exmo.com comes to WashPo

[UtahDan]

Every generation thinks it’s the last
Thinks it the end of the world

[SloanHater]

Fair enough. Because the "white horse prophecy" refers to more than one thing. it refers generally to the idea that the elders of the church will one day save the constitution when it hangs by a thread. But it also refers to a 1902 recording of what Edwin Rushton claims was a 1843 conversation with Joseph Smith that is very specific and contains a lot of strange stuff. That document has been repudiated by the church over and over going back to 1918. The general idea, however, has been repeated quite a bit. For example:

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/06/i-...on+hang+thread

So when the church in its press release talks about the prophecy not being historically substantiated, it makes sense to me it is talking about the Rushton version. Not the general idea that so many prophets and apostles have talked about. Does that makes sense?

Now you're broadening your statement. You original statement was the Church issued a press release that it didn't support privately.

[UtahDan]

Now you're broadening your statement. You original statement was the Church issued a press release that it didn't support privately.

That is not at all what I said. I think my remark was quite clear, though hopefully I've made more clear why I think that. Read it again. Here is what I said:

The church in 2010 put out a press release saying that the church does not embrace the white horse prophecy as doctrine, but I think they are talking about the long version that has lots of weird stuff in it. Not the idea that the constitution will hang by a thread and the elders will save it. I think that is alive and well.

[UtahDan]

And just to add further light and knowledge, the reason the church might repudiate the detailed version but not that general idea is that the detailed one contains all kinds of weird stuff in addition to the general idea. Also, its origins are questionable. But the general idea the American government would fail and be saved by the elders of the church was a very mainstream idea and talked about a lot post 1838 as well as after the migration west. It was echoed in the 20th century as well, though not for some time. I also don't think its continued existence reflects poorly on the church.

[SloanHater]

That is not at all what I said. I think my remark was quite clear, though hopefully I've made more clear why I think that. Read it again. Here is what I said:

Could you please cite any other instance where a general authority has claimed that the Elders of Zion would save the country or constitution?

Preferably one after the Church clarified its position on the Prophecy. Thanks.

Also, the Church hasn't always held a position that they would save the US. Brigham was convinced it would be destroyed and replaced with a theocracy. The notion of saving the US and constitution is a modern one.

[UtahDan]

Could you please cite any other instance where a general authority has claimed that the Elders of Zion would save the country or constitution?

Preferably one after the Church clarified its position on the Prophecy. Thanks.

Also, the Church hasn't always held a position that they would save the US. Brigham was convinced it would be destroyed and replaced with a theocracy. The notion of saving the US and constitution is a modern one.

You should read the FAIR article on this. It is actually one of the very best I have read. Very informative and I more or less share its conclusion (speaking of the Rushton version):

In summary it cannot be said that the White Horse Prophecy is accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as official or binding. It also is true that nothing in the so-called prophecy is quoted or used by authorities in the Church. It is true that there is language in the so-called prophecy that is found elsewhere in historically verifiable records.

The prophecy that contains the concept of the Constitution of the United States being challenged and then being saved by the Elders of the Church is generally accepted as a prophecy of Joseph Smith. There is evidence that the Prophet Joseph Smith repeated it more than once and was commonly understood and accepted. It has been quoted many times by leaders of the Church. It is nevertheless not part of the Church canon and is therefore not binding upon the membership of the Church

http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/whitehorse.pdf

[SloanHater]

You should read the FAIR article on this. It is actually one of the very best I have read. Very informative and I more or less share its conclusion (speaking of the Rushton version):

http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/whitehorse.pdf

I think we're disagreeing to agree. That is a good article and I'll have to take the time to re-read it.

Though Church membership may support this idea of a special role in defending the Constitituion, especially that moron Beck, Church Leadership has clearly stated that it doesn't hold that position. I'm not sure what we're even disagreeing about.

[DU Ute]

I'm not sure what we're even disagreeing about.

You're just a disagreeable kind of guy.

[TripletDaddy]

I'm not sure what we're even disagreeing about.

This must be similar to submitting circumstantial evidence that contradicts your position.

[UtahDan]

Joanna Brooks piles on:

http://www.religiondispatches.org/di..._history_%7c_/

Compounding the shame and sense of betrayal some Mormons feel when they first discover controversial information about the tradition’s past is negative reaction from family, friends, and faith community. As Carrie Sheffield expressed in her Washington Post opinion piece, Mormons who question Mormon doctrine or scripture can experience harsh rejection and blame from families and faith leaders.

This dynamic may intensify this campaign season, as every day brings breathlessly sensational accounts of the most controversial aspects of the Mormon tradition, often presented by people with only a marginal or passing knowledge of the faith. Mormon scholars and writers could talk around the clock from now until November and still we could not keep up with the amount of media attention—some of it accurate, some of it distorting, some of it openly antagonistic—Mormonism now receives.

Many have yearned to engage candidly and forthrightly with all of its aspects and dimensions. That time is now. The scrutiny brought on by this election season demands an open approach to Mormon history and controversy and it can’t arrive a moment too soon.

I don't think this election will change Mormonism in any fundamental way, but I am beginning to wonder whether it may give it a little nudge. Not sure what that will look like yet.

[SloanHater]

This must be similar to submitting circumstantial evidence that contradicts your position.

Wrong thread, nice try.

You mean the circumstantial evidence that supports my position? Your evidence on the other hand...

[Sullyute]

Joanna Brooks piles on:

http://www.religiondispatches.org/di..._history_%7c_/



I don't think this election will change Mormonism in any fundamental way, but I am beginning to wonder whether it may give it a little nudge. Not sure what that will look like yet.

I think that this election stands to be a pivitol turning point for the church, especially if Romney is elected. The church is under a microscope more than it ever has (or at least since the Smoot hearings) and this type of attention can either foster change or entrench current thinkiing. I hope that it is the former.

[FMCoug]

Joanna Brooks piles on:

http://www.religiondispatches.org/di..._history_%7c_/



I don't think this election will change Mormonism in any fundamental way, but I am beginning to wonder whether it may give it a little nudge. Not sure what that will look like yet.

Having done my time in the belly of the beast, I think the fundamental problem is that there in the belly, people are clueless about the real world. Even living / working in Utah but for a secular company, around non-members, etc. is hugely different than an environment so insular.

[LA Ute]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is politically neutral and does not endorse or promote any candidate, party or platform. Accordingly, we hope that the campaign practices of political candidates would not suggest that their candidacy is supported by or connected to the church.

The so-called 'White Horse Prophecy' is based on accounts that have not been substantiated by historical research and is not embraced as Church doctrine.

--Kim Farrah, spokeswoman for LDS public affairs, cited in "LDS Church issues statement on Rex Rammell," Rexburg Standard Journal (17h21, 24 December 2009).

(UD, your link doesn't work. Those Who Monitor This Site have probably disabled it.)

[myboynoah]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is politically neutral and does not endorse or promote any candidate, party or platform. Accordingly, we hope that the campaign practices of political candidates would not suggest that their candidacy is supported by or connected to the church.

The so-called 'White Horse Prophecy' is based on accounts that have not been substantiated by historical research and is not embraced as Church doctrine.

--Kim Farrah, spokeswoman for LDS public affairs, cited in "LDS Church issues statement on Rex Rammell," Rexburg Standard Journal (17h21, 24 December 2009).

(UD, your link doesn't work. Those Who Monitor This Site have probably disabled it.)

Wow, pretty bold and obvious warning to Mitt not to use the "so-called" White Horse Prophecy to his advantage during the campaign.