BKP on the Priesthood Ban

[Uncle Ted]

Furthermore, WW was facing a revolt in the Q12. He floated the idea of the manifesto to the Q12 and the response from most was "Hell, no!". So he pulled a few people together, drafted the manifesto, and released it to the press. Most of the Q12 learned about it by reading it in the SL Trib. Can you imagine?

And it still took a second manifesto (from Joseph F. Smith) stating that y'all will be excommunicated if you continue with the polygamous marriages before members started to take the church as being serious.

[Pheidippides]

Furthermore, WW was facing a revolt in the Q12. He floated the idea of the manifesto to the Q12 and the response from most was "Hell, no!". So he pulled a few people together, drafted the manifesto, and released it to the press. Most of the Q12 learned about it by reading it in the SL Trib. Can you imagine?

I know. Completely batty and unprecedented. WW was already a controversial President among the 12 - they had resisted forming the FP in the first place, mindful of BY's power and influence. He floated the idea a couple of times and was shot down harshly at first, a little less so thereafter, but took the defining principle of Mormonism and tossed it on its ear unilaterally. Some have said that our emphasis on the WoW is what filled this massive vacuum.

Of course, my view is that the entire thing was a smokescreen to let the polygamists go further underground while maintaining plausible deniability for the brethren. WW's subsequent plural marriage tends to support that view. Doesn't change either the backdrop or the fact that that he was effectively saying "trust me that I speak for God, and you can know that because I, the mouthpiece of God, have told you so."

[Moliere]

That is a great answer but isn't that "evil speaking of the Lord's anointed"? Of course, is it "evil speaking" if the evidence seems to show that it is true?

This article really doesn't present anything new. President David O. McKay, in 1954, said:


If anything the article just re-ignites lingering questions about the entire thing and creates new ones. e.g.,

(1) How is a 'servitor' different from a 'slave'? The footnote points out that Utah territorial "legislators perceived “servitude” to be a more humane alternative to slavery." Were these "servitors" free? For example, if some white guy ask a "servitor" to get a beer from the frig could he say, "F-off and get your own damn beer you lazy white cracker" without risking being beaten with a whip?

(2) Why does the article mention Jane Manning James without mentioning that she was promised to be adopted into the family of Joseph Smith Jr? Of course, instead she was sealed to JS Jr as a slave "servitor" instead. The article fails to mention anything about that part.

(3) Why didn't the article mention that Elijah Abel was a GA and was ordained by JS Jr?

The biggest question I've always had on this is why does the PoGP hold precedent over Peter's vision in Acts 10. The PH should have been perplexing to many (and it was) as it holds no canonical support. Some of my favorite NT verses come from Acts 10, especially these:

34 ¶Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no arespecter of persons:

35 But in every anation he that bfeareth him, and cworketh drighteousness, is eaccepted with him.

[Harry Tic]

Back in the day when I used to post on religious topics this is what I argued:

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21104

Not to bait you back into posting on a religious topic, Pelagius, but, well, you've already broken your own rule once today...

I can see how your model tries to flesh out what it means for us to give a church leader the benefit of a doubt. You're suggesting that we should perhaps presume that when an individual member's position differs from that of the prophet on a particular question, the prudent thing to do is to defer to the prophet. This might possibly be a helpful model if we had lots of data points to draw from (not to mention a clear way of deciding, empirically, whether the prophet is "right" or "wrong" on those issues). But of course a probabilistic model is next to useless when it comes to settling any discrete, determinate question: was the ban divinely sanctioned and therefore morally correct or not?

FWIW, I do accept the premise that our default position should be to interpret the prophet's position on Issue X as charitably as possible, even if--perhaps especially if--this means that we might have to rethink our own views on X. But I don't think your model captures what this would mean. Sure, a faithful member of the church would be wise to play the odds and "follow the prophet" in a general sense. Fair and good. But when we get down to the nitty gritty of specific cases like this, I'm not sure that it's helpful.

[TripletDaddy]

I can't. Why not go through KSL?

It would haven been worse reading it through the Deseret news because then they wouldnt know until the evening of the next day!

[smokymountainrain]

The biggest question I've always had on this is why does the PoGP hold precedent over Peter's vision in Acts 10. The PH should have been perplexing to many (and it was) as it holds no canonical support. Some of my favorite NT verses come from Acts 10, especially these:

34 ¶Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no arespecter of persons:

35 But in every anation he that bfeareth him, and cworketh drighteousness, is eaccepted with him.

lol, did creekster write the book of Acts?

[Harry Tic]

That is perhaps the most pelagius post I have ever read.

As to Harry Tic ' comments, I believe it was Wilford Woodruff who made the "won't lead you astray, not in the program" statement. I haven't checked dates but I believe he said that with the backdrop of the manifesto and a fractured church, looking to rally his base. I could be remembering this way wrong.

I always get a kick out of the circularity of WW's argument. If the question I am trying to settle is whether or not the prophet can lead me astray, the one person whose position is totally irrelevant to me is the prophet's.

I may have lots of reasons for believing that a prophet is not leading me astray, but his assurance that he is not is, in itself, definitely not one of them.

[Art Vandelay]

I always get a kick out of the circularity of WW's argument. If the question I am trying to settle is whether or not the prophet can lead me astray, the one person whose position is totally irrelevant to me is the prophet's.

I may have lots of reasons for believing that a prophet is not leading me astray, but his assurance that he is not is, in itself, definitely not one of them.

That is a play on one of my favorite questions, that mothers, wives, and girlfriends seem fond of asking boys and men, "Are you lying to me? Now look me in the eye and tell me ARE YOU LYING TO ME!". Somehow No is always the wrong answer to this quandry.

[Harry Tic]

That is a play on one of my favorite questions, that mothers, wifes, and girlfriends seem fond of asking boys and men, "Are you lying to me? Now look me in the eye and tell me ARE YOU LYING TO ME!". Somehow No is always the wrong answer to this quandry.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/12740

[Jeff Lebowski]

I would give anything to hear the inside scoop on how this race article was drafted and approved. As I have mentioned before, I know a GA who related a story about BKP from 3-4 years ago and at that time, BKP clearly saw the ban as divine in origin. Oh, to be a fly on the wall...

[Dwight Schr-ute]

For whatever reason, I expected the article regarding this release to be one of the top stories on KSL. Looks like it's quietly dropping through the time line with UPS delays caused by weather and the Olympic torches throughout history.

[Pheidippides]

I would give anything to hear the inside scoop on how this race article was drafted and approved. As I have mentioned before, I know a GA who related a story about BKP from 3-4 years ago and at that time, BKP clearly saw the ban as divine in origin. Oh, to be a fly on the wall...

I have it on good authority that there is a split among the 12 not just about content but doing these pieces altogether. I was told the lines break just about as you expect. Take that FWIW because I have no way to verify.

[jay santos]

I have it on good authority that there is a split among the 12 not just about content but doing these pieces altogether. I was told the lines break just about as you expect. Take that FWIW because I have no way to verify.

Word is the next one will be on Utah polygamy. I hope it's polygamy in general and covers Nauvoo polygamy because that's where all the interesting stuff is.

[TripletDaddy]

is this the October surprise, albeit a little late, and coming directly from the Church instead of disaffected members? Because I would agree that this would qualify as a big deal!

[Pheidippides]

Word is the next one will be on Utah polygamy. I hope it's polygamy in general and covers Nauvoo polygamy because that's where all the interesting stuff is.

I think that one is going to freak a lot of members the hell out. From polyandry to sending men on missions and marrying their wives to the circumstances of section 132 to the John Taylor revelation to the manifesto circumstances to post manifesto polygamy. I don't know how they can possibly do that one fully in a statement. Even just Utah polygamy has enough to go nuts with.