WOW Seminary Manual

[Anonymous]

Fascinating links Nibbler.

It would seem that:

1) the first 3 verses of the WoW where it says “not by commandment or constraint” was originally an introduction to the revelation formed by comittee and not the revelation itself. I understand that the introduction was made with the knowledge and presumably involvement of JS – but it is worth noting that it was not part of the original revelation. Fascinating!

2) BY pushed stronger adherance to the WoW several times and quite notably in 1851 but he was reluctant to make it fully binding on the church lest he condemn otherwise good members that couldn’t seem to follow it strictly. He can easily be quoted after 1851 stating essentially that compliance with the WoW was not strictly required for full fellowship as it is in the modern church.

3) WoW adherance increased during the administration of John Taylor.

4) In 1894 Joseph F. Smith declares the WoW to be binding as a commandment. He says that such was declared by BY.

I believe that for our purposes today it would have been much cleaner if Joseph F. Smith had just declared it to now be a full and binding requirement required for full fellowship on his own authority. Unfortunately in 1894 he wasn’t the prophet. Lorenzo Snow was. When Joseph F. Smith finally became prophet 7 years later in 1901 he was already on record that the counsel had been changed to commandment by BY 50 years prior. When Joseph Fielding Smith was asked in the 1950’s when the change happened he placed the date in 1851 with BY.

Long story short. The process of making the WoW into an enforcable commandment took at least 40 years (somewhere between 1851 and 1894) and nailing down any specific date is problematic.

[Anonymous]

For several reasons I love this quote:

Quote:

. . the Church cannot change the laws of God. They stand immutable. We may change the rules; we may say that a drunkard . . . [or] he who drinks tea and coffee may go into the temple. These rules we may change. But we cannot change the biological law that he who uses narcotics must pay the penalty somehow , somewhere , some time. . . .

J. Reuben Clark Jr., Oct. 6 , 1935 , C.R., One Hundred and Sixth Semi-Annual Conference, p . 92

One reason is because it imagines a time when WoW compliance might not be required for baptism or even temple attendance. Those are rules that are open to change. Another reason I love this quote is how nicely it can fit with Doctrine and Covenants 130:21, “And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.” This can alter the understanding of “blessing of God” be be something akin to a natural consequence of an action.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

… Doctrine and Covenants 130:21, “And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.” This can alter the understanding of “blessing of God” be be something akin to a natural consequence of an action.

Good point.

And that may be something that describes most religion. It’s our journey to find that out, I guess. What matters to God and the universe…and what only matters to us and we make stuff up in our heads to feel good??? That’s the journey.

Sometimes we just need to let go of things that mattered to others in the past but have no meaning to us today.

As Uchtdorf put it (and I like to quote it all the time 😳 )

Quote:

this may present a problem for some because there are so many “shoulds” and “should nots” that merely keeping track of them can be a challenge. Sometimes, well-meaning amplifications of divine principles—many coming from uninspired sources—complicate matters further, diluting the purity of divine truth with man-made addenda. One person’s good idea—something that may work for him or her—takes root and becomes an expectation. And gradually, eternal principles can get lost within the labyrinth of “good ideas.”

[Anonymous]

I am currently teaching seminary and this past year was a HARD one for me.

I don’t like D&C. I don’t know that I believe that it contains true revelations.

I made sure that my co-teacher taught the parts of scripture that I knew that I could not.

I just bit my lip as the TBM co-teacher shared her testimony about what she was teaching.

I SO badly wanted to tell the students that the WOW was not meant to be by commandment…

I hope this fall is better.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

Not super surprising in light of the way things worked in what I hope is quickly becoming the “old church.” That is, if it was in a manual, church magazine, etc., or mentioned over the pulpit, it just wasn’t questioned. I think we live in a new era where we do and should question and I think Elder Bednar (and others) made that pretty clear in last GC. Taking the manual’s word for it that John Taylor received a revelation isn’t enough – we should know for ourselves. (Upon examination, it does appear that the referenced revelation in the manual was likely referring to polygamy and its main purpose was actually to fill leadership vacancies.) This is also something I think some apologists do with some frequency – make a leaping connection that isn’t really there.

Nothing against your link, Felix, it’s just kind of an odd site to find something like that on (although it did pop up in my search as well), but here’s another link (from BYU) which also includes other Taylor revelations: https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/champion-liberty-john-taylor/john-revelator-written-revelations-john-taylor” class=”bbcode_url”>https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/champion-liberty-john-taylor/john-revelator-written-revelations-john-taylor

The problem with the part in bold/underline is that as soon as your questioning leads to make a conclusion that doesn’t line up with conventional Mormonism, you are apostate. Or you were deceived, or Satan was somehow involved.

We have a church that has the convenience of being vague about what is exactly revelation and what is not. We even heard Apostles contradict each other about what is revelation in the “new” handbook of instructions years ago at WW training.

But I see the point of this thread being about the inaccuracy of the seminary manual given the vagaries about how the WoW went from being a suggestion to an inviolate part of our Mormon culture and ability to be in good standing.

[Author]

Posts