Sign in to follow this  
Carborendum

Three Official Proclamations

Recommended Posts

Thus far, there have been three officially declared proclamations (not to be confused with "Declarations").

  • The Living Christ
  • The Family
  • The Restoration (The Church)

I don't know if there will be more or not.  But there is a very interesting pattern about these three.  God, Family, Church. They are not just proclamations. The Apostles of God are bearing testimony to the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition to those, they have had three others (at least from the Church's website), or as President Nelson stated, before the one this past Conference, there have been 5 others.

5 previous proclamations in Church History

Quote

The previous five proclamations are:

  • Proclamation of the First Presidency to the Saints Scattered Abroad, issued on January 15, 1841, in Nauvoo, Illinois—Signed by Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon and Hyrum Smith, the proclamation details the progress of the Church despite hardships and persecutions.

  • Proclamation of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, issued on April 6, 1845, in New York City, New York, and on October 22, 1845, in Liverpool, England—Issued by the Twelve since the martyrdom dissolved the First Presidency, the proclamation was printed and distributed on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. It proclaimed that God had spoken from the heavens and restored the gospel of Jesus Christ to the earth and included a voice of warning as well as an invitation.

  • Proclamation of the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles, issued on October 21, 1865, in Salt Lake City—This proclamation was sent to Church members to correct certain theories about the nature of God and established the order that new doctrine is to be announced only by the First Presidency.

In some ways it still matches up with what you have said about them bearing testimony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Thus far, there have been three officially declared proclamations (not to be confused with "Declarations").

  • The Living Christ
  • The Family
  • The Restoration (The Church)

I don't know if there will be more or not.  But there is a very interesting pattern about these three.  God, Family, Church. They are not just proclamations. The Apostles of God are bearing testimony to the world.

It is my personal opinion that proclamations (especially the most recent) are more of a warning of things that will shortly come to pass.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Traveler said:

It is my personal opinion that proclamations (especially the most recent) are more of a warning of things that will shortly come to pass.

The Traveler

I am somewhat of this position, myself. 

  • First Vision: 1820
  • Established Church: 1830
  • Joseph's Death: 1844
  • OD1: 1890
  • D&C 138: 1918 
  • OD2: 1978
  • Family Proclamation: 1995
  • The Living Christ: 2000
  • The Restoration Proclamation: 2020

If we have another proclamation in 5 years, we'll know there's something going on.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

If we have another proclamation in 5 years, we'll know there's something going on.

You do not have to wait even 5 years - rest assured that something is definitely going on!!!!   😯

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all coming together.

Our family discussed how the Conference seemed to focus on the Priesthood and Receiving personal revelation from the Holy Ghost.  That set upon the background of the restoration seemed to parallel the Three Proclamations.

God, Family, Church

We have priesthood restored to provide the ordinances of blessing and confirmation (Gift of the Holy Ghost).  We have priesthood restored to provide for the welding link obtained in the temples of the Lord.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/8/2020 at 6:47 AM, Carborendum said:

Thus far, there have been three officially declared proclamations (not to be confused with "Declarations").

  • The Living Christ
  • The Family
  • The Restoration (The Church)

I don't know if there will be more or not.  But there is a very interesting pattern about these three.  God, Family, Church. They are not just proclamations. The Apostles of God are bearing testimony to the world.

I can see one more given, which has technically already been proclaimed by a First Presidency of the Church, and that is the "Origin of Man" -- our creation in the image of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/8/2020 at 8:47 AM, Carborendum said:

Thus far, there have been three officially declared proclamations (not to be confused with "Declarations").

  • The Living Christ
  • The Family
  • The Restoration (The Church)

I don't know if there will be more or not.  But there is a very interesting pattern about these three.  God, Family, Church. They are not just proclamations. The Apostles of God are bearing testimony to the world.

To clarify, technically The Living Christ is not a Proclamation. At least not one of the five earlier Proclamations to which President Nelson had referred.  @JohnsonJones shared a link that gives the listing of the official proclamations. If you want to be able to read them all, this link can link you to copies of the documents.

https://www.ldsliving.com/What-Are-the-6-Proclamations-that-Have-Been-Issued-in-Church-History/s/92664

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/9/2020 at 9:17 AM, Carborendum said:

I am somewhat of this position, myself. 

  • First Vision: 1820
  • Established Church: 1830
  • Joseph's Death: 1844
  • OD1: 1890
  • D&C 138: 1918 
  • OD2: 1978
  • Family Proclamation: 1995
  • The Living Christ: 2000
  • The Restoration Proclamation: 2020

If we have another proclamation in 5 years, we'll know there's something going on.

@Anddenex mentioned another one - the Origin of Man.

I saw that OD2 needed a vote whereas the others apparently did not.  What criteria determines if a proclamation 
is voted on or not?

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/od/1?lang=eng

Regarding OD1, I see several punishments and consequences mentioned.

- all temple 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. 
- our Prophets and Apostles and fathers would not be free men. 
- confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would not stop the practice).

It seems there was a danger of imprisonment, not death, and confiscation only to those involved in the temple 
and the Apostles/Prophets of the church. The majority of Saints who were not worthy to enter the temples 
would not be under this threat.

What confusion is OD1 referring to?  How would this same confusion and trouble come upon the whole Church 
when other countries of the world did not have temples and temple-workers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, romans8 said:

 

[1] I saw that OD2 needed a vote whereas the others apparently did not.  What criteria determines if a proclamation 
is voted on or not?

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/od/1?lang=eng

[2]Regarding OD1, I see several punishments and consequences mentioned.

- all temple 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. 
- our Prophets and Apostles and fathers would not be free men. 
- confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would not stop the practice).

It seems there was a danger of imprisonment, not death, and confiscation only to those involved in the temple 
and the Apostles/Prophets of the church. The majority of Saints who were not worthy to enter the temples 
would not be under this threat.

What confusion is OD1 referring to?  How would this same confusion and trouble come upon the whole Church 
when other countries of the world did not have temples and temple-workers?

1.  In the first 50 years of the LDS Church, congregations might vote on literally anything.  Just like some modern Evangecal preachers might punctuate a passionate sermon with a “can I get an amen?”, early LDS leaders often would teach a sermon and then invite the congregation to take a “sustaining vote”, recommitting themselves individually and collectively to the principle in question.

On the other hand, LDS scripture dictates that the Church should be run by “common consent”.  The contours of that, both in theory and in historical practice, are fuzzy; but the general modern interpretation is that new leaders and new scriptural canon must be accepted by a sustaining vote of the congregation to which it applies.

2.  First off, as a point of pedantry—OD-1 technically encompasses only the announcement signed by President Woodruff.  The rest of the material in the D&C is explanatory material, and its canonical status is perhaps a little less certain.  

Second:  in point of fact, the explanatory statement speaks of “confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice)”.  In other words:  Woodruff sensed that most of the Church was perfectly willing to stop entering new plural marriages but was waiting for guidance from the church leadership.  IIRC Woodruff himself had authorized relatively few plural marriages during his tenure as president, and had authorized none for about a year before the Manifesto.  (I should note that individual apostles had done so through this period, and continued to do so afterwards; in those days the apostles were much more willing to act independently of the church president’s authority).  But institutionally, from Woodruff’s perspective:  what was at play as of October 1890 was not really the ongoing practice of polygamy; but the Church’s theoretical right to maybe resume the practice at some undefined point in the future.  Woodruff (under, I believe, divine guidance) felt it wasn’t worth it.  He saw temple worship as the culmination of the “restoration” that Mormonism encompassed—to his mind the point of being a Mormon wasn’t just to save the living people around you, but your dead ancestors who had gone before.  That could not happen without temples.  (There’s a book called “Wilford Woodruff’s Witness” by Jennifer Ann Mackley that gets into this, if you’re interested.)

I think it’s also worth noting just how tightly the federal government was clamping down in Mormonism.  Mormons—polygamist or not—couldn’t vote in Idaho, and the feds were looking at expanding that nationwide.  Women’s suffrage in Utah had been revoked.  Mormons couldn’t immigrate.  Missionaries going abroad couldn’t count on the assistance or protection of the US government or embassies or consulates abroad.  The Church institutionally had been disincorporated; any successor institutions were banned from owning property whose value exceeded $50,000 in total (and the Feds were, I believe, getting ready to move that amount down to zero); nearly all its buildings and properties (tithing yards, church farms and animal herds, Indian farm ministries, schools, a number of local meetinghouses, the Church historian’s office, Church-owned quarries and construction enterprises, the Perpetual Emigration Fund), except the temples, were already in receivership; and the courts had just ruled that the legal strategies and arguments the church had deployed to try to save its three operating temples as well as the nearly-completed Salt Lake temple and the other structures on the temple block, were invalid.

Even more than that: As a community Mormonism was (and is) held together largely by leadership in its highest echelons who crisscrossed Utah Territory, the United States, and the world; visiting congregations, offering love and support and news from congregations elsewhere, resolving doctrinal questions, and reinforcing the members’ sense of purpose.  That could not happen purely by letter; especially in the 1890s.  Remember, Mormonism’s raison d’etre was the idea that primitive Christianity fell into error and ultimately lost its divine authority, in large part because its leadership had eventually been prevented from doing the kind of roving ministry that characterized the lives of Paul in ancient times and Brigham, Heber, and Parley in the 19th century.  Church members in the 1880s certainly looked to God for protection; but from a material standpoint they did see the actions of the federal government as being quite capable of resulting in the complete dissolution of the LDS Church—which, as a number of congresscritters in Washington openly confessed, was indeed the underlying intent of these federal actions.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this