tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post6088218505722738928..comments2024-03-26T21:27:42.278-07:00Comments on Pure Mormonism: Wilford Woodruff's Pants Are On FireAlan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.comBlogger189125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-59649035781655659492013-09-08T20:44:36.078-07:002013-09-08T20:44:36.078-07:00They only did endowments for the living in the end...They only did endowments for the living in the endowment house. Endowments and sealings for the dead had to be performed in the temple, which had not yet been built.<br><br>Presumably, baptisms for the dead could be done anywhere, since they were being performed in the Missisippi river at Nauvoo.Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-64237323004583754932013-09-08T19:31:55.777-07:002013-09-08T19:31:55.777-07:00"They could not have been referring to endowm..."They could not have been referring to endowments since these were not performed for the dead in the endowment house." <br><br>I don't understand this<br><br>Endowments weren't performed for the dead in the endowment house, but baptisms were?<br><br>What was an endowment house, and how was it's function different from a Temple?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-19579559990370207222013-08-30T15:55:25.022-07:002013-08-30T15:55:25.022-07:00I certainly didn't intend to make Woodruff &qu...I certainly didn't intend to make Woodruff "look like a vicious liar." Perhaps the picture I used to illustrate this piece was a touch snarky.<br><br>I am very much an advocate of multiple baptisms; I think we should be doing healing baptisms still today. The thing is, the way Wilford told the story, the founders claimed they had never been baptised at all, but were lamenting the unfairness of having been forgotten.<br><br>I recommend reading the piece I refer to in my post. The research is very thorough regarding what Wilford said when he related the stories and how many times he told the story, and what embellishments were added with the retelling. He also gives us a convincing idea of what inspired Woodruff to tell the story, which was a book on the prominent Americans Woodruff had been reading at the time.<br><br>Like you say, the takeaway from all this is that we should not rely on the testimony of others for our own ideas of what is true and what is not. That is my motivation for writing it, not to trash Wilford Woodruff. Again, it was very common for ALL Americans to tell faith promoting stories, and I think it's important for us latter-day Saints to understand that our forefathers commonly exaggerated in order to promote a moral.<br><br>We need to be able to separate myth from reality. There is enough about this religion that is true; diluting it with falsehoods only gives ammo to our enemies.Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-68915582731413180612013-07-25T15:56:51.785-07:002013-07-25T15:56:51.785-07:00I'm prone to agree with the Anarchist. I reali...I'm prone to agree with the Anarchist. I realize that the modern fad is to view everything with skepticism and demystify everything. There is a tendency to think that once we have the facts then there is no more magic or wonder behind an occurrence. I reject this world view. I prefer to see everything as a miracle. If Brother Wilford had a wonderful experience who am I to rain on his parade? So what if the work had been done before! I was in the St. George Temple a few years ago and read about the experience in a book they have there for the curious. I found a few other facts interesting: Their washing and anointing, and their ordination ordinances were also performed that day. And there were several men ordained as high priests rather than elders. Wilford claimed that this was done by revelation to endow these men with the priesthood requisite for their future work in the spirit would. One of these was John Westly, not even an American. I still think that these ordinances may have been the focus of a vision, and the baptisms were done just for good measure. As you pointed out it is not common for any person giving a story later to be highly specific on details. Besides, in the early church re-baptism was a common ordinance! All of the early saints were baptized multiple times in life, why not more than once after death? Wilford Woodruff was baptized himself at least half a dozen times before he claimed to have this vision. So why assume that multiple baptisms would be out of the ordinary here? Joseph smith was baptized multiple times, every saint was re-baptised when gathered to Zion,during the mormon reformation, and usually re-baptized every time someone joined a united order, or received new ordinances, such as prior to marriage. So maybe the dead were simply being treated the same as the living back then!<br> <br> The truly poignant message of your article for me, was that you pointed out the foolishness of basing your testimony on someone else's experience. That is never a good idea! A testimony is supposed to be an account of what you have personally seen, done and felt. If you are basing a "testimony" on something from someone else then that is mere hearsay. Such testimony is not acceptable or allowed in court and shouldn't be in church either. <br><br> It is interesting that the "follow the Prophet" cult seems to base its doctrine on a statement that was made by Wilford Woodruff. Yet he is at least a man who knew the difference himself. He did actually receive revelations "thus saith the Lord" and made the distinction as to who was speaking, himself or the Lord. This is the most vicious of all false doctrines and has been at the core of more apostasies than one. Remember the Jews constant emphasis on asking Jesus if he had "church" authority for what he said and did? Yet the president of the church in his day, Caiaphas, spit in his face and cried out "crucify Him!" There were many people who joined in that cry in order to be "in harmony with the brethren." Still I do not think it is necessary to make Wilford Woodruff look like a vicious liar in order to demonstrate that this false statement is false. We all mis-speak sometimes, or are overly vague. So let's cut this Prophet a little slack. At least he received actual revelations (though currently uncannonized.) After all he didn't have the correlation department to edit his words before conference!gospelfullnesshttp://gospelfullness.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-50954936891709955432013-06-27T09:04:15.646-07:002013-06-27T09:04:15.646-07:00I'll just add my voice to that of Gary Hunt in...I'll just add my voice to that of Gary Hunt in saying it wasn't Stonewall Jackson who sought to overthrow the U.S. Government. Clearly Abraham Lincoln was the one attempting to overthrow the United States, and everyone knew it at the time, as over 300 Norther newspapers vehemently spoke out against Lincoln's crimes.<br><br>Stonewall Jackson actions were in defense of his country. But as they say, the victors write the histories, so it's no surprise that most of us had our history taught us upside down.<br><br>Lincoln sent invading armies into sovereign states without a grant of war by congress, sent U.S. Marshalls to arrest a Supreme Court Justice and a congressman from an opposing party, threw several dozen members of the Maryland legislature into military prison, and attempted to disband what was left of the congress in the North. That sure sounds like an overthrow of the government to me.<br><br>These and many other actions such as shutting down those three hundred newspapers in the North that exposed his tyrannies are acts of treason. He threatened to have his armies invade several Northern States as well as Southern ones for daring to stand up to his despotism.<br><br>All that aside, however, I must take issue with the assertion of Anonymous that the 12th article of faith puts any requirement upon us. The articles of faith are not commandments, and they are not revelations from God. They consist of a brief list outlining our beliefs which Joseph Smith compiled in response to a request from the editor of a Chicago newspaper. The articles of faith are simply articles of our faith; they are not commandments one must obey in order to be a member of Christ's church. <br><br>I'm not picking on Anonymous here, because we are in agreement with the basic assertion that Wilford was exaggerating. I'm just attempting to clear the record.<br><br>For more proof that Lincoln was guilty of overthrowing the government, see this piece by the author of <br>"The Real Lincoln," the book recommended by Gary Hunt above. Lincoln initiated a Second American Revolution, and not the good kind. "Lincoln's words and actions thoroughly and completely repudiated every one of the main principles of the Declaration," including the one about all men being created equal. Lincoln freely used "the N-word" in disparaging free Northern blacks. He is no hero to me.<br><br>http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo32.html<br><br><br>Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-34184592752583604312013-06-26T09:45:15.388-07:002013-06-26T09:45:15.388-07:00Anonymous (June 21, 2013 at 11:07am),I think you m...Anonymous (June 21, 2013 at 11:07am),<br><br>I think you make some good points. The picture at the beginning of the article is a silly, artist's concept, of what the event might have looked like. Like you, I don't know for sure if WW said they had the "wigs" and "garb of those days,". <br><br>Technically the Confederacy just wanted to secede, not overthrow the US government. They had it written in their constitutions that they could or they wouldn't have signed on in the first place. It was Lincoln who pushed the issue to war. A good book on the subject is "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas J. DiLorenzo.<br><br>As far as the 12th Article of Faith is concerned, the 98th Section of the D&C says...<br><br> 5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.<br> <br> 6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;<br> <br> 7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.<br><br><br>The problem is that the constitution allowed for states to leave the US. Lincoln violated the constition many times and didn't want the southern states to leave because of the taxes he wanted to collect from them. The Lord doesn't require us to follow an unconstitutional law.<br><br>Yes , it appears he didn't test the spirits in the vision as you noted in D&C 129.Gary Huntnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-91556097884602447242013-06-21T11:07:30.725-07:002013-06-21T11:07:30.725-07:00Other things exposed Woodruff's fable. First o...Other things exposed Woodruff's fable. First of all, how did he identify who they all were, since according Mormon Doctrine a Spirit is a reflection of person in the prime of their life. Is he claiming they were wearing colonial wigs and the garb of those days, when they appeared to him? Secondly, if you look at the names who he had the work done for, many were the wives of the men. Many were English authors, who certainly were not "Founding Fathers". Seems they were people he admired and whose works he enjoyed reading while on a mission in England. One of the people baptized for was Confederate General Stonewall Jackson. As Confederates tried to overthrow the U.S. Government, his proxy baptism would have been in violation of the principle taught in the 12th Article of Faith, which requires the members to honor the authority of Kings and Presidents and obeying the laws of the land. Lastly, D&C 129 outlines the Grand Keys for identifying whether and administration is from God. Woodruff never applied the test outlined in this section to detect whether of not he was being deceived.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-31630882764911501732013-05-21T19:38:48.297-07:002013-05-21T19:38:48.297-07:00Good read. I think other explanations are possible...Good read. I think other explanations are possible, rather than "liar liar," but i definitely will not restate this story as fact ever again.<br><br>I disagree with your conclusion though, mainly because i don't think that the most "The salient and most heavily promoted "doctrine" in the Church today" has anything to do with the Prophet. Most of the meetings/lessons/testimonies that i am present for relate either to Christ, the Atonement, God's love, or the scriptures, and rarely is the Prophet even brought up. It's just not as big an issue, the "prophet standing between us and God" thing, as you make it seem.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-74176636459024284362013-05-06T07:33:31.731-07:002013-05-06T07:33:31.731-07:00Ha! I'm a 7th generation LDS; one of my ances...Ha! I'm a 7th generation LDS; one of my ancestors taught Brigham Young (the ancestor that he doesn't like in the film from the 90s!); that same ancestor baptized Heber C. Kimball--<br>And I have never met a 'fundamentalist' or a plural marriage advocate/polygamist. All of my ancestors were 'out' of polygamy before 1890--<br>Three or four of them who could have taken plural wives before 1890 just didn't--<br>bad experiences in the family, etc.--<br>and in one case an ancestress who prayed and was told, "tell your husband to wait 'til after 1890"--<br>and the husband was a good man and agreed with no hesitation--<br>they had a large and happy family.<br><br>Anyway, I think it is very strange that I've only seen fundamentalists on youtubes/internet sites. My heart went out to them in 2007 or 2008 when that thing happened in Texas. I felt that mainstream LDS should have been more helpful/sympathetic. After all, we share a similar heritage. To be so harsh with them seems inconsistent. Even those of us who think polygamy was a mistake or a detour of some kind--<br>can show compassion for people in trouble. <br>I've never been tempted by plural marriage; my husband (people kind of assume that men might be interested in it) is a convert, and when plural marriage is mentioned he gets a terrified look in his eyes.<br>We both interpreted President Hinckley's "it's not doctrine" statement as meaning, "it was a mistake", and we both breathed a huge sigh of relief--<br><br>So, I think it's very strange that someone whose LDS roots go back THAT far . . . has never, knowingly, run into one polygamist--<br><br>But then I didn't grow up in the Mormon corridor (the intermountain west)<br>I always thought a lot of John Taylor; I wonder if his teachings/writings weren't hijacked somehow. The fact is that he had very little time to be the POTC, and I wonder if he didn't submit to polygamy out of a sense of, "I've already done it; it's too late now; I had better believe in it"--<br>Something about his being with Joseph and Hyrum when they were murdered; I don't know. I have always believed he had an unusual amount of integrity--<br>Well, I just said that I understand why everyone is tired of polygamy, and then I write more--<br>LOL!<br>LDSDPernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-44349578412351661122013-05-06T05:32:17.828-07:002013-05-06T05:32:17.828-07:00LDSDPer,I believe George -and he can correct me if...LDSDPer,<br>I believe George -and he can correct me if I'm wrong- comes to us from a fundamentalist background, so it may help to read his comments with that in mind. Much of what he has written in that edition of the Millenial North Star is valid and worth contemplating, though I reject his personal take on the priesthood ban for the same reasons you give.<br><br>I'm also glad to see a collection of Woodruff's writings in the format he provides in his second link. Some years ago fundamentalist Mormon Fred Collier compiled the claimed revelations of Woodruff and Taylor, et al into two volumes broken down by chapter and verse entitled "Unpublished Revelations of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."<br><br>At the time I bought those books, I believed the revelations were legitimate, but I no longer am inclined to that view. Nevertheless, they are valuable collections, and I'm happy to see George has made available Woodruff's purported revelations in an identical format online.<br><br>P.S. I realize George wrote in his first link about serving an LDS mission, which may question why I think he is a fundamentalist, but it is not entirely unknown for some mainstream members to have defected to fundamentalism. Again, I invite George to clarify and correct my assumptions if I'm off base here.Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-8454377748896447602013-05-05T16:17:22.371-07:002013-05-05T16:17:22.371-07:00So true, Jesus trumps Brigham, or Thomas Monson fo...So true, Jesus trumps Brigham, or Thomas Monson for that matter and all the things he says and does that are anti Christ too.<br><br>Joseph warned us that if he himself or any other so called 'prophet' ever preached or practiced polygamy or anything else that was contrary to Christ or the Book of Mormon, then we would know for use they are false and we should consider them imposters and refuse to heed them, or we will be damned along with them.Anon 23noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-78195165751217840472013-05-05T16:02:04.980-07:002013-05-05T16:02:04.980-07:00All I have to know about Willy is that he believed...All I have to know about Willy is that he believed in and lived polygamy. That says it all, about his lack of character, untrustworthiness to believe anything he says and his unrighteousness, to put it mildly.<br><br>I can only imagine what men like Moroni would say and do about him.<br>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-83018880051037852062013-05-05T13:57:29.696-07:002013-05-05T13:57:29.696-07:00I believe President Kimball and the apostles were ...I believe President Kimball and the apostles were 'embarrassed' (for lack of a better word) when they realized that the blacks should never have had the priesthood taken away--<br><br>and restored it. To support what Joseph Smith had originally done did not need sustaining by the church. It was a nice gesture, but not necessary. What should have been done? Brigham should have been disciplined for taking it away, but there were few black saints (those who did exist suffered, I assure you), and NObody stood up to Brigham.<br>There were those who would question Joseph; he invited it. But NObody, absolutely nobody dared question Brigham.<br>President Kimball had the courage quietly to restore what had once been restored and illegitimately taken away--<br>without drawing undue attention to Brigham Young's mistake--<br><br>that showed grace.<br>LDSDPernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-26075172591768955352013-05-05T13:55:05.436-07:002013-05-05T13:55:05.436-07:00George Washington, I looked at the first link--I g...George Washington, I looked at the first link--<br>I got as far as the part about the priesthood being given to the blacks. Joseph Smith did give it to the blacks. Brigham Young took it away. It sounds as though the person writing that essay/article is one of those who believes that Brigham Young "improved" everything Joseph Smith said or did (polygamy, blacks having the priesthood, etc.)--<br>if a person doubts that Joseph Smith actually 'lived' polygamy and accepts that he was behaving as a prophet when he ordained black men to the priesthood--<br><br>then one wonders why Brigham had the right to make polygamy a 'principle' and take the priesthood away from the blacks.<br>*We* only have Brigham's words for it that people are not worthy of a particular thing because of 'blood' or lineage; we have Jesus' word for it that blood means nothing--<br>JST, Matthew 3:36 makes that clear. Jesus trumps Brigham. Brigham believed blacks were inferior based upon enculturation and therefore preached that they were. Joseph Smith would not have ordained blacks to the priesthood if he had believed that. The idea that everything Brigham did "improved" the mission of Joseph Smith is dubious. I am ready to believe that Brigham had some kind of 'mission', but I am not ready to believe that it was to nullify what Joseph Smith taught and restored, including priesthood to the blacks.<br>As for polygamy, I think Rock is tired of it. I agree with him on that.<br><br>LDSDPernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-57701794188859396422013-05-05T12:45:18.018-07:002013-05-05T12:45:18.018-07:00Hi Rock. This is a very interesting article and c...Hi Rock. This is a very interesting article and comments.<br><br>I for one have long rejected the "done deal doctrine" (as I call it). Meaning the doctrine that it is a done deal that the Church President will never err in doctrine or decisions. Here is my study of the matter, based on scripture:<br><br>http://www.lds-awakening.info/Publications/Issue3.pdf<br><br>That said, I am still open to the possibility notwithstanding, that Wilford did have the dream/vision he claimed to have had from the founding fathers. One reason is that I find Wilford's Word of the Lord revelations believable. But I am not sure how to defend his claim after reading this article. <br><br>Here are Wilford's known written oracles:<br><br>http://www.2bc.info/pdf/WWoodruff.pdfGeorge Washingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09408308975569715587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-46777281441366644682013-05-03T07:16:46.154-07:002013-05-03T07:16:46.154-07:00LOL, my Sistah.LOL, my Sistah.Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-65443175349790148802013-05-02T16:38:03.009-07:002013-05-02T16:38:03.009-07:00It's so nice to know that our children or 1st ...It's so nice to know that our children or 1st spouse will be ours forever, no matter what religion we are or no religion at all. <br><br>Family members may not end up in the same kingdom, but the higher family members can visit the lower ones, like family members visit each other here on earth. <br><br>So this whole business about 'sealing' is really quite ridiculous and of course unnecessary when you stop to really think about it. <br><br>But it did come in real handy for Brigham to be able to pressure people better into going along with his polygamy and even today it still is a big selling point to get people to join the Church, thinking that if they don't they can't be a forever family.<br><br>Also, the falsehood that you have to be sealed and married in the temple keeps members pressured to pay their tithing to get that eternal blessing or to be able to watch their children get married. Perfect ploy.<br><br>Incredible, when all along we find that 'every' family and 1st marriage in the whole world will be eternal and forever, even if they don't all end up in the same place, we will still know and love and be close to them as our family, no sealing required.<br><br>Anon 23noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-36969287025591992042013-05-02T16:17:20.777-07:002013-05-02T16:17:20.777-07:00Yes Jean, Brigham Young was wicked for all the thi...Yes Jean, Brigham Young was wicked for all the things he did, including having slaves, but at least the Founding Fathers weren't as evil as BY, they didn't believe in polygamy, even if some may have been adulterous in other ways.Anon 23noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-35749992312435968162013-05-02T12:42:50.565-07:002013-05-02T12:42:50.565-07:00Did the Book of Mormon use 'and it came to pas...Did the Book of Mormon use 'and it came to pass' much?Jeanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11564546517972104958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-8685737027123268642013-05-02T12:36:19.445-07:002013-05-02T12:36:19.445-07:00IF god is truly the most loving entity in the whol...IF god is truly the most loving entity in the whole universe then his followers should be able to feel that love and be filled with it to the extent that they cannot help BUT show it to others.<br>Building a %$#&^% mall and beautifying downtown SLC, (why SLC and not some poor country where there are also members of the church) is not exactly reflecting the great love of their god is it?<br>If your heart is filled with god's love and it should be if you are a lover of god and HE IS love - then that is all that is necessary. What kind of philosophy another person embraces is inconsequential, they are loved because god is love and HE is the judge.<br><br>I found no room for my own beliefs or philosophies within the church, only a proscribed set of rules and dogma. Love comes from the heart not from rules.Jeanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11564546517972104958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-70855671076648865222013-05-02T12:22:49.134-07:002013-05-02T12:22:49.134-07:00Brigham Young had slaves in Utah, he hated black p...Brigham Young had slaves in Utah, he hated black people; see Journal of Discourses. I think the founding fathers were no less righteous than he and he was baptized, endowed and had many wives and children and died a millionaire.Jeanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11564546517972104958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-73731882508884060632013-05-02T12:01:40.197-07:002013-05-02T12:01:40.197-07:00I didn't join the church in 1967 because of th...I didn't join the church in 1967 because of the Book of Mormon, heck I didn't read it for years. It was the story the missionaries told me and my fear of belonging to the 'whore of all the earth' or at least one of her apostate daughters, the Church of England.<br><br>If someone had just told the truth about LDS history, I would not have joined at all, but all the spin made it so enticing. My main reason I think was so that my little ones would be mine forever. A ceremony would need to be performed, but only by one having the correct authority; clearly the C of E had none of that as the apostate daughter of a whore.Jeanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11564546517972104958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-39401149213756318022013-05-02T11:51:55.367-07:002013-05-02T11:51:55.367-07:00Great conspiracy theory. Any ideas about the death...Great conspiracy theory. Any ideas about the death masks?Jeanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11564546517972104958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-68700537620505689072013-05-02T11:45:34.409-07:002013-05-02T11:45:34.409-07:00See you in hell my bro.See you in hell my bro.Jeanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11564546517972104958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-73653072543054397722013-05-01T18:07:42.496-07:002013-05-01T18:07:42.496-07:00HAHA love your comments! Rock! And Anonymous - hop...HAHA love your comments! Rock! And Anonymous - hope that you and your daughter work something out, and knock the stake presidents' head!Ashtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10020574705828357604noreply@blogger.com