Official Declarations
Though not really the point of his post, Hellmut of at Beyond Ourselves brought up an interesting note in his Sex and Salvation post.
One finds the following point made in the Official Declaration 2:
In early June of this year, the First Presidency announced that a revelation had been received by President Spencer W. Kimball extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members of the Church.
In contrast, Official Declaration 1 has this to say:
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.
Can we say that both of these declarations, given their different natures (one based in revelation one in response to legal pressures), are equal in authority?
Popularity: 4% [?]
Official Declaration-1 seems to me to be an anti-revelation revelation. We know that, at least on a limited basis, plural marriages went on in a more or less accepted fashion (by at least some of the Church leadership) until Joseph F. Smith’s Second Manifesto in 1904. I fully believe Official Declaration-1 is a revelation, in the sense of God bluffing the Gentiles in order to fulfill His own purposes (kind of like Abraham lying about his wife).
29 Mar 2006 @ 14:58 | Permalink
If you could be troubled to read the accompanying lengthy footnotes to Declaration 1, you would realize that it is just as based in revelation as Official Declaration 2.
29 Mar 2006 @ 17:49 | Permalink
Kim,
I am offended that you would put forth an opinion such as this but not include the whole written subject of Official Declaration 1.
Kudos to Itbugaf for his comment above, as I was just about to say EXACTLY the same thing. Twisting the scriptures to create controversy (whether you meant it this way or not) is in my OPINION a very serious issue. I believe I have lost a little bit of respect for your site here Kim.
For those who might be reading further here is the part that is missing…
“…I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had the Spirit upon me for a long time. But what I want to say is this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there HAD NOT THE GOD OF HEAVEN COMMANDED ME TO DO WHAT I DID DO… …I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write.”
This is 2nd to last paragraph of the Official Declaration #1 of Wilford Woodruff.
So, it appears to me to be PRETTY DARN DIFINITIVE that BOTH were revelation from God, and no amount of banter and specualtion further to this will change my opinion.
K.
29 Mar 2006 @ 22:21 | Permalink
Then why state it was given as a result of laws passed? Why state the declaration as his intention to obey the law? If it was a revelation in the same vein as President Kimball’s was, why not simply declare to the saints that the Lord had commanded him that the practice be abolished? After all, one would think that the saints of the time would have found the Lord’s word more binding than the state’s law.
29 Mar 2006 @ 22:28 | Permalink
I think you had better go back and read Official Declaration 1 Kim, seriously.
K.
29 Mar 2006 @ 22:34 | Permalink
Kris,
For your benefit, I have read the OD1 for the sixth time in the last 24 hours. Now, was I supposed to find something? The reason you asked me to reread it was unclear.
As I was reading it, I did notice a few things; things like:
Was that what I supposed to find?
30 Mar 2006 @ 07:48 | Permalink
Kim, obviously you were supposed to find what Kris already quoted in #3, along with the other material surrounding it, which makes it abundantly clear that President Woodfruff was basing this declaration in revelation.
You’re too smart not to see that, so why are you playing coy and pretending to miss the point?
30 Mar 2006 @ 09:01 | Permalink
Too bad talking to God is only worthy of a footnote and not inclusion in the actual proclamation…
If only talking to God had not been in such abundance at the time, I’m sure it would have.
30 Mar 2006 @ 09:22 | Permalink
Too bad you think the Prophet should be required to simultaneously disclose the details of the revelatory experience every time he announces something that’s based on revelation.
30 Mar 2006 @ 11:09 | Permalink
…or just wear the ‘I just spoke to God’ hat. Whatever is easier.
30 Mar 2006 @ 11:16 | Permalink
everybody chill…
Obviously it was a revelation. And obviously Pres. Woodruff was up to his neck in the socio-political realities of his day (“God moves in a mysterious way, His wonders to perform”).
30 Mar 2006 @ 14:14 | Permalink
re: #7. ltbugaf, Kris asked me to read the OD1, not the accompanying commentary.
30 Mar 2006 @ 20:14 | Permalink
OK…read the accompanying commentary.
K.
30 Mar 2006 @ 20:17 | Permalink
Yes. Congratualations on pointing out that Kris failed to distinguish between the text above the line and below the line when recommending the reading. I’m sure this opportunity to show smugness was much more rewarding than simply following what you already knew she meant and engaging in the real issue.
30 Mar 2006 @ 20:18 | Permalink
Gee wizz. You guys really like each other. Just because people disagree with us does not mean they are evil.
Overseeing an annotation is an honest mistake. Give the guy a break.
30 Mar 2006 @ 20:50 | Permalink
Hellmut, as you can see above, the annotation had already been explicitly referred to and quoted from in both the second and third comments.
31 Mar 2006 @ 03:45 | Permalink
So then since Kris repeated herself, I will repeat myself:
Then why state it was given as a result of laws passed? Why state the declaration as his intention to obey the law? If it was a revelation in the same vein as President Kimball’s was, why not simply declare to the saints that the Lord had commanded him that the practice be abolished? After all, one would think that the saints of the time would have found the Lord’s word more binding than the state’s law.
31 Mar 2006 @ 06:53 | Permalink
Then based on your above reasoning, you conclude that the declaration was not based on revelation? Or do you believe that it was?
If you conclude that it was not based on revelation, do you believe President Woodruff was simply lying when he made the comments that both I and Kris have pointed out?
It’s probably true that “the saints of the time would have found the Lord’s word more binding than the state’s law,” but of course this utterly (and deliberately?) ignores the fact that this declaration was not made merely to “the saints” but to the world, and in particular to the United States Government. Their concern was with compliance to the law, not with the reasons for it.
31 Mar 2006 @ 07:57 | Permalink
“…why not simply declare to the saints that the Lord had commanded him that the practice be abolished?”
He did. I can refer you to the same passages yet again, if you like.
31 Mar 2006 @ 07:58 | Permalink
He did not declare it in the declaration.
31 Mar 2006 @ 09:27 | Permalink
So what? He declared it to the Church in another time and place.
31 Mar 2006 @ 10:45 | Permalink
I doubt that was what was going through the minds of the Saints at the time. “It sure sounds like he is saying he is bowing to the pressure of the United States government, but don’t worry. Next year, he will tell us it was received as a revelation.”
31 Mar 2006 @ 21:25 | Permalink
And?
2 Apr 2006 @ 15:36 | Permalink
And there was a difference between the way this declaration was presented to the saints and the way OD2 was presented, which is the basis for the post.
2 Apr 2006 @ 17:53 | Permalink
AND? We are talking semantics now?
K.
2 Apr 2006 @ 17:55 | Permalink
It has nothing to do with semantics. One specifically mentioned revelation when issued, and one did not.
2 Apr 2006 @ 17:57 | Permalink
I suggest the Prophets must fill out a form in triplicate, stating all pertinent details of where, when, how, and what revelation or NON revelation they have received. The contents of this form must then be read to the members, at and only at the April Conference each year. There must be no mention of the press in said announcement for fear of the perception that the Church is bowing to political pressure. The form must then be published no later than 90 days from said annoucement in a forum herewith to be Our Thoughts. Scrutiny of said announcement must then occur relentlessly by Kim Siever and if found unacceptable, must be withdrawn for corrections in semantics etc etc.
Perhaps that might be a better way to handle revelation? Goodness, I hope more people think like you do Kim. *cringe*
K.
2 Apr 2006 @ 18:02 | Permalink
Kris,
You certainly are Canadian. Sarcastic to the core.
2 Apr 2006 @ 18:24 | Permalink
Sarcastic yes, at times. I am simply pointing out the ridiculous nature of the semantic badgering of the Official Declaration in question.
Kim, do you really feel that the way the OD is worded and subsequently published and discussed in later times takes away from your testmony?
I think we should let this lie, unless of course you really aren’t seeing Itbugaf and I’s point of view.
BTW I am VERY proud to be Canadian Mary.
K.
2 Apr 2006 @ 18:31 | Permalink
OH…I also wonder how you find the time Kim to think of, comment on and keep track of all these threads that are going on. You must be one super duper multitasker to keep this up and take care of your “real life” responsibilities…how do you find the time? Seriously, I was just wondering about it.
K.
2 Apr 2006 @ 18:33 | Permalink
Kris,
So am I. I don’t wish to be any other nationality.
Kim never said it took away from his testimony. You don’t know what he went through to gain his very strong and abiding testimony and his dedication to the Gospel. He asks thought provoking questions to find out what other’s thoughts are on different things. However, it seems that many people either deliberately or naively, misunderstand him. Thank goodness he married me, since I do understand him and know what he is saying. Well, that’s what 11 years of marriage creates.
2 Apr 2006 @ 18:41 | Permalink
Kris, the wording of the official declarations affects my testimony in no way.
I don’t post as often as you think I do. Friday for example saw 12 hours between comments. I also don’t spend time thinking of post topics. They come to me while praying, reading scriptures, commuting, sitting in Sunday School and elders quorum.
As well, I receive an email every time someone comments on my posts, so that helps me keep up to date on items. The list of recent comments in the sidebar helps as well.
2 Apr 2006 @ 19:24 | Permalink
Kim, you seem to think that the internal mentioning of revelation is more important than the actual existence of revelation. Your original post described the two Official Declarations as “one based in revelation one in response to legal pressures.” But in fact, both were based in revelation. So why are you now so concerned about whether the revelatory basis of the Declaration is found in the body of its text or somewhere else? Regardless of where it’s found, it still exists. Contrary to your description, the Declaration was based in revelation, just as much as Official Declaration 2 was.
3 Apr 2006 @ 04:29 | Permalink
So then as I asked in #4, why state it was given as a result of laws passed? Why state the declaration as Woodruff’s intention to obey the law?
3 Apr 2006 @ 05:50 | Permalink
So then, as I already answered, see #18.
3 Apr 2006 @ 08:16 | Permalink
#18 does not address the question as to why President Woodruff stated that the declaration was being issued as a result of laws passed and as his intention to obey the law, rather than stating that it was being issued as a result of revelation he received.
3 Apr 2006 @ 08:20 | Permalink
Yes it does: “…this declaration was not made merely to “the saints” but to the world, and in particular to the United States Government. Their concern was with compliance to the law, not with the reasons for it.”
The declaration was a public pronouncement of what the Church was going to do. That it did not explicitly include references to the revelations that brought it about matters not at all. The question is whether the declaration was founded in revelation. The answer, which was staring you in the face from the beginning, is yes.
3 Apr 2006 @ 08:30 | Permalink
President Kimball also made his declaration to the world, yet he explicitly starts out the declaration by saying it was received by revelation. It would seem that it mattered to President Kimball that references to the revelations that brought it about were mentioned.
3 Apr 2006 @ 08:53 | Permalink
Q: Was Declaration 1 brought about by revelation?
A: Yes.
Q. How do we know?
A: President Woodruff told us of the revelation he received that prompted him to issue the “Manifesto.” His remarks on the topic have, conveniently, been included in the footnote material to Declaration 1.
Q: Can worldly events such as legal pressures serve as a catalyst for revelation? Can they cause a Prophet to seek and receive revelation?
A: Yes. For example, a wife’s complaint about a tobacco-stained floor became a catalyst for Joseph Smith to receive what we now know as Section 89 of the Doctrine & Covenants.
Q: Was the Church’s legal difficulty a catalyst for the revelation that resulted in Declaration 1?
A: Based on President Woodruff’s own description, it certainly appears so.
Q: But it was still a revelation?
A: Yes, unless you believe President Woodruff was deluded or lying when he made the remarks referred to in the Official Declaration 1 footnote material.
Q: Does it matter that the text of the Manifesto (Declaration 1) doesn’t explicitly refer to President Woodruff’s revelatory experience?
A: No. The basis in revelation exists whether it’s mentioned in the text, or mentioned separately. We have no reason to take it less seriously as a revelation just because President Woodruff described the revelation separately.
Q: When Declaration 2 was given, the revelation was more clearly identified right in the text of the Declaration itself. Isn’t there something wrong with Declaration 1 being done differently? Why didn’t President Woodruff do it the same way President Kimball did it?
A: The way revelations are worded often differs from Prophet to Prophet. I imagine President Kimball had reasons for doing what he did the way he did it and President Woodruff had reasons for doing what he did the way he did it. President Woodruff didn’t tell us why he did it this way. But there is no doubt at all about Declaration 1 being based in revelation. President Woodruff’s words–given separately from the Declaration–are unmistakably clear. The Lord showed him what to do, and he did it.
Q: Since Declaration 1 was prompted by revelation, should Kim persist in differentiating Declaration 2 from Declaration 1 by describing the former as “based in revelation” and describing the latter as “in response to legal pressures”?
A: Obviously not. He’s making a false distinction. Both Declarations were prompted by revelation, based in revelation.
3 Apr 2006 @ 09:27 | Permalink
“But there is no doubt at all about Declaration 1 being based in revelation.”
Actually, there is a lot of doubt.
Do I believe revelation was involved in the decision to issue the declaration? Yes. Do I believe that the declaration has a foundation in (or is based on) revelation and not in politics? No.
It makes no sense to me whatsoever how someone could read the OD1 and not see that it is based on politics, regardless of whether the decision to issue it or not was revealed through God.
But I think I’ve probably made that more than clear by this point.
3 Apr 2006 @ 16:23 | Permalink
If anyone wants to read more about the political background of the Manifesto, the “discussions” of the apostles regarding the change in policy and the aftermath regarding existing and new plural marriages, I highly recommend D. Michael Quinn’s “LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages, 1890 – 1904″, an essay in the Spring 1985 issue of Dialogue.
3 Apr 2006 @ 19:27 | Permalink
Kim, I honestly can’t make sense of #40. You say revelation was involved in the giving of the Declaration, but it’s not founded in revelation? Aren’t you contradicting yourself? If revelation was behind the declaration, then it was based in revelation, regardless of what else it may have been based on, or what else may have led up to the revelation.
For some reason, you chose this peculiar phrasing: “…has a foundation in…revelation but not in politics?”
Who said there were no politics involved? Certainly not I. Of course political pressure was involved–it’s what motivated the Prophet to seek the answer he received. And then he did receive an answer. That answer was revelation, unless you don’t believe President Woodruff. It was because of that answer–that revelation–that President Woodruff issued the Manifesto. (In fact, he made it quite clear that political pressure alone would never have been enough to make him depart from the practice of plural marriage–again, all you have to do is read his own words in the footnote material.) So we have political pressure leading to inquiry leading to revelation leading to declaration. How, then, is the Declaration “not based in revelation”?
3 Apr 2006 @ 20:14 | Permalink
“Of course political pressure was involved–it’s what motivated the Prophet to seek the answer he received.”
Precisely why the declaration is based on politics.
Actually, if you really want to see how clear President Woodruff was on the Manifesto, read Quinn’s essay.
3 Apr 2006 @ 20:17 | Permalink
“Precisely why the declaration is based on politics.”
Fine. Now why do you add the false conclusion that it’s not also based in revelation?
3 Apr 2006 @ 20:19 | Permalink
Why does it matter if it was based on politics? I would think many of the Prophets have thought more deeply about a subject and inquired of the Lord more fervently due to the political arena of the times. You don’t think our current Prophet has inquired of the Lord regarding the whole same sex marriage issue and how to handle it?
Obviously, I didn’t understand your original question…did the question change?
K.
3 Apr 2006 @ 20:20 | Permalink
“Now why do you add . . . that it’s not also based in revelation?”
Because the history behind the Manifesto spans roughly a decade and started when John Taylor was prophet. The revelation simply confirmed a decision President Woodruff made years previous.
“[Does] it matter if it was based on politics?”
Which was the point of my post.
3 Apr 2006 @ 20:26 | Permalink
Tell you what, Kim, you’ve said the reason you don’t often give a straight declaration of what you personally believe is that the opportunity doesn’t come up. So here’s an opportunity:
Tell us what you believe about two questions–they’re simple either/or questions:
1. Was Wilford Woodruff describing revelation or not describing revelation, when he said,
“The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. . . . I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. . . ” ?
2. Was Wilford Woodruff telling the truth, or was he lying, when he made the above statements?
3 Apr 2006 @ 20:31 | Permalink
1. He was describing a revelation.
2. I can only assume he is telling the truth.
3 Apr 2006 @ 20:33 | Permalink
He says it’s based in revelation. You say you believe him. But you also say it’s not based in revelation. I leave it to others to decide whether you’re making any sense.
Good night.
3 Apr 2006 @ 20:36 | Permalink
Where did he say the declaration was based on revelation?
3 Apr 2006 @ 20:39 | Permalink
Since it seems unlikely you will be picking up Quinn’s essay, let me leave you a few excerpts to ponder:
“By 17 September 1887, Wilford Woodruff, George Q. Cannon, and Church lawyer LeGrand Young privately expressed themselves as convinced that it was necessary for polygamists to promise the courts to refrain from unlawful cohabitation because they ‘seem to think it is necessary to do something of this kind in order to convince Congress of the sincerity of our efforts to gain Statehood.’”
“[On] 20 December 1888, Wilford Woodruff . . . asked the apostles to consider a document ‘said to have come from Washington, but no name or names were given to it,’ which was addressed to the Latter-day Saints in Utah and throughout the United States, ‘asking them to conform their lives to the Laws of Congress,’ a document which was supposed to be signed by all the Church leaders when published.”
“Wilford Woodruff had kept his own counsel about the prospects of ending plural marriages until the First Presidency was organized in April 1889 with George Q. Cannon as first counselor and Joseph F. Smith as second.”
“[It] was on 2 October [1889] that Wilford Woodruff called a meeting of the First Presidency and apostles to announce this policy [of not issuing plural marriage recommends in Utah].”
“I have refused to give any recommendations for the performance of plural marriages since I have been president. I know that President Taylor, my predecessor, also refused. “. . . I am confident,” said the president, “that there have been no more plural marriages since I have been in this position, and yet a case has recently occurred which I will say to you I do not understand at all. It is giving us a good deal of trouble. Perhaps you have heard of it?, The president referred to the Hans Jesperson case . ..”It seems incredible if it is true,” Woodruff said, “It is against all of my instructions. I do not understand it at all. We are looking into it and shall not rest until we get at all the facts. There is no intention on our part to do anything but to obey the law.”
The excerpts certainly do not do the article justice.
3 Apr 2006 @ 20:53 | Permalink
The reasopn that Wilford Woodruff stated the OD the way he did was that statehood was depending on the churches adherance to the Edmunds Tucker act. There was no specific law hinging on the revelation about the Preisthood from President Kimble.
4 Apr 2006 @ 06:58 | Permalink
You’re still spinning a false dichotomy: Either politics or revelation. Your quotes from the Quinn essay do no more than show what I’ve already stated: That politics led to inquiry, which in turn led to revelation, which then led to the Manifesto.
As to #50, if you can’t grasp the fact that President Woodruff is saying he based the Manifesto on revelation in the quotes that have already been given you twice (“I wrote what the Lord to told me to write”) then I’m afraid I can’t help you.
4 Apr 2006 @ 07:06 | Permalink
Kudos to ltbugaf for using the LoF model to provide support for his position in #39.
It’s a shame they took the “doctrine” out of the Doctrine & Covenants.
4 Apr 2006 @ 07:32 | Permalink
Polly, I’m falling behind you. What’s the “LoF model”? And what’s the “doctrine” that has been excised from the Doctrine & Covenants?
4 Apr 2006 @ 07:43 | Permalink
Oh wait… I know. Lectures on Faith. I get it. You’re congratulating me for using a question/answer approach. OK. I humbly accept your praise.
4 Apr 2006 @ 07:45 | Permalink
“That politics led to inquiry, which in turn led to revelation, which then led to the Manifesto.”
More like: politics led to practice and policy changes which several years later led to a revelation. Woodruff’s decision to end plural marriages came much sooner than the OD1.
“I wrote what the Lord to told me to write”
Oh, I get it now. You were assuming that what Woodruff wrote down was what is now the OD1. Unfortunately, given the facts that he neither explicitly stated such in the references notes accompanying the OD1 and that many others are reported to have written what is now the OD1, forgive me if I do not take the same position.
4 Apr 2006 @ 07:52 | Permalink
So when President Woodruff said, “I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me,” he was (a) exaggerating, (b) lying (c) forgetting the truth or (d) delusional? Or was he describing things accurately?
4 Apr 2006 @ 07:57 | Permalink
“More like: politics led to practice and policy changes which several years later led to a revelation. Woodruff’s decision to end plural marriages came much sooner than the OD1.”
And how does this lead to the conclusion that the Declaration has no foundation in revelation? When do you claim he revelation took place? On what do you base your claim?
4 Apr 2006 @ 08:00 | Permalink
he didn’t say it had no foundation in revelation.
4 Apr 2006 @ 08:01 | Permalink
Actually, I did say that Mary. I believe revelation played a part, but I do not believe it was the basis for the declaration.
“[President Woodruff] was (a) exaggerating, (b) lying (c) forgetting the truth or (d) delusional? Or was he describing things accurately?”
Good question. I could ask you the same thing because there are a lot of quotes of him saying something other than that.
“When do you claim he revelation took place?”
Based on records, it took place the same week the declaration was written.
4 Apr 2006 @ 08:04 | Permalink
“I believe revelation played a part, but I do not believe it was the basis for the declaration.”
This is what I still don’t understand. If it “played a part” then how is it not part of the basis?
4 Apr 2006 @ 08:07 | Permalink
Mayeb we define “basis” differently. Here is how the American Heritage Dictionary defines it:
I do not believe that OD1 rests upon revelation, that its chief constituent or fundamental ingredient is revelation, or that its fundamental principle is revelation.
4 Apr 2006 @ 08:12 | Permalink
ok, you said revelation is involved obviously.
it doesn’t matter anyway, whatever you say ltbugaf will disagree and pick it apart because he can’t help it.
4 Apr 2006 @ 08:13 | Permalink
Sorry, can’t make sense of #64.
As to #63: If President Woodruff is telling the truth when he says the decision would not have been made and the Manifesto would not have been issued without revelation, then that’s what I call a basis, a foundation, or whatever other synonym you prefer.
If you don’t believe he is telling the truth, as you hint in #61, then we’ll just have to disagree about President Woodruff’s personal integrity.
4 Apr 2006 @ 08:18 | Permalink
Ah.. #64 was appearing as a comment by Kim, and contained only the first sentence when I wrote the above. Now it appears in its proper incarnation as Mary’s comment and contains its second paragraph.
4 Apr 2006 @ 08:20 | Permalink
can’t you? then read it again. you are ALWAYS twisting kim’s words and meanings but i am quite sure you wouldn’t have the courage to do it to his face because you can’t figure him out. you think you can, but he baffles you because you don’t know him in the least.
4 Apr 2006 @ 08:20 | Permalink
Mary, please see #66.
4 Apr 2006 @ 08:43 | Permalink
“you are ALWAYS twisting kim’s words and meanings but i am quite sure you wouldn’t have the courage to do it to his face…”
Looks like you have me all figured out. :(
4 Apr 2006 @ 09:12 | Permalink
do i? i would hope not. i would hope you aren’t like that. it’s just like i said, you twist what he says and yes, that bothers me, because you don’t know him. debate is one thing and nothing wrong with that, but when little digs find their way in it sounds mean-spirited.
4 Apr 2006 @ 09:59 | Permalink
By “little digs” do you mean phrases such as, “i am quite sure you wouldn’t have the courage to do it to his face”? Or are you talking about something entirely different?
4 Apr 2006 @ 10:38 | Permalink
I was referring to this:
“As to #50, if you can’t grasp the fact that President Woodruff is saying he based the Manifesto on revelation in the quotes that have already been given you twice (”I wrote what the Lord to told me to write”) then I’m afraid I can’t help you.”
“The answer, which was staring you in the face from the beginning, is yes.”
“I’m sure this opportunity to show smugness was much more rewarding than simply following what you already knew she meant and engaging in the real issue.”
(side note: Kim is never smug)
“Too bad you think the Prophet should be required to simultaneously disclose the details of the revelatory experience every time he announces something that’s based on revelation.”
“You’re too smart not to see that, so why are you playing coy and pretending to miss the point?”
“If you could be troubled to read the accompanying lengthy footnotes to Declaration 1, you would realize that it is just as based in revelation as Official Declaration 2.”
And these are only comments in THIS thread.
Also, I am not referring just to your digs at Kim, but at others who don’t exactly agree with your line of thinking.
My “dig” was just a commentary on how I think that if you actually KNEW Kim in person, you wouldn’t make little snide comments about him, his character, his beliefs or his testimony. If I am wrong, well that’s sad. I hope not. I hope you are nicer to people to their face than you are online.
4 Apr 2006 @ 10:58 | Permalink
Yes, I was crankier than I should have been. I made an awkward confession and apology on another thread.
(I’m not sure I can fully agree with you on EVERYTHING you’ve said above, but let’s just let that slide. Who knows? Maybe the discussion will actually return to the topic of the thread. Or die a well-earned death.)
4 Apr 2006 @ 11:26 | Permalink
You know what? I am done here. No offence intended but I really don’t like it here anymore.
ltbugaf, you have strong opinions and do not like to be wrong. I did not nor have ever felt that you were making “digs” of any kind on any thread. I have never been truly offended by anything you have said. I am glad you stand up for your beliefs but I think you are kicking a dead horse in this venue.
Mary, you seem like a really nice person…I would even venture to say that we would probably get along in real life…we aren’t really that different. I think that you are a little bit blinded to your husband’s opinions on some things because you obviously love him so much. I think less “stick up for Kim” via comments like “Kim is never smug” because I don’t believe that to be true and more of your OWN personal beliefs about the gospel, if this is really what this website is about. Good luck with your wiring issue in your house, I wish you safety in that regard.
Rick, don’t know you but you sound like a fun guy.
Sally, ditto to what I said to Mary. I would like to add that perhaps you might venture to stretch your comfort zone regarding the gospel and not be so black and white. Maybe stop pulling the older and wiser card too because older does not in all respects equate to being more wise.
And Kim, similar to what I wrote about ltbugaf…you but these questions out there in blogland mostly regarding the Church and church policy and “want?” to see others’ points of view…but you already have an “answer” per say in your head and if people sway from that it is apparent you dislike it. You do not like to be challenged, you are vague in your opinions, and I personally do not feel that you have as strong a testimony as you or Mary or Sally thinks you do and deep down you know and they know it. Your line of questioning here could quickly and easily be taken as more than mere “questioning” if someone just popped in. I wish you well in your life.
Me, well I have been branded many things during my short stay here, the best two “pissy” and “the wife of the most spiritual man”…there is a list of how I could describe myself but I haven’t and won’t bother. I really feel that I have nothing worthwhile to contribute here. Thanks for allowing me to be here.
K.
4 Apr 2006 @ 11:49 | Permalink
“ltbugaf, you have strong opinions and do not like to be wrong.”
True. Isn’t it nice that I don’t have to experience that very often? :)
4 Apr 2006 @ 11:54 | Permalink
Kris
I am quite sure we could get along in real life. Maybe I am “blinded” by my love for my husband, but I also know him well, because I live with him and hear his comments. I don’t agree with everything he says, hooboy, I sure don’t, just ask him. And mum isn’t black and white in her beliefs either. But anyway.
Kim often doesn’t have answers, sometimes he does, but he enjoys thought provoking conversation, however, unfortunately there are those who get all bent out of shape when their favourite traditions are jiggled.
I also KNOW Kim’s testimony. I have seen his struggle with it, I have been with him through the dark times and the light. You can say what you want about him in any regard, but do not ever say his testimony isn’t as strong as I, or his mother says. His testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is more rock solid than you can possibly imagine. His faith and dedication to the Gospel and to Jesus Christ and to the Prophet of this church are solid. I am not just spouting my hopes here. I am stating reality. You think you know him based on a blog, and yet, you do not, you cannot, because you don’t see his real life actions, you don’t know his prayers or how he actually LIVES his religion, his membership in the Church of Jesus Christ or Latter day Saints, doesn’t just talk pretty. If you want to know someone who seeks to know God, than come to know Kim. If you want to know someone who doesn’t leave the teaching of the Gospel to his children up to Primary, than Kim is the one. He is close to the Spirit, he desires to know and do the will of the Lord and He is right with God. If he is not right with you, then oh well, that’s your look out, but it isn’t your opinion that will matter at the judgment, it’s the Lord’s.
4 Apr 2006 @ 12:04 | Permalink
“I personally do not feel that you have as strong a testimony as you or Mary or Sally thinks you do “
I am not surprised.
4 Apr 2006 @ 12:02 | Permalink
At least Kris went out swinging…she was fully herself all the way to the end, right?
4 Apr 2006 @ 12:07 | Permalink
Without a doubt, ltbugaf.
4 Apr 2006 @ 12:08 | Permalink
I’m deeply offended that Kris left me out of her farewell post. I’ve posted on this blog AT LEAST 5 or 10 times so far. Does that not warrant a mention in an emotional goodbye speech? Too bad she won’t be back to correct this tragic oversight.
If she were to mention me, I’m sure the words handsome, intelligent, and brave would have been used (and maybe modest).
4 Apr 2006 @ 12:14 | Permalink
:)
4 Apr 2006 @ 12:17 | Permalink
It’s like the Oscars, Mike. She was trying to thank you but the theme music started playing as she typed, and they had to go to a commercial break.
4 Apr 2006 @ 12:19 | Permalink
Maybe she would have even said something about Jessica Alba or you seeing Heath Ledger’s bum.
4 Apr 2006 @ 12:17 | Permalink
I appreciate the movie reference ltbugaf. And before anyone gets any ideas, Kim’s comment about Heath Ledger’s bum is in reference to a scene of Brokeback Mountain that I saw while checking for feet on the seats at the Movie Theatre where I work.
4 Apr 2006 @ 12:43 | Permalink
I’m not sure whether I was being called a swell person or a mushroom…
:P
4 Apr 2006 @ 12:52 | Permalink
Perhaps a bit of clarification here. Throughout history revelations have been the result of Pondering and seeking for guidence from the Lord.
On The Mount of Transfiguration Moses and Elijah apeared after Jesus Apealed to God in Prayer.
Joseph Smith had the first vision after praying in the Sacred grove. Section 138(I think) the Revelation on the Celestial Kingdom was given as a result of Joseph F Smith Pondering.
Joseph Smith’s Visit From John the Baptist,came because he and Oliver Cowdry sought the Lord concerning the Book of Mormons teachings on baptism.
The Lord is not, In most cases,going to give us answers until after we ask the questions. Remember the Scriptures say “Seek and Ye Shall Find, Knock and it shall be opened unto you” He is going to give us information as we are ready for it, and after we ask, Not Before!!
4 Apr 2006 @ 13:01 | Permalink
Mike, in that case you really didn’t see Heath’s bum. You just saw some lights and shadows on a screen that imitate the appearance of Heath’s bum. Right?
(Don’t try this excuse for pornography. “But Bishop, I was only looking at pixels, not at a nude woman!”)
4 Apr 2006 @ 13:02 | Permalink
Whoa, Ray, your on-topic comment really sneaked up on me. I thought we’d all moved on to irrelevant kidding around. Hope you didn’t think I was making light of your remarks in #86 when I wrote #87.
I generally agree with what you say in #87.
4 Apr 2006 @ 13:07 | Permalink
I posted 86 seconds before you posted 87 You would not have even seen it yet.(Notice the 1 minute post time Difference)
As far as changing the subject, it took me a while to post that. I am at work. (We are aloud to do this here)
4 Apr 2006 @ 13:15 | Permalink
I mean I generally agree with what you say in #86, Ray.
ltbugaf, I also generally agree with what YOU say in #87.
Glad to get that straightened out! :)
4 Apr 2006 @ 13:15 | Permalink
Rick, re: #85, wouldn’t you have to be at least two mushrooms? Otherwise you’d just be a “fun Gus” (which actually might be a cool nickname).
Just to be safe, I think you should avoid Desenex or any other fun-guy-cidal substances.
4 Apr 2006 @ 13:19 | Permalink
ltbugaf: Don’t quit your day job. Your future outlook as a comedian is not good. (Ok perhaps a little)
4 Apr 2006 @ 13:25 | Permalink
Hey, now, be fair. The one who originated the “fun guy” joke was Rick, not me.
However, I have no plans to quit my day job. It’s the best job I’ll probably ever have.
4 Apr 2006 @ 13:30 | Permalink
As a former Magrathite, I will concur that Rick is indeed a fungi.
4 Apr 2006 @ 14:07 | Permalink
Nermalcat’s here. I wonder if Dave will show up next.
4 Apr 2006 @ 17:27 | Permalink
Were they just hiding until Kris left?
4 Apr 2006 @ 18:37 | Permalink
So Mike, now that we know the story (a.k.a. excuse) about Heath Ledger’s nether parts, what’s the juicy tidbit about Jessica Alba?
4 Apr 2006 @ 18:50 | Permalink
It’s 12:30 and I just got home from work. Ah, the Movie Theatre life.
There is no Jessica Alba tidbit to share. I think Kim just has a thing for her.
4 Apr 2006 @ 23:42 | Permalink
Mmm hmm. OK–that’s your story and you’re stickin’ to it. ;)
5 Apr 2006 @ 05:48 | Permalink
Yeah, you wish.
5 Apr 2006 @ 06:20 | Permalink