LDS Church issues response to Prop. 8 vote

[Hemidakota]

Originally Posted by a-train

The temples however, were simply not seized. I don't know why or what circumstances prevented it.

-a-train

1890 manifesto was issued after vision and revelation

Date: 11/15/97
Articles on this page may be used in conjunction with the Sunday School gospel doctrine course, lesson No. 43, Official Declaration—1 and Official Declaration—2. Information compiled by Gerry Avant Sources: Church News, Jan. 6, 1979; October 1988 and April 1995 general conference reports.

Doctrine and Covenants—Official Declaration 1 was issued by President Wilford Woodruff stating that the Church was "not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice. . . . "

The declaration is commonly known as "The Manifesto of 1890" or as "The Manifesto."

In it, President Woodruff stated: "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. . . . "

The declaration, dated Sept. 24, 1890, was sustained by unanimous vote by the Church Oct. 6, 1890. Its issuance came after years of persecution and hardship in which Latter-day Saints resisted what they saw as unconstitutional federal attempts to curb the practice of plural marriage.

In the years prior to the Manifesto, the Church suffered as a result of the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887, which included provisions aimed at destroying the Church as a political and economic entity. At the end of August 1890, President Woodruff received confirmation that the U.S. Government, in spite of an 1888 agreement promising that temples would not be disturbed, was going to confiscate them.

President Woodruff later explained that the Lord had shown him by revelation exactly what would take place if plural marriage did not cease. He was shown that the Church would suffer 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 heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people. . . .

"The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. . . . " (See "Excerpts from Three Addresses by President Wilford Woodruff Regarding the Manifesto, Doctrine and Covenants—Declaration 1.)

[Hemidakota]

Humor from our local member:

[DigitalShadow]

Originally Posted by unixknight

Paranoid fantasy, eh?

In Sweden, there is a law being proposed that would compel pastors to perform gay weddings or lose their ability to perform marriages at all. A politician in CA has proposed a similar measure, and there is discussing in Massachusetts of revoking the tax exempt status of churches for not performing gay marriages, which are legal in that state.

Furthermore, Catholic private adoption agencies in San Francisco and in Massachusetts are having to close down because they will not place children with gay couples and are facing the wrath of the state for it.

And the LDS Church knows very well what happens when its own policies on marriage run afoul of the U.S. Government's. Anyone remember how polygamy ended? It was either that or the Church was to be disincorporated and the Temples seized.

So you'll have to forgive us if we're not so willing to believe that we would be left alone to conduct business as usual should the laws change.

First, I would like the point out that Sweden is far different from the US and the vast majority of people are not religious at all there so I really don't think there is much point in comparing things that happen there to the United states where the solid majority is Christian.

Second, I admit that perhaps I have assumed too much of my own view exists in the majority of "liberals." Personally I think churches should be free to be as exclusionist as they desire as long as they don't hurt anyone, but I also don't really consider myself liberal or conservative anyway.

I still think there is an unhealthy level of paranoia amoung religious conservatives lately, but I will concede that it is not quite as unfounded as I initially thought (but it is close).