Talk:1890 Manifesto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Latter Day Saint movement WikiProject, an attempt to provide comprehensive and detailed information about the Latter Day Saint movement and Mormonism on Wikipedia. To participate in the project, edit this article, visit the List of articles about the Latter Day Saint movement, the project page, and/or join the discussion. For writing guidelines about contributing to the project, you may want to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints)
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:

Several important subtopics are not covered but probably should be -

  • Woodruff's own involvement with Post-Manifesto plural marriages
  • Other Church leaders views about the revelatory status of the Manifesto (such as the denial by Lorenzo Snow and Joseph F. Smith that it was a revelation)
  • That the Manifesto was neither the LDS Church's first Manifesto, nor its first "Official Declaration"
  • The pressure from non-Mormon politicians to have it put into the LDS Doctrine and Covenants
  • Authorship being attributed to Charles W. Penrose
  • How Fundamentalist groups see it as the fulfillment of prophesy, and in contradiction to Woodruff's 1889 revelation

--Tobey 23:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Tobyjaggle - some clarifications.

  • First, Woodruff's involvment in post-manifesto plural marriages may be discussed - especially in jurisdiction changes - for example, "After the Manifesto, Woodruff authorized plural marriages in Canada and Mexico." That is a correct statement. But evidence of his involvment in Utah marriages is scant, and when he found out about it, he reprimanded the leader publicly, but did not cancel the marriage. Becuase they were performed where it was legal, it was not an issue. Remember the Edmunds tucker act only applies to places that have "territorial status" of the United States.
  • Denial that the Manifesto was the result of a revelation? You are splitting major hairs there. Lorenzo and Smith both satated, that they believed in all of the revelations of Joseph Smith - that was a "code" for non-Utah plural marriages. However, they believed in revelations by Smith stating that the people should obey the laws of the land, and another that said if something the Mormons were commanded to do was prohibited by enemies of the church they were excused from it. In this case, no revelation was needed. Later, however, JFS, as church president, referenced "the revelation leading up to the manifesto" by Woodruff - and excommunicated apostles for performing plural marriages - and issues the second manifesto. Did something change? possibly, but I'm not sure from my reading.
  • The manifesto was not a revelation. Nor is the official declaration. And yes, this was the first official declaration - not the first proclamation. There is a difference. For example, the two official declarations announce that a revelation was received. It does not give the relvelation. but states that one was given. A proclamation, is very different. There has been one on governments, orgin of man, family, the living christ, the restsored gospel for a total of, i believe, ten proclamations thus far. Please don't confuse the two. The church archives will not allow people to read either of the two revelations given that lead to the declarations. But they are there. Some think that the Family proclamation and the OD-1 are on teh same standing, but they are not. One is an announcement of revelation, the other a resulting actions of a revelation.

I'll have to come back and finish my thoughts, but all of this informaitno may be interesting to include. But be careful about the wording, as people get confused. -Visorstuff 23:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)