Was Polygamy, in the Nineteenth Century, Started by the FLDS Church, or the LDS Church?

During the early 1830s, Emma Smith was beginning to have some strong suspicions that her husband, Joseph (Mormon prophet) might be involved in infidelity. While these were only suspicions, Oliver Cowdery (one of the three “witnesses” to the Book of Mormon) had proof of Smith’s adultery and confronted him on it. Smith denied to Cowdery that he was in any such activity. Cowdery would be excommunicated from the Mormon church on several counts including, “by falsely insinuating that he [Smith] was guilty of adultery.” 1

Emma’s suspicions were confirmed when she caught Joseph and 19-year-old Eliza Partridge locked in a room upstairs together. Emma had hired Eliza to take care of their newborn. 2 Joseph admitted to his personal secretary, William Clayton, that if he took Eliza and Emily Partridge (twin sisters) as wives, he knew that Emma “would pitch on him and obtain a divorce and leave him.”3 But, Joseph added that “he would not relinquish anything.”4 And he didn’t. He would eventually marry the sisters in March, 1843 (without Emma’s knowledge).

In the meantime, Smith shared to his friend John Bennett his dilemma and the trouble he was having with Emma. He wondered what he should do, and Bennett replied, “This is very simple. Get a revelation that polygamy is right, and all your troubles will be at an end.”5

Joseph didn’t waste any time. In 1843 he sat down and wrote a command from the Lord that Emma would be destroyed if she didn’t “receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph.” If she didn’t obey this command, not only would the Lord destroy her, but the Lord will bless Joseph and multiply him with “wives and children and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds” (see the Mormon scripture Doctrine & Covenants 132:52, 54, 56, 61-62).

In this same command, Emma was told to forgive Joseph’s trespasses if she wanted to be forgiven (D&C 132:56). She was then told that the Lord would justify Joseph: “If he have ten virgins given unto him by this law [the law of priesthood], he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified (D&C 132:61-62).

Interestingly, Martin Harris affirmed Joseph had practiced polygamy as early as 1838–five years before Joseph received his revelation.”6 But after receiving the supposed revelation in 1843, Joseph no longer had to keep his affairs from his wife or the public. And, he made this plural-wife doctrine available to all Mormon men under the condition that they get permission from their first wife. Doctrine and Covenants says that the first wife must give consent before her husband can take another wife. The second wife also had to be a virgin and not married to any other man. If the first wife consented then the man would not be committing adultery (D&C 132:61).

It isn’t know if Joseph sought permission from Emma for each of his many wives, but it is known that Joseph didn’t just marry virgins. He married other men’s wives. 7 We have documentation of at least some of the women Joseph married (there may have been more 8): Eighteen of Joseph’s wives were single when he married them and had never been married previously. Another four were widows. But the remaining 11 women were already married to other men, cohabiting with their legal husbands when Smith married them.9

In addition, 11 of Smith’s wives were 14 to 20 years old when they married him. Nine wives were 21 to 30 years old. Eight of his wives were between the ages of 31 to 40. Two wives were between 41-50, and three wives were between 51 to 60 years of age. 10 After Smith’s death, many more women married him by “proxy,” sealed to him for eternity. And for the record, Smith had at least on acknowledged polygamous child named Josephine. The child’s mother was Sylvia Sessions Lyon.11

Many Mormons today have no idea how widespread polygamy was. For instance, Mormon singer Donny Osmond believes that “only a relatively small number of church members did so [practiced polygamy] prior to the late 1800s when the Church decreed the practice unacceptable.”12 However, polygamy was an accepted practice, and it wasn’t restricted to a mere few. Let’s take a look at what a few of the church prophets and leaders said.

First Prophet and President Joseph Smith said in 1843: “....God...gave me this revelation and commandment on celestial and plural marriage and the same God commanded me to obey it. He said to me that unless I accepted it and introduced it, and practiced it, I, together with my people, would be damned and cut off from this time hence forth....But we have got to observe it. It is an eternal principle and was given by way of commandment and not by way of instruction.”10

Second Prophet and President Brigham Young said in 1865: “...the whole question, therefore, narrows itself to this in the ‘Mormon’ mind. Polygamy was revealed by God, or the entire fabric of their faith is false. To ask them to give up such an item of belief is to ask them to relinquish the whole, to acknowledge their Priesthood a lie, their ordinances a deception, and all they have toiled for, lived for, bled for, prayed for, or hoped for, a miserable failure and a waste of life.”11

Third Prophet and President John Taylor said in 1880: “The United States says we cannot marry more than one wife. God says different...when adulterers and libertines pass a law forbidding polygamy, the Saints cannot obey it....”11

On September 27, 1886 Taylor gave this revelation: “Thus saith the Lord...I have not revoked this law [plural wives doctrine] nor will I for it is everlasting & (sic) those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof, even so Amen.”13

These statements raise some important questions. Did God really use these men, especially Joseph Smith? God’s Word says that “holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter 1:21, emphasis added). Only holy men (although not sinless) would be used of God to write His Word. Because of this fact alone, Mormons must question whether Doctrine & Covenants is truly the revelations of Jesus Christ.

According to the Bible (especially since the New Testament was written) men are to have only one living wife (1 Corinthians 7:2; Titus 1:6). Because the Bible contradicts Doctrine & Covenants Mormons must question the validity of one or the other. They can’t both be right.

If our Mormon friend still believes the Lord gave Joseph Smith and other Mormon prophets a revelation on plural marriage, we can ask this: Why would the prophets (such as Taylor in 1886) say the plural wives doctrine was everlasting, and then some short years later (1890), deny having anything to do with such a doctrine? In 1869, fourth prophet and president Wilford Woodruff said, “If we were to do away with polygamy...we must do away with prophets and Apostles, with revelation and the gifts and graces of the Gospel, and finally give up our religion altogether.”14

He changed his tune when he wrote an “Official Declaration,” also referred to as The Manifesto (found at the end of octrine and Covenants). Woodruff wrote:

Press dispatches having been sent for political purposes...allege that plural marriages are still being solemnized...that...the leaders of the Church have taught, encouraged and urged the continuance of the practice of polygamy–I, therefore, as President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, do hereby, in the most solemn manner declared that these charges are false. We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice....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.15

President Lorenzo Snow affirmed Wilford Woodruff’s statements and that he was “the only man on the earth at the present time who holds the keys of the sealing ordinacnes, we consider him fully authorized by virtue of his position to issue the Manifest...which is dated September 24, 1890.”16

Yet, the U.S. Senate’s Committee on Privileges and Elections submitted a report in which it stated, “A sufficient number of specific instances of the taking of plural wives since the manifesto of 1890, so called, have been shown by the testimony as having taken among officials of the Mormon church to demonstrate the fact that the leaders in this church, the first presidency and the twelve apostles, connive at the practice of taking plural wives and have done so ever since the manifesto was issued.”17

A Mormon woman, we’ll call “Marjorie,” discovered that the Mormon church first defended polygamy, then said they would stop it. Yet while the church leaders condemned followers who were still in polygamous relationships, some remained polygamous in secret.18 Marjorie may not have known that the Mormon leadership even considered the idea of secret concubines, wherein men and women could live together in secret. 19 After discovering this apparent hypocrisy, Marjorie became concerned about other revelations that Joseph proclaimed in Doctrine and Covenants.

But not all Mormons will respond as Marjorie did. There are some who still defend this past church doctrine. Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought tells us one of the reasons Mormons defend the plural-wives doctrine:

Many Latter-day Saints–especially those that have polygamous ancestors–take pride in the faithful men and women who practiced plural marriage long ago. Even though LDS men take just one legal wife today, many devout Mormons still believe in the “principle” and may be sealed to more than one woman for eternity. The Mormon church’s present doctrine of celestial marriage–which includes the promise of plural marriage in the afterlife, and the current pracitce of plural marriage among Fundamentalist Mormons, are the legacies of Joseph Smith’s revelation sanctioning Nauvoo polygamy as “new and everlasting covenant.”20

Other Mormons defend Smith’s revelation for another reason. For instance, a while ago I asked Pat, a Mormon friend, “Why is it that the Mormon church accepts Joseph’s polygamy and that of other church leaders, but condemns it for everyone else?”

After thinking about the question for a moment, Pat replied, “Well, it was a command from God during a very special time only. It was the same command that God gave the prophets in the Old Testament. Also, Joseph was concerned about the widows and the older single women who didn’t have a man to protect them. These were the type of women he married. He really had a good heart for doing this.”

Surprised at the answer, I said, “But God was against plural marriage in the Old Testament. Only because of the hardness of man’s heart He did allow it [see Genesis 16:4-7]. There were also consequences because of polygamy,

I later shared with Pat (after doing some homework) what the Bible had to say (see the verses in the box).

After sharing with Pat the Leviticus verses, I told her, “You can’t defend Joseph Smith’s polygamy. He and other Mormon men went completely against the laws of Leviticus. Joseph Smith, for instance, married five pairs of sisters;21 he married a mother and her daughter;22 and he took other men’s wives (which included Joseph demanding the wives of all 12 Mormon apostles).”23

I then gently added, “I know you want to think the best of Joseph Smith. I wish I could, too. But if the Mormon church is about truth, as you say it is, we must look at the truth regarding Smith’s life. He didn’t just marry widows and older single women, as you’ve been told. He married pubescent girls, others in their late teens; women in their twenties and thirties, and only a few in their fifties and sixties. Most of these women had never been married or were already married. Few were widows.”

Leviticus 18:18,20; 20:14 tells us that God forbids a man, which included the prophets of the Old Testament, to marry “a woman in addition to her sister...while she is alive (18:18). Neither was he to marry “a woman and her mother” (20:14). Neither was he to “have intercourse with your neighbor’s wife, to be defiled with her” (18:20).

So, the question must be answered, “was polygamy started by the FLDS Church or the LDS church? The answer is, clearly the Mormon (LDS) church. Talk to any FLDS person and they will proudly tell you they are the “true” Mormon, for they obey the Mormon scriptures, which includes all that is written in Doctrine and Covenants.

1. Joseph Smith, History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 7 vols. (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book Co., 1978), 3:16, April 11, 1838.

2. Richard S. Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 1992), 79.

3. William Clayton diary, August 16, 1843, in George D. Smith, ed., An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books in association with Smith Research Associates, 1995), 117.

5. Dr. W. Wyle, Joseph Smith the Prophet: His Family and His Friends (Salt Lake City, UT: Triune Publishing Co., 1886), 62.

6. Dan Vogel, ed., Early Mormon Documents, (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 1998), 2:348.

8. For a list of 36 wives with marriage dates, refer to Fawn Brodie, No Man Knows My History, 335-36. For a list of 84 women who were either married to Joseph Smith and/or sealed to him as his wife for eternity, refer to Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Joseph Smith and Polygamy (Salt Lake City, UT: Utah Lighthouse Ministry), 41-47.

9. Tod Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 2001), 15.

11. The child was born on February 8, 1844. The mother was legally married to Windsor P. Lyon–cited in D. Michael Quinn’s The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books in association with Smith Research Associates, 1994), 642, Appendix 7. One contemporary Mormon woman of Joseph Smith’s said, “You hear often that Joseph Smith had no polygamous offspring. The reason of this is very simple. Abortion was practiced on a large scale in Nauvoo. Dr. John C. Bennett, the evil genius of Joseph, brought this abomination into a scientific system. He showed to my husband and me the instruments with which he used to ‘operate for Joseph.’ There was a house in Nauvoo, ‘right across the flat’...a kind of hospital. They sent the women there, when they showed signs of celestial consequences. Abortion was practiced regularly in this house” (emphasis in original). W. Wyle, 59.

12. Donny Osmond, Life Is Just What You Make It (New York, Hyperion, 1999), 13.

13. Contributor, 5:259; quoted in Ogden Kraut’s The Church and the Gospel (Salt Lake City, UT: Pioneer Press, 1993), 186.

15. Revelation given by John Taylor, dated September 27, 1886; photocopy of the original appears in 1886 Revelation–A Revelation of the Lord to John Taylor. Published by the “Fundamentalists,” quoted in Tanner and Tanner, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? 242. 15. Journal of Discourses, 13:166.

18. Reed Smoot Case, 4:476-82, quoted in Tanner and Tanner, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? 256-257.

19. For example, in 1896 Mormon apostle Abraham H. Cannon took a plural wife by the name of Lillian Hamlin. President Joseph F. Smithy performed the ceremony and “obtained the acquiescence of President Woodruff [who wrote the manifesto], on the plea that it wasn’t an ordinary case of polygamy but merely a fulfillment of the biblical instruction that a man should take his dead brother’s wife...” Daily Journal of Abraham H. Cannon, April 5, 1894, Volume 18, 70; quoted in Tanner and Tanner, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? 244-A.

20. According to the Tanners, the “apostle Abraham H. Cannon’s journal not only reveals that the Mormon leaders approved of polygamy after the manifesto [Official Declaration], but it shows they were considering the idea of a secret system of concubinage: George Qu. Cannon said, “I believe in concubinage, or some plan whereby men and women can live together under sacred ordinances and vows until they can be married...such a condition would have to be kept secret....” President Snow said, “I have no doubt but concubinage will yet be practiced in this church...when the nations are troubled good women will come here for safety and blessing, and men will accept them as concubines.” President Woodruff (author of the manifesto) said, “If men enter into some practice of this character to raise a righteous posterity, they will be justified in it...” Daily Journal of Abraham H. Cannon, April 5, 1894, Volume 18, 70; quoted in Tanner and Tanner, Mormonism Shadow or Reality? 244-B.

21. Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought (Salt Lake City, UT: Dialogue Foundation, 1994), Volume 27, No. 1, Spring 1994, 36.

22. The sisters that Joseph married were Prescindia (m. 1838) and Zina Huntington (m. Oct. 27, 1841), Delcena (m. before June 1842) and Almera Johnson (m. April 1843), Eliza and Emily Partridge (m. March 1843). Cited in Fawn Brodie’s, No Man Knows My History (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1945, 1971), 335-36.

23. Joseph Smith married Patty Sessions (age 47 and wife of David Sessions) on March 9, 1842. Smith married Patty’s daughter Sylvia (age 25-26?, around 1843-44). Brodie, 335-36.

The Mormon church believes and argues no such thing about Warren Jeffs. In fact they've done exactly the opposite of what you say they have -- they explicitly criticise and distance themselves from Jeffs and such groups.

And this is where you & I disagree on the "facts." The fact is that Mormons say one thing -- and then speak out of both sides of their mouths.

Do they criticize & distance themselves from Jeffs & such groups? (Yes)
Yet, simultaneously, do they present ambivalent info about polygamy and its role with future Mormons? (Yes)

To "disavow" means to go vs. the vow. But what did Lds "apostle" Bruce McConkie say beginning in 1966? (That the Mormon Jesus would bring back polygamy to Mormons when he returned). That's not disavowing; that, my friend, is an open embrace.

Likewise, mainstream Mormons believe fellow Mormon general authorities -- men who have married more than one wife in a serial fashion -- will become eternal polygamists when they die. (Because they believe marriage is forever). Is that militating vs. polygamy? (Doesn't sound like it)

You told a lie about the Mormon Church, you knew it was a lie when you wrote it, and anyone with the most cursory understanding of LDS beliefs knows they don't agree with or sanction Warren Jeffs.

Let's go back to the content of what I stated...and then I'll provide further context: To see how the Mormon church tried spinning Warren Jeffs as a continuation of 120 years of polygamous Mormon "prophets" yesterday, see Warren Jeffs and the abandonment of tradition [Real MormonISM].

The article I linked to was a Deseret News article. They are owned by the Mormon church. The journalist tried spinning why Jeffs & fLDS polygamy supposedly has NOTHING to do with its source -- 19th century Mormon polygamy.

Facts:
Lds "prophets" publicly taught polygamy 1852-1890;
but Lds "prophets" also personally practiced or privately taught polygamy from 1831-1910;
Lds polygamous families existing by 1910 were not broken up by Lds leaders -- and some of these unions were still in existence until they died in the early 1960s (source: B. Carmon Hardy, Solemn Covenant appendix)...again, these families were NOT ex-communicated because their union was solemnized by Lds officials!
Finally, ALL of the Lds "prophets" who were prophets up until 1945 were themselves polygamists.

These men were all "role models" for Warren Jeffs. Heroes of "the Mormon faith."

An analogy I could give would be to compare a father and son from the Bible: David and Solomon.
Were both polygamists? (Yes)
Did both sanction polygamy in general? (Yes)
If David had been around by the time Solomon accumulated all those 700 wives & 300 concubines, would he have sanctioned them? (No, I don't think so...just from Deut. 17:17 alone)

In this way, would David have both criticized as well as try to distance himself from the type of polygamy Solomon embraced? (Yes, I believe so)
But does that mean David had no "legacy" role in Solomon continuing polygamy? (No, we cannot conclude that David's polygamy had no impact on how Solomon embraced it...In fact, it's because Solomon's father embraced it that Solomon likewise followed suit)

MA, if you've ever farmed or gardened, you would know that weed residues and weed seeds from previous crops can have a "carryover" effect into soil bank generations.

So just because Solomon took something to an extreme David would never have thought of...
...just because one of the plural unions between David and one of his wifes was annulled (a form of "disavowal" -- see info about his wife/former wife, Michal)...
...doesn't mean a disavowal of polygamy was in any way true of David.

In fact, David and Joseph Smith both took wives who belonged to other men.

Other relevant facts:

* The Mormon church has NEVER rescinded the doctrinal undergirding of polygamy -- found in Doctrines & Covenants 132. It's still on the books, so to speak. And no follow-up revelation critiques it in any way. Likewise, no Lds leader has critiqued past Mormon polygamists; or the past practice of polygamy. They have not said it was "sinful" -- or generated by a false prophesy -- or anything of the like.

* For you to bring up the Westboro family as some sort of parallel would take a situation where...
...19th century Baptists practiced picketing as a way to reach the highest degree of heaven -- per Revelation chapter 23 from that Baptist god...
...only when extreme picketing was cracked down upon by the government, picketing became low-profile for a while...
...and then picketers were forced out of the Baptist church...
...only for the Westboros to emerge...
...citing Rev. 23 that picketing was still promoted by the Baptist god...
...along with other Baptist content from 1966 that the Baptist god would bring back picketing to the church when Jesus returned...

Sorry. None of that works as any kind of parallel. If a "revelation" on picketing was still in the Bible (Revelation 23), that would "hardly" be a disavowal of it by the Baptist God!

You've flunked discernment and basic comparative logic.

They were forced to drop it.

No; they were not.

They CHOSE to 'drop it' (translation: HIDE IT).

OFFICIAL DECLARATION—1

To Whom It May Concern:

Press dispatches having been sent for political purposes, from Salt Lake City, which have been widely published, to the effect that the Utah Commission, in their recent report to the Secretary of the Interior, allege that plural marriages are still being solemnized and that forty or more such marriages have been contracted in Utah since last June or during the past year, also that in public discourses the leaders of the Church have taught, encouraged and urged the continuance of the practice of polygamy—

I, therefore, as President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, do hereby, in the most solemn manner, declare that these charges are false. We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice, and I deny that either forty or any other number of plural marriages have during that period been solemnized in our Temples or in any other place in the Territory.

One case has been reported, in which the parties allege that the marriage was performed in the Endowment House, in Salt Lake City, in the Spring of 1889, but I have not been able to learn who performed the ceremony; whatever was done in this matter was without my knowledge. In consequence of this alleged occurrence the Endowment House was, by my instructions, taken down without delay.

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.

WILFORD WOODRUFF
President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

President Lorenzo Snow offered the following:

“I move that, recognizing Wilford Woodruff as the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the only man on the earth at the present time who holds the keys of the sealing ordinances, we consider him fully authorized by virtue of his position to issue the Manifesto which has been read in our hearing, and which is dated September 24th, 1890, and that as a Church in General Conference assembled, we accept his declaration concerning plural marriages as authoritative and binding.”

The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous.

Salt Lake City, Utah, October 6, 1890.

EXCERPTS FROM THREE ADDRESSES BY
PRESIDENT WILFORD WOODRUFF
REGARDING THE MANIFESTO

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. (Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.)

It matters not who lives or who dies, or who is called to lead this Church, they have got to lead it by the inspiration of Almighty God. If they do not do it that way, they cannot do it at all. . . .

I have had some revelations of late, and very important ones to me, and I will tell you what the Lord has said to me. Let me bring your minds to what is termed the manifesto. . . .

The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question, and He also told me that if they would listen to what I said to them and answer the question put to them, by the Spirit and power of God, they would all answer alike, and they would all believe alike with regard to this matter.

The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?

The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for . . . any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people, so that the dead may be redeemed. A large number has already been delivered from the prison house in the spirit world by this people, and shall the work go on or stop? This is the question I lay before the Latter-day Saints. You have to judge for yourselves. I want you to answer it for yourselves. I shall not answer it; but I say to you that that is exactly the condition we as a people would have been in had we not taken the course we have.

. . . 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. . . .

I leave this with you, for you to contemplate and consider. The Lord is at work with us.

(Cache Stake Conference, Logan, Utah, Sunday, November 1, 1891. Reported in Deseret Weekly, November 14, 1891.)

Now I will tell you what was manifested to me and what the Son of God performed in this thing. . . . All these things would have come to pass, as God Almighty lives, had not that Manifesto been given. Therefore, the Son of God felt disposed to have that thing presented to the Church and to the world for purposes in his own mind. The Lord had decreed the establishment of Zion. He had decreed the finishing of this temple. He had decreed that the salvation of the living and the dead should be given in these valleys of the mountains. And Almighty God decreed that the Devil should not thwart it. If you can understand that, that is a key to it.

(From a discourse at the sixth session of the dedication of the Salt Lake Temple, April 1893. Typescript of Dedicatory Services, Archives, Church Historical Department, Salt Lake City, Utah.)

What kind of 'Leadership' is THIS???

compared to...

Hebrews 11:35-40
35. Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection.
36. Some faced jeers and flogging, while still others were chained and put in prison.
37. They were stoned ; they were sawed in two; they were put to death by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated--
38. the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, and in caves and holes in the ground.

or compared to...

Acts 4:19. But Peter and John replied, "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God.

So much for an 'Everlasting Covenant' that thundered out of Heaven!!!

Well; it DID last about 47 years!

Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriage...

I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws..."

~ Wilford Woodruff, 4th LDS President

Smith’s revelation that God told him to institute polygamy is found in the mormon doctrinal book called Doctrines and Covenants, Section 132. In it polygamy is described as an eternal commandment.

Polygamy: How it all got Started

Joe: Hey Emma! Guess what!?

Emma: You KNOW I hate these guessing games! What is it, Dear?

Joe: I heard a voice, probably the Lord, tell me I must take other wives.

Emma: WHAT!? You ding bat! Don't you KNOW what our precious BOOK says? After all; YOU are the one that translated it!

Joe: Books; schmooks. All I know is I've been COMMANDED to take other wives and you are to OBEY ME!!!

Emma: "Though shalt NOT commit ADULTERY!!!"

Joe: Silly Woman! You KNOW better than to take things out of CONTEXT!!!

...and the rest is HISTORY...

THE BOOK OF JACOB
THE BROTHER OF NEPHI

CHAPTER 2

24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.
32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.

Or even HERE:

1 Timothy 3:2-3
2. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
3. not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.

1 Timothy 3:12
A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well.

Titus 1:6
An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.

Emma: That's IT! I'm LEAVING your sorry *!!!

Joe: DARN you Emma; you were TOLD to accept this!! Wait!!! I hear a voice again!!!

THE
DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS
OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS

SECTION 132

  51–57, Emma Smith is counseled (commanded) to be faithful and true; 58–66, Laws governing the plurality of wives are set forth.

  51 Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to ^aprove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice.

  52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, ^areceive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.

  53 For I am the Lord thy God, and ye shall obey my voice; and I give unto my servant Joseph that he shall be made ruler over many things; for he hath been ^afaithful over a few things, and from henceforth I will strengthen him.

  54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and ^acleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be ^bdestroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.

  55 But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said; and I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an ^ahundredfold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of ^beternal lives in the eternal worlds.

  56 And again, verily I say, let mine handmaid ^aforgive my servant Joseph his trespasses; and then shall she be forgiven her trespasses, wherein she has trespassed against me; and I, the Lord thy God, will bless her, and multiply her, and make her heart to ^brejoice.

Your original statement was that the LDS (deseret news) argued Warren Jeffs WAS a continuation of their prophets. That's actually exactly the opposite of what the article says.

So which is Warren Jeffs "guilty" of?
(a) That he's not "Mormon" enough for you?
(b) That he's not "prophet" enough for you?
(c) Or both? Or other?

Are you saying that the fLDS is not part of the broad umbrella of Mormonism?

Sorry. As I've pointed out earlier, we even have LDS posters like Edward Watson saying the following: (Disclaimer: I certainly disagree with most of his Edward's conclusions -- but here's what he told me on April 17, 2008):

Of course the FLDS is a Christian faith. Their denominational taxonomy, following the Religion-Branch-Family-Denomination matrix, is “Christian-Mormon-Fundamentalist Mormon-Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. They do not belong to the Catholic, Eastern Christian, Protestant, or Anglican/Independent Catholic (Via Media) branches; they belong to the Mormon branch of Christianity, but in a completely different Family (Fundamentalist Mormon). Others in the same Family are the Apostolic United Brethren, Latter Day Church of Christ (Kingston Clan), and The True and Living Church of Jesus Christ of Saints of the Last Days). Get your facts straight. There are four families in the Mormon branch of Christianity [CJCLDS, Fundamentalist Mormon, Liberal Mormon, Prairie Saints] just as there are 20 denominational families in the Protestant branch of Christianity.

Watson says the fLDS "belong to the Mormon branch of Christianity." Now, I would not label them "Christian"; But at least this shows you we have Mormons who concede they are indeed Mormon.

Warren Jeffs was NEVER a member of the mainstream Mormon branch; therefore he is not a former SLC Mormon -- like an "apostate" or something; therefore, that classifies him as a present-tense Mormon in the broad sense -- one tied to a specific branch; and he has followers from that f Mormon branch who classify him as a "prophet." Lds Doctrine & Covenants 68:2-4 classifies it very loosely as to who can speak forth Mormon "scripture":

Jeffs was ordained into a Mormon priesthood that extends backward to Joseph Smith. This priesthood (v. 2) is said to be one whereby "whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord..." (D&C 68:4)

So tell us Mount Athos, how long have you been sorting through all the weed seeds of Mormonism to determine which ones of them are true "Mormons" -- and which ones aren't?

Let's try another analogy:

The Presbyterian - USA church ordains homosexual pastors -- as does the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America. By all means, distinguish away between PC-USA & the conservative PCA; or distinguish away the ELCA from conservative Lutheran bodies which don't ordain homosexuals.

But don't try scrubbing the paint so much that you begin to argue, Athos with somebody who references a homosexual Presbyterian or Lutheran pastor as either Presbyterian or Lutheran or if they are pastors or not. Of course they are!

The identity on both counts stick! And in those cases, what would make for an even better parallel would be if the Bible specifically called for homosexual pastors -- say Revelation 23 or something -- and these liberals ordaining homosexuals would be arguing that THEY were the true original adherents to Revelation 23...whereas the rest of the Presbyterians or Lutherans veered from adhering to Revelation 23.

IOW, if anybody has the "rights" to maintain that they are the original adherents and fulfillers of what it means to be a "D&C 132 revelation celestial Mormon," it's the fundamentalists! 'Tis the mainstreamers that have tilted & wilted in following Joseph Smith's course!

The true canonized-following Mormons are the fLDS. [FR poster P-Marlowe used to reference the fLDS as oLDS (for original) -- vs. the mLDS (mainstream).]

What you don't realize Mount Athos, is that you have come walking right into the midst of a mine field of Mormonism:

* The fLDS claim original possession of the original doctrine of Joseph Smith (polygamy);
* The small Temple Lot segment of Mormonism claim original possession of the plot of land Joseph Smith designated for the Mormon Jesus to return (Independence, MO).
* The Community of Christ (RLDS) claim possession of the original rewrite of the Bible Joseph Smith did (they have the copywright)
* The Salt Lake City Ldsers claim possession of the whole schebang just because they are the biggest, most well-organized, and have the biggest clout/muscle.

But they haven't been able to overpower Temple Lot and take over that prophesy of Joseph Smith, now have they? (All they've done is purchase land nearby--just southeast of Temple Lot). I guess the Mormon Jesus will return to Temple Lot; and for you to come along and say, "No, they won't" would be tantamount to trying to sort out who will be the true recipients of the true Mormon Jesus -- and who won't. (And that's what you've done -- equivalency wise -- on this thread)

And the SLC Mormons haven't been able to overpower the RLDS in taking over copyright to the JST (Joseph Smith version of the KJV). I guess this part of "Mormon prophetic revelation" resides with the RLDS; and for you to come along and say, "Nope. I won't recognize the RLDS version of the Bible as 'mainstream Mormon' ONLY because the SLC gang doesn't own the copyright" would be ludicrous.

You've done the same thing with the Mormon "prophet" tug of war as to who has bragging rights to being in the original line of descent of being true to the Mormon canon of "scripture" on polygamy!

Congrats, MA!

Hi Colofornian!

Why are you messaging me again?
I thought our argument was over.

You originally misrepresented an LDS article as saying exactly the opposite of what it really said. (LDS spins Jeff's as being a continuation of their prophets).

Your last message corrected this, doing a 180 and saying instead,
"The journalist tried spinning why Jeffs & fLDS polygamy supposedly has NOTHING to do with its source -- 19th century Mormon polygamy."

So you've changed from grossly misrepresenting the LDS article, to correctly summarizing it. That ends the argument right?
I mean that's the only disagreement I had with you right there, and you've fixed it.

Any continuation of the argument depends on pretending I believe things that I don't... which would be silly when I've explicitly said I agree with almost everything else you've written.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to explain the difference between mainstream and splinter mormonism. I don't think you, the articles, or myself are in any disagreement or ignorance on any of this.

As for your analogy with Lutherans, well it's kind of funny for you to argue about the need to specify clearly which group believes what, when that's the whole reason for your error in the first place. You linked to an LDS publication, and said "the mormon church" thinks Jeffs is a continuation of their prophets.

No, the LDS group you linked to explicitly says the opposite of what you said they did, and they're 99.9% of Mormons. Your usage of the word "mormon church" was extremely misleading.

What you don't realize Mount Athos, is that you have come walking right into the midst of a mine field of Mormonism:

* The fLDS claim original possession of the original doctrine of Joseph Smith (polygamy);
* The small Temple Lot segment of Mormonism claim original possession of the plot of land Joseph Smith designated for the Mormon Jesus to return (Independence, MO).
* The Community of Christ (RLDS) claim possession of the original rewrite of the Bible Joseph Smith did (they have the copywright)
* The Salt Lake City Ldsers claim possession of the whole schebang just because they are the biggest, most well-organized, and have the biggest clout/muscle.

What I don't realize eh?

Actually i realize and agree with all of that.
Why do you assume I don't know or believe it?

I only took issue with you misrepresenting what an article and organization said, and you've since corrected your error. I can agree with your opinions on Mormonism, and still say it is wrong to misrepresent what an article and denomination says.

If you want to debate these things you'll have to find someone who actually disagrees with you on them.

If it is enjoyable to misrepresent my beliefs and argue against strawmen then go wild and have fun

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.