the practise.

Plural Marriage: In That Day Seven Women Shall...

When we vote as a group in church, whether it's in our wards, stakes, or in General Conference, the abstaining votes are not counted (as is done in legislative bodies). So merely by the fact of no "Nay" votes, it's counted as unanimous, even if not everyone voted.

Since I wasn't there, I can't say for sure that that is what happened, merely observing that at times I abstain from a vote if I'm not sure about the subject, but the vote is still counted as unanimous.

Plural Marriage That Day Women Shall... - Page 47

As LDS has already pointed out, it seems President Woodruff did, in fact, come out in favor of stopping the practice as recorded in Manifesto. Nighthawk, are you saying he didn't issue this Manifesto or are you saying that by issuing this he wasn't really saying we should stop this practice, but that he was issuing this statement publicly only to appease the Federal government?

JB, you and are will simply have to disagree on whether or not my statement allows for discussion. I agree that I won't change my position on this, which is what my statement reflects. However, that doesn't mean I am not interested in the discussion for the sake of discussion.

Plural Marriage That Day Women Shall... Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 47

From written statements and recorded conversations of various leaders in the early 1890s, it is very clear that the Manifesto was meant to appease the US government, NOT to stop plural marriages throughout the Church. President Woodruff sent people to Cardston and Mexico specifically to enter into new plural marriages.

He, as well as President Smith, both entered into new plural marriages after the Manifesto, by going out into the Pacific ocean on steamers, outside the 12 mile limit, and getting married to people.

The documents are mostly personal diaries, recorded conversations, etc. Also the fact that almost all practicing polygamists were absent from the conference puts a little bit different light on the proceedings. As I mentioned before, it is possible that nobody actually objected. However, I have been present when there was an opposing vote to an action, and the action was still recorded as unanimous, because the opposition was addressed separately. It was my father-in-law, and his objections to the action have been proven true.

Remember, those who believed in and were willing to practice this principle had already faced prison. In fact, a very large number of practicing men were, at that time, in prison. So, to hear the GAs approved the Manifesto came as a complete surprise to these folk.

Finally, remember that the OD1 is the ONLY part of that page that is accepted as canon. The rest of that page is "justification" for the OD1, and tells only a small sliver of the real story.