Is polygamy necessary for exaltation?

[tesuji]

3 minutes ago, Zarahemla said:

Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Joseph F Smith, Heber J Grant, Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B Lee, and Howard W Hunter are all true prophets too.

Certainly. You probably already know that we study the teachings of these prophets in Sunday School every year, and the current leaders quote from them all the time in general conference.

However, if there's a question, then the current prophet and apostles are obviously the ones currently leading the church, by current revelation.

[SpiritDragon]

5 minutes ago, SilentOne said:

From what I understand of the discussion, Carb accepts that the proxy ordinances are properly performed between a woman and all her husbands, but does not consider them to be sealings because according to his understanding, only one will be valid in the end. That is, she is only going to be sealed eternally to one husband, however many the proxy work is performed for.

That would seem to be correct as well. Women can't get sealed to more than one spouse in mortality. However, if doing proxy work for the dead for someone who had multiple marriages, then it makes sense to do the work for all of them and let those in the hereafter ratify that which is correct. It's the same principle as baptisms for the dead, just because we do the work for someone does not mean that they have to accept the ordinance. Agency still applies in the spirit world.The tragedy would be not to perform the work and then they don't have the choice.

[zil]

1 hour ago, Zarahemla said:

Thanks zil. You're one of the calm and nice ones on this board.

I'm glad you feel that way.  I think there are many people here who would like to like you, and a great many people who don't have an opinion one way or the other, but you've been so deep in these polygamy threads that it's hard to imagine what you might be like without them.  Please try to accept this advice in that regard, because I really do want you to stay, find some friends, enjoy some positive conversation, and not get lost down the polygamy rabbit hole...

You may not feel like you're obsessing about polygamy, but from out here, it really looks like you're obsessing.  And the truth is, we (humans) just don't know enough to say what will be in the next life.  At this point, we're beating a dead horse.  Let's move on to another topic.

You yourself have noted your own internal inconsistencies on this topic (night and day, you said).  That means that your posts sometimes reflect that inconsistency.  It's really difficult to have an understandable conversation without consistency.  This is another reason to let go of this one and try a topic where you're able to be consistent.

My time here has taught me that the folks here are generally good to be in a discussion with, and @Carborendum is one of the good ones, in fact, most (maybe all) of the people I've seen you react negatively to are among the good ones.  So consider that perhaps there's more misunderstanding than previously thought.  Consider that what you are taking personally is not meant that way, but rather meant to point out inconsistencies or to simply disagree with the point you made.  Disagreeing may always feel personal, but that doesn't mean it was intended that way.

Finally, @estradling75 has addressed the differences between this site and some others.  That difference is why I'm here and not there.  I looked all over when certain controversies started because I wanted to know what people were saying.  I found a lot of sites where people claimed to be faithful members of the church, but once you got into the discussions, there was nothing faithful about them.  I don't need to listen to people rejecting modern prophets or ignoring the scriptures to know the truth.  If I went to those sites, I would read about complaints and about how they know better than prophets.  On this site, I learn how others live and apply the Gospel, and understand scripture, and that helps me to learn and grow in positive ways, so yeah, I'm staying here, and don't need there.  That doesn't make me close-minded, it makes me judicious in the use of my time.  If you feel a need to disagree with church teachings, or explore the possibility that the church is wrong, you probably will be more comfortable among people who will join you in that exploration.

OK, really finally, I'd much rather discuss the Pilot Falcon Soft Extra Fine fountain pen and how it compares to writing with a Jinhao x750 with a Zebra G nib.  Anyone game?

 

[Maureen]

3 hours ago, Maureen said:

I tried to show that the LDS church allows deceased women to be proxy sealed to all husbands (also deceased) that they had been married to while alive. The post was taken down because it broke lds.net rules about showing Book 1 contents.

 

Quote

Zarahemla said: 

My whole argument with Carb right now is that he doesn't believe that women can get proxy sealed to multiple men in the temple after they die. I'm trying to convince him it happens, but he refuses to believe and thinks it's false. Does anyone have information or a stance on that subject?

 

 

Zarahemla, the LDS church does mention this in the CHI, but lds.net has rules that we are not allowed to post that information here. We are not even allowed to say where to find it in the CHI. You are going to have to ask your Bishop where that information is located.

 

M.

Edited August 5, 2016 by Maureen

[estradling75]

29 minutes ago, SpiritDragon said:

That would seem to be correct as well. Women can't get sealed to more than one spouse in mortality. However, if doing proxy work for the dead for someone who had multiple marriages, then it makes sense to do the work for all of them and let those in the hereafter ratify that which is correct. It's the same principle as baptisms for the dead, just because we do the work for someone does not mean that they have to accept the ordinance. Agency still applies in the spirit world.The tragedy would be not to perform the work and then they don't have the choice.

Every ordinance other then Sealing only involves the one person... and only that one person can have an effect on the Eternal outcome because God is ever faithful.

The Sealing ordinance has a profound difference in that it takes two people.  Each individual has both their God given agency and the promise of all blessings if they personally remain faithful.  Given these two factors we have to accept that the mortal actions of the Sealing ordinance is more about potentiality.  For the simple fact that we can not be Sealed together with our spouse if our spouse doesn't make it.  But our spouse's failure does not rob us of the blessing.

So we simply have to accept that there will be some re-arranging of things related to Sealing before things are finalized.  So while the records of the church that track the ordinances are important they will not be the final say.

The prophets have always taught that obedience was required for Exaltation that has never changed.  When God commanded polygamy then that was required for Exaltation and that is what the prophets exhorted us to do with all diligence.  Then the God commanded us to stop the practice.  If we believe that they are prophets we have to accept that every single on of them would now exhort us to not do polygamy.  So now if we try to live polygamy in mortality we get excommunicated.

Ordinance wise and record wise men have always been allowed to be Sealed to another partner if they end up with more then one legal and lawful mortal marriage.  And the temple will Seal him to all wives of record after he dies.  And more recently it started doing the same for all women.  We do this to keep all the options open.  Now a person looking forward with an eye of faith might see all the ordinance work and an state we are living polygamy now, which is untrue, only the potentially for it in the future is there. 

Some people spend a lot of time trying to figure out how the Lord will handle the re-arranging that is needed.  The simple fact is if you have faith in the Lord then it does not matter.  You simply exercise that faith and trust the Lord will make things right, and focus on the parts that you personally need and must do to claim those blessings

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Zarahemla said:

Apparently it's coming out that more and more people don't like me, not just 1. I'd dare say it's impossible to find one poster here that does like me or defend me. 

Z,

You may find this difficult to believe or understand, but on some levels I do like you.  But I have serious disagreements with some of your ideas.  That alone would not be enough for me to make some posts.  But the big thing I get riled up about is when people are being inconsistent.  I've even attacked those whom I call my friends on this board because of inconsistency.  If you take a look at my history, you'll see that is what I point out more than anything else -- inconsistency.  And you, by your own admission, fit that mold.  

That is why I've had this attitude in many of my posts to you.

3 hours ago, Zarahemla said:

I'll mellow out and apologize to the whole board for how I acted. I just want carb to apologize to me. He is what's got me all riled up on these boards in the first place.

I'll tell you what... I'll give you an olive branch.  You may not believe me at first, but I'd like you to allow me to prove it.

1) Point out what I said that was incorrect between you and me (i.e. that I said about you personally).  But let it be something incorrect. If it is, I'll apologize for my error.
2) Here's my take on bullying:  If I dish it out but can't take it, then I'm being a bully.  But when I get into a verbal fight and I am taking it as good as I'm giving it out, that's just a verbal fight, not bullying.  So, if you can show me where I was unwilling to take anything you threw at me then you can call it bullying and I'll apologize.

This is just another consistency issue.

Edited August 5, 2016 by Guest

[Guest]

But where has it been stated that a woman sealed to multiple men can only choose 1 spouse for eternity? Where did that assumption come from?

[NeedleinA]

@Zarahemla, you just received the olive branch from @Carborendum. Rather than mend the fence and move on, you immediately jumped right back into polygamy once again. May I suggest, mend the fence first and then as others have suggested, try a different topic for a while. Give yourself a little breathing room/pause to learn/discuss something else rather than jumping back in the flames with all of us regarding polygamy. 

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Zarahemla said:

But where has it been stated that a woman sealed to multiple men can only choose 1 spouse for eternity? Where did that assumption come from?

Where did the assumption come from that they can have more?  You're debating again.  And this question has already been answered.  I'm not going to go through to compile all the answers that have already been given because it is something you should have done if you really wanted to know.  This is not something that I'm going to apologize for because it's not incorrect.

Try again.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Where did the assumption come from that they can have more?  You're debating again.  And this question has already been answered.  I'm not going to go through to compile all the answers that have already been given because it is something you should have done if you really wanted to know.  This is not something that I'm going to apologize for because it's not incorrect.

Try again.

 

13 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

@Zarahemla, you just received the olive branch from @Carborendum. Rather than mend the fence and move on, you immediately jumped right back into polygamy once again. May I suggest, mend the fence first and then as others have suggested, try a different topic for a while. Give yourself a little breathing room/pause to learn/discuss something else rather than jumping back in the flames with all of us regarding polygamy. 

What else is there to talk about in a thread about polygamy?

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, Zarahemla said:

 

What else is there to talk about in a thread about polygamy?

Try to focus.  If you're going to get into the "debate" again, then you don't want an apology.  I've told you what I'm willing to apologize for, but you seem to just want to debate some more.  If that's what you want, then don't play the victim if I say you're wrong.

You can't expect me to apologize for saying what I believe to be true.  If you're saying I hurt your feelings... Ummm.  Get a thicker hide.  If I actually ridiculed you for just being alive.

Quote

Can you just stop that!?!  That, that ... breathing in and out; in and out.  It's just so repetitive.  Just stop it, will ya.

or cast ad hominems at you, then I'm sorry.

But the truth is that I don't see anything I ridiculed except for your inconsistency and claim to authority to subjects that by your own admission, you're barely learning about.

Quote

A little learning is a dangerous thing.
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shall draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers up again.

 

Edited August 5, 2016 by Guest

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, Zarahemla said:

But where has it been stated that a woman sealed to multiple men can only choose 1 spouse for eternity? Where did that assumption come from?

I get that assumption from the same place you did--from D&C 132, which provides for polygamy but not for polyandry.

[Guest]

MY PUBLIC APOLOGY TO @Zarahemla

I have been told my comment about your medication was uncalled for and deserved an apology.  I’ve considered the advice and I believe they are correct.

While I am admitting I was wrong for doing so, I believe it may not be as malicious as you may think.  And I honestly say this to hopefully make you feel a little better about it.  Two reasons.

FIRST: I don’t consider medication a stigma that apparently some others do.  I’ve had medications for my own mental illness.  And I’m very comfortable with that fact.  I don’t really care who knows about it.  So, in my mind, commenting on YOUR medication was not the low blow it appeared to be.  It was just another trait.  So, if you felt extra pain because you feel it is some sort of stigma -- that concept never entered my mind.

SECOND: I thought you, yourself, took the topic lightly as I did.  My first comment about you sleeping at night elicited your response that your meds helped you sleep at night.  I truly thought that must be a joke.  Or at the very least, you didn't take the medication issue seriously.  Think about it.  My comment was mostly figurative/sarcastic/humorous and you responded with a literal response that you apparently feel uncomfortable with?  This led me to believe you took the topic lightly.  Apparently, I misread you on that score.

CONCLUSION: My later post about it was, however, still done with some malice and a sardonic attitude.  It was no different than making fun of someone for being short or fat or ugly or whatever.  Looking at it from that perspective I can understand why you considered it bullying.  I am sorry I said it.

 

Edited August 5, 2016 by Guest

[Nothing]

15 hours ago, Zarahemla said:

My whole argument with Carb right now is that he doesn't believe that women can get proxy sealed to multiple men in the temple after they die. I'm trying to convince him it happens, but he refuses to believe and thinks it's false. Does anyone have information or a stance on that subject?

This was discussed on this forum here: http://lds.net/forums/topic/56520-women-sealed-to-more-than-one-husband/

On that thread, there is a link to this: http://askgramps.org/can-a-woman-be-sealed-multiple-times/. It says:

Quote

 

It is my understanding that a living woman can be sealed to only one man. If a divorce has occurred after a sealing, before the woman could be sealed to another man it would be necessary to have the first sealing cancelled by the First Presidency. If the husband to whom the wife has been sealed dies, she may not be sealed to another man.

In performing proxy marriages for deceased persons, however, it is possible for a woman to be sealed to all of her husbands. Only one of the sealings would be valid, and the man to whom the sealing would be effective would undoubtedly be determined by the Lord, who is the judge of all.

 

No, it's not an official source, but I believe such sealings are performed.

[omegaseamaster75]

14 hours ago, estradling75 said:

The prophets have always taught that obedience was required for Exaltation that has never changed.  When God commanded polygamy then that was required for Exaltation and that is what the prophets exhorted us to do with all diligence.  Then the God commanded us to stop the practice.  If we believe that they are prophets we have to accept that every single on of them would now exhort us to not do polygamy.  So now if we try to live polygamy in mortality we get excommunicated.

 

I plucked this out because it struck me that I do not know very much about why we stopped practicing polygamy.  The narrative years later is the God told us to stop but I wonder if that really was the case ( I am sure it was part of it). I have heard of approved sealings after the 1890 declaration in the US and certainly Mexico. If the Lord said stop why didn't some stop?  Were there social and economic pressures from the US government?

Time to start digging.

[Nothing]

I want to clarify why I have talked about the Journal of Discourses (JOD) here. Take a look at Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young.

Many, if not most, of the quotes are taken from Discourses of Brigham Young selected by John A. Widtsoe, 1941 (which is abbreviated as DBY). The preface of this book states:

 

Quote

This book was made possible because Brigham Young secured stenographic reports of his addresses, As he traveled among the people, reporters accompanied him. All that he said was recorded. Practically all of these discourses (from December 16, 1851 to August 19, 1877) were published in the Journal of Discourses, which was widely distributed. The public utterances of few great historical figures have been so faithfully and fully preserved.

 

So the JOD, which "so faithfully and fully preserved" Brigham Young’s sermons, really is the primary source for a great amount of information in the Brigham Young manual. Despite this, when someone brings up a concern with something Brother Brigham said, some people quickly discount that concern by saying the JOD “is not an official publication of The Church” and “Questions have been raised about the accuracy of some transcriptions.” I wonder if would it be better to discuss the concern rather than simply discounting the source, a source which is good enough for Church manuals.

[Guest]

Maybe quoting from church manuals would be a better idea.

[Nothing]

Quote

 

estradling75: As for the remarks... like the cut and paste job from the anti site... it is really not ok.  Nor in accordance with the rules.  But we let both pass

You seem to be fighting for one and against the other and that is hypocritical of you.

 

 

I get it now. Thanks for the clarification. I understand why pasting from an anti site is against the rules and I respect that. I’m not fighting for it. I just wanted to understand.

Edited August 5, 2016 by Nothing

[Just_A_Guy]

15 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

I plucked this out because it struck me that I do not know very much about why we stopped practicing polygamy.  The narrative years later is the God told us to stop but I wonder if that really was the case ( I am sure it was part of it). I have heard of approved sealings after the 1890 declaration in the US and certainly Mexico. If the Lord said stop why didn't some stop?  Were there social and economic pressures from the US government?

Time to start digging.

As I understand it, Woodruff had stopped authorizing plural marriages--at least within the US--about a year before issuing the Manifesto; which is why the Manifesto contains the otherwise-curious language about "We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice . . ."  The debate within the Q12, during this period, had been whether to formally announce that they had stopped authorizing such unions:  there was disagreement as to whether the moratorium was temporary or permanent in nature. 

The supplemental material to OD-1 makes it pretty clear that there was a revelation preceding the authoring of the Manifesto; but the catch is that the Manifesto does not actually constitute the revelation itself--it is actually an announcement that a (unpublished) revelation has been received, and a statement of policy based on said revelation.  Policy will inevitably have exceptions; and it's quite possible that each exception was just as inspired as the policy itself was.

At any rate, the Manifesto did what it was supposed to do:  Severely curtailed the practice of polygamy in the Church (especially in the United States), ended the government's attacks on the Church, and paved the way for Utah statehood.  The Second Manifesto of 1904 mopped up the last vestiges of polygamy and paved the way for the purging of the two pro-polygamy holdouts in the Q12.

[Just_A_Guy]

10 minutes ago, Nothing said:

I want to clarify why I have talked about the Journal of Discourses (JOD) here. Take a look at Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young.

Many, if not most, of the quotes are taken from Discourses of Brigham Young selected by John A. Widtsoe, 1941 (which is abbreviated as DBY). The preface of this book states:

 

 

So the JOD, which "so faithfully and fully preserved" Brigham Young’s sermons, really is the primary source for a great amount of information in the Brigham Young manual. Despite this, when someone brings up a concern with something Brother Brigham said, some people quickly discount that concern by saying the JOD “is not an official publication of The Church” and “Questions have been raised about the accuracy of some transcriptions.” I wonder if would it be better to discuss the concern rather than simply discounting the source, a source which is good enough for Church manuals.

Something to bear in mind about the JoD is that it didn't constitute the first publication of many/most of the material contained therein--the Deseret News usually published them first.  As I understand it, during compilation of the Brigham Young manual, the Church made a conscious effort to cite as much as possible from the Deseret News rather than the JoD (antis suggest it's because the Church wanted to avoid encouraging use of the JoD; apologists suggest that the Church had a sincere belief that the earliest report would be the most reliable and in best harmony with current historiographical practices).

The potential for transcription/scrivener's errors endemic to the JoD, really exist with pretty much any recorded extemporaneous speech from any church leader of the period (ever seen the competing versions of the King Follett discourse)?  It's not that we should be more trusting of the sermons recorded in the JoD; it's that we should probably be a little less trusting of the sermons reported via other sources.

[omegaseamaster75]

14 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

As I understand it, Woodruff had stopped authorizing plural marriages--at least within the US--about a year before issuing the Manifesto; which is why the Manifesto contains the otherwise-curious language about "We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice . . ."  The debate within the Q12, during this period, had been whether to formally announce that they had stopped authorizing such unions:  there was disagreement as to whether the moratorium was temporary or permanent in nature. 

The supplemental material to OD-1 makes it pretty clear that there was a revelation preceding the authoring of the Manifesto; but the catch is that the Manifesto does not actually constitute the revelation itself--it is actually an announcement that a (unpublished) revelation has been received, and a statement of policy based on said revelation.  Policy will inevitably have exceptions; and it's quite possible that each exception was just as inspired as the policy itself was.

At any rate, the Manifesto did what it was supposed to do:  Severely curtailed the practice of polygamy in the Church (especially in the United States), ended the government's attacks on the Church, and paved the way for Utah statehood.  The Second Manifesto of 1904 mopped up the last vestiges of polygamy and paved the way for the purging of the two pro-polygamy holdouts in the Q12.

I found this little nugget, and granted I was not alive then, nor aware of the political climate in the church. It seems that they certainly didn't take the 1890 manifesto seriously though:

Marriages and Sealings Performed Outside the Temple, 1853–1857, 1873–1903, Church History Library, Salt Lake City. The ledger does not record plural and monogamous marriages known to have been performed by Anthony W. Ivins, Matthias F. Cowley, and Abraham O. Woodruff during the 1890s and early 1900s. In all, 8 of 19 members of the Quorum of the Twelve who served between 1890 and 1904 married new plural wives during those years, and these marriages are not represented on the ledger. These members include Brigham Young Jr., George Teasdale, John W. Taylor, Abraham H. Cannon, Marriner W. Merrill, Matthias F. Cowley, Abraham Owen Woodruff, and Rudger Clawson. It is alleged that President Wilford Woodruff married an additional plural wife in 1897, but the historical record makes this unclear (see Thomas G. Alexander, Things in Heaven and Earth: The Life and Times of Wilford Woodruff, a Mormon Prophet [Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1991], 326–28).

 

For those who are wondering this is from the footnotes from this website: https://www.lds.org/topics/the-manifesto-and-the-end-of-plural-marriage?lang=eng

Edited August 5, 2016 by omegaseamaster75

[Just_A_Guy]

25 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

I found this little nugget, and granted I was not alive then, nor aware of the political climate in the church. It seems that they certainly didn't take the 1890 manifesto seriously though:

Marriages and Sealings Performed Outside the Temple, 1853–1857, 1873–1903, Church History Library, Salt Lake City. The ledger does not record plural and monogamous marriages known to have been performed by Anthony W. Ivins, Matthias F. Cowley, and Abraham O. Woodruff during the 1890s and early 1900s. In all, 8 of 19 members of the Quorum of the Twelve who served between 1890 and 1904 married new plural wives during those years, and these marriages are not represented on the ledger. These members include Brigham Young Jr., George Teasdale, John W. Taylor, Abraham H. Cannon, Marriner W. Merrill, Matthias F. Cowley, Abraham Owen Woodruff, and Rudger Clawson. It is alleged that President Wilford Woodruff married an additional plural wife in 1897, but the historical record makes this unclear (see Thomas G. Alexander, Things in Heaven and Earth: The Life and Times of Wilford Woodruff, a Mormon Prophet [Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1991], 326–28).

 

For those who are wondering this is from the footnotes from this website: https://www.lds.org/topics/the-manifesto-and-the-end-of-plural-marriage?lang=eng

Sure, the 1890 manifesto didn't immediately end polygamy in the LDS Church; but it did signal a turning of the tide and convinced the feds that the Church was committed to ending the practice--which, I think, was primarily what it was supposed to do.

Edited August 5, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[omegaseamaster75]

11 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Sure, the 1890 manifesto didn't immediately end polygamy in the LDS Church; but it did signal a turning of the tide and convinced the feds that the Church was committed to ending the practice--which, I think, was primarily what it was supposed to do.

Something stinks, I have always believed the white washed narrative that Polygamy stopped with the 1890 manifesto and the second declaration was to root out a few rogues. Sounds to me that the manifesto was to keep them "the brethren" out of jail and to stop the government from seizing church assets. WW said "The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for … any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice."

Call me crazy but if I saw a vision and the Lord told me to stop doing something I might actually stop doing said thing, but they didn't.

"To Whom It May Concern:
 Press dispatches having been sent for political purposes, from Salt Lake City, which have been widely published, to the effect that the Utah Commission, in their recent report to the Secretary of the Interior, allege that plural marriages are still being solemnized and that forty or more such marriages have been contracted in Utah since last June or during the past year, also that in public discourses the leaders of the Church have taught, encouraged and urged the continuance of the practice of polygamy—

 I, therefore, as President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, do hereby, in the most solemn manner, declare that these charges are false. We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice, and I deny that either forty or any other number of plural marriages have during that period been solemnized in our Temples or in any other place in the Territory.

 One case has been reported, in which the parties allege that the marriage was performed in the Endowment House, in Salt Lake City, in the Spring of 1889, but I have not been able to learn who performed the ceremony; whatever was done in this matter was without my knowledge. In consequence of this alleged occurrence the Endowment House was, by my instructions, taken down without delay.

 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.

 There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of my associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy; and when any Elder of the Church has used language which appeared to convey any such teaching, he has been promptly reproved. And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.

 
Wilford Woodruff
President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
 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.”

 
Salt Lake City, Utah, October 6, 1890"

 

 

[Just_A_Guy]

14 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Call me crazy but if I saw a vision and the Lord told me to stop doing something I might actually stop doing said thing, but they didn't.

Therein lies the rub.  What did the revelation actually say?  Was Woodruff told to completely stop, to just mostly stop, or just to issue a statement saying that they had stopped?

We don't know--the text of the revelation itself, isn't available.  But the demolition of the Endowment House, in conjunction with the issuance of the Manifesto, was no meaningless gesture.

Incidentally, the By Common Consent blog ran a series on the history of church correlation, back around 2010-ish.  I think you'd enjoy it--I don't agree with all of its conclusions, but it suggests that the need for correlation is rooted in the underground-polygamy movement of the 1880s and the Church membership's subsequent uncertainty as to whether Woodruff really "meant" what he said in the Manifesto.

Edited August 5, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[omegaseamaster75]

8 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Therein lies the rub.  What did the revelation actually say?  Was Woodruff told to completely stop, to just mostly stop, or just to issue a statement saying that they had stopped?

We don't know--the text of the revelation itself, isn't available.

But the demolition of the Endowment House, in conjunction with the issuance of the Manifesto, was no meaningless gesture.

Pretty thin really, stop means stop not kinda stop or mostly stop. "The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. " But they didn't stop.

I get it there was a lot of political pressure at the time, the church lost a big case trying to defend their religious practices, they wanted statehood so big pressure to capitulate to the US government and they make big gestures to show contrition and compliance to the rule of law.