- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
They “voted” on the Wow? Is that kind of like how we vote on church leaders by raising our hands even though we have no real input? It makes it sound so democratic, even though voting against is so taboo that nobody would dare. Here’s one source on the evolution from Section 89 to today’s stance: http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V14N03_80.pdf ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V14N03_80.pdf I also found the Wikipedia entry to have several interesting tidbits:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_of_Wisdomhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_of_Wisdom” class=”bbcode_url”> However, I can’t find the reference, although I too have read it, that members did a sustaining vote. I think it was on Life on Gold Plates. Let me check there. Ah yes, here it is, but it’s not as useful as I remembered since it was 1851 under BY and has been subsequently reinterpreted several times without a sustaining vote: “At a conference of the Church September 9, 1851, John Smith, Patriarch to the Church and uncle of the Prophet, spoke on Word of Wisdom. Brigham Young stood during the address proposing that all Saints abstain from “all things mentioned in the Word of Wisdom.”[6] With a “unanimous vote” the Word of Wisdom became binding on the Church.” Here’s the link:
http://www.lifeongoldplates.com/2007/09/development-of-word-of-wisdom.html ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.lifeongoldplates.com/2007/09/development-of-word-of-wisdom.html That sounds like when the prophet stands up in conference and challenges everyone to have family home evening or get out of debt. And yet those are not on the TR interview. GBSmith wrote:I don’t mind not being believed. Being ignored bothers me a little, though.
I hope you didn’t take my comment the wrong way. I know you wrote that earlier, sorry. I was totally not trying to ignore you. I agreed with your recollection too, but I couldn’t put my finger on a solid historical source for it.
In my extended family when we had debates about stuff like commandments, there was an common problem of people claiming “well I know I am right because I am sure I read that in the Ensign once, but I can’t remember when, but that makes my position correct!” (like an Ensign article is somehow makes it authoritative). So the whole topic of remembering something like that developed into a pet peave of mine over the years.
I apologize if I came across as dismissive. I didn’t meant to be.
Hawkgrrrl, thanks for taking the time to look up those references! That Life on Gold Plates article cited the published minutes of GC in the Millenial Star. That’s a great reference, and a solid account to start a better discussion about the event. From what I see, it looks like BY stood up in conference, unplanned, and called for a vote on the spot. I would argue this still does NOT follow our procedure for canonizing doctrine that rises to the level of effecting one’s standing in the Church or for the requirements of salvation/exaltation. So even if it did change it to a “commandment,” they did not alter the wording of the commandment. It’s still what we see in Sec 89, which is not what we preach/practice today.
Brian Johnston wrote:I apologize if I came across as dismissive. I didn’t meant to be.
No harm, no foul.
Brian Johnston wrote:…I would argue this still does NOT follow our procedure for canonizing doctrine that rises to the level of effecting one’s standing in the Church or for the requirements of salvation/exaltation. So even if it did change it to a “commandment,” they did not alter the wording of the commandment. It’s still what we see in Sec 89, which is not what we preach/practice today.
Well, you won’t be arguing with me, because that is EXACTLY the point I was trying to make with this entire thread. Even my 15 old daughter can figure that one out.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.