The article on marriage, which was published in the early editions of the Doctrine and Covenants was frequently used by the early Mormon Church to counteract the report that polygamy was being practiced. On Sept. 1, 1842, this statement appeared in the Times and Seasons (vol. 3, p. 909): "Inasmuch as the public mind has been unjustly abused... we make an extract on the subject of marriage, showing the rule of the church on this important matter. The extract is from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and is the only rule allowed in the church.
" '...Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy; we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife, and one woman, but one husband,... ' " In vol. 4, p. 143, of the Times and Seasons, we find the following: "We are charged with advocating a plurality of wives, and common property. Now this is as false as the many other ridiculous charges which are brought against us. No sect have [sic] a greater reverence for the laws of matrimony, or the rights of private property, and we do what others do not, practice what we preach." In the Latter-Day Saints' Millennial Star, vol. 3, p. 74, the following denial appeared: "But, for the information of those who may be assailed by those foolish tales about two wives, we would say that no such principle ever existed among the Latter-Day Saints, and never will;... the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants; and also all our periodicals are very strict on that subject, indeed far more so than the bible."
Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter. . . . all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same. . . . and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned . . . (Doctrine and Covenants 132:1-4).
One of the first women listed as a plural wife of Joseph Smith is Fanny Alger, a teenager who lived in the Smith home in the mid-1830's. Todd Compton, an LDS historian, commented that her marriage to him in Kirtland, Ohio, established a pattern that was repeated in Nauvoo, Illinois: Smith secretly marries a teenage servant or family friend living in his home, and his first wife Emma forces the young woman from the premises when she discovers the relationship (In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, by Todd Compton, p. 25). Oliver Cowdery, one of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon, became aware of the relationship between Joseph and Fanny but considered it a case of adultery. In 1838 he wrote to his brother, Warren, about the episode: When he [Joseph Smith] was there we had some conversation in which in every instance I did not fail to affirm that what I had said was strictly true. A dirty, nasty, filthy affair of his and Fanny Alger's was talked over in which I strictly declared that I had never deviated from the truth in the matter, and as I supposed was admitted by himself (Letter written by Oliver Cowdery and recorded by his brother Warren Cowdery; see photograph in The Mormon Kingdom, vol. 1, p. 27).
Oliver Cowdery, one of the "Three Witnesses" was excommunicated from the church for revealing Smith's affair. Smith set a pattern of rule in the LDS church that is still practiced today, when the "truth" doesn't "smell good".
Change a name or two and I’d think most people would think this was talking about the FLDS. But, then, Joseph Smith is the progenitor of the FLDS.
Yes. Here is Vol. 5, p. 474, March 15, 1844, Times & Seasons by Hyrum Smith, Joseph's brother: "Whereas brother Richard Hewitt has called on me to-day, to know my views concerning some doctrines that are preached in your place, and states to me that some of your elders say, that a man having a certain priesthood, may have as many wives as he pleases, and that doctrine is taught here: I say unto you that thtat man teaches false doctrine, for therer is no such doctrine taught here; neither is there any such thing practised here. And any man that is found teaching privately or publicly any such odctrine, is culpable, and will stand a chance to be brought before the High Council, and lose his license and membership also: therefore he had better beware what he is about."
(Notice Hyrum Smith's cleverly worded out of "will stand a CHANCE to be brought before the High Council"...and for what purpose, I add? (To be congratulated perhaps by Joseph Smith of the 'High Council' for "having as many wives as he pleases"...perhaps if he became one of the dozen men who shared their wives with Jos. Smith?)
OK, I realise you had no requirement to understand or act upon my fervent desire NOT to get dragged into theological discussions of early Mormon theology.
So I read your post. It appears that in some documents, polygamy is justified by pointing to polygamists in the old testament who were justified by God (certainly we agree that their justification was not based on their bad habit of taking multiple wives).
In other documents they deny church practice of polygamy.
Now that I think I understand your point.
The original poster said that he saw NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL in what the Mormons of the 19th century practices, and the practices of the FLDS in the past few years under their infamous and imprisoned leader.
As the article in question had provided a good deal of argument that there was a difference in both kind and degree between the two, I inquired, in none to kind a manner, by what specific disagreements the poster “saw” this identicality. Did the poster have specific evidence that the Mormons in of the 1800’s were NOT as the article suggested, but in fact were doing the same things.
I even made fun of his use of the word “see”.
In response, rather than telling me what items in the article were false, and giving me some direct reference in opposition, he said I had to ask you, which of course I had no interest in doing, as I was interested in how he formed his opinion.
Nevertheless, I will say that your response here does not seem to refute the author’s claim to dissimilarity. Maybe you don’t believe they are identically evil, or maybe you do and just didn’t feel like expounding on that.
As I’ve never once suggested I had trouble believing that the early Mormon church practiced and encouraged polygamy, I see your evidence of the same to be irrelevant to the matter I was discussing with the other poster.
The other poster I have not pinged. Specifically because he made it clear he had no interest in discussing this, and I should treat you as if you were he.