The Polygamy Dilemma - Is Plural Marriage a Dead Issue in Mormonism?

Mormonism Research Ministry ^ | Bill McKeever

[Colofornian]

Due to political pressure brought upon the LDS Church by the federal government over the issue of plural marriage, President Wilford Woodruff signed what has come to be known as The Manifesto, or Declaration 1. The Manifesto can be found following section 138 in the Doctrine and Covenants. This document was basically a promise to the United States stating that the LDS Church would submit to the laws of the land and desist from solemnizing plural marriages. The document, signed in 1890, also denied any accusations that the church was encouraging or performing any such marriages. However, despite this promise, the polygamy issue would not be laid to rest.

LDS historians and apologists have given numerous reasons as to why Joseph Smith felt it necessary to establish the covenant of plural marriage. One of the main arguments used by Mormon spokesmen was the fact that men mentioned in the Old Testament practiced polygamy. This is a historical fact, as both unbelievers (i.e. Lemech, the son of Cain, and Belshazzar, the king of Babylon) and believers (i.e. Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon) were known polygamists.

It must be noted that, biblically, polygamy was merely tolerated by God and never commanded by Him. The mere fact that in the beginning God created just Eve for the companionship of Adam points to the monogamous relationship between a man and a woman. This is confirmed by such passages as I Corinthians 7:2 where the apostle Paul states that "every man have his own wife," not wives. In I Timothy 3:2, monogamy was a qualification for church office, and in Matthew 19:5, even our Lord condoned monogamy when He stated "they twain (two) shall be one flesh."

A common belief in Mormonism is that all humans are the literal offspring of God. Mormons are told that we all existed as spirit children of Heavenly Father prior to our "mortal probation" here on earth. Believing that the gestation period of a spirit child in the preexistence could possibly be comparable to that here on earth, Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt supported the notion that God had multiple wives in order to enhance his ability to populate this world in a much shorter period of time. He said:

"If we admit that one personage was the Father of all this great family, and that they were all born of the same Mother, the period of time intervening between the birth of the oldest and the youngest spirit must have been immense. If we suppose, as an average, that only one year intervened between each birth, then it would have required, over one hundred thousand million of years for the same Mother to have given birth to this vast family. The law, regulating the formation of the embryo spirit, may, as it regards time, differ considerably from the period required for the formation of the infant tabernacle of flesh. Should the period between each birth, be one hundred times shorter than what is required in this world, (which is very improbable,) it would still require over one thousand million of years to raise up such a numerous progeny. But as heavenly things are, in many respects, typical of earthly, it is altogether probable that the period required for the formation of the infant spirit, is of the same length as that required in this world for the organization of the infant tabernacle. If the Father of these spirits, prior to his redemption, had secured to himself, through the everlasting covenant of marriage, many wives, as the prophet David did in our world, the period required to people a world would be shorter, within certain limits, in proportion to the number of wives. For instance, if it required one hundred thousand million of years to people a world like this, as above stated, it is evident that, with a hundred wives, this period would be reduced to only one thousand million of years. Therefore, a Father, with these facilities, could increase his kingdoms with his own children, in a hundred fold ratio above that of another who had only secured to himself one wife" (The Seer, pp.38-39).

D&C 132

While a Mormon would be excommunicated for practicing polygamy today, the command to engage in plural marriage is still included in modern editions of the Doctrine and Covenants. Section 132:4 declares: "For behold, I reveal unto you a new and everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory."

According to the introduction to volume 5 of the Documentary History of the Church (DHC), the revelation was written down in order to convince Smith's wife, Emma, of its authenticity. When exactly this "revelation" came to Joseph Smith is somewhat confusing. According to the same volume (5:501), Joseph Smith was given this revelation on July 12, 1843. However, the heading of section 132 states it was only recorded on that date only, for "this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831." It would seem that the latter would be more correct since D&C 132:52 records a warning to Smith's wife, Emma, to "receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph." Emma never liked the idea of polygamy, and despite a warning in verse 54 saying she would be destroyed if she did "not abide this commandment," she lived a full life. Her husband, on the other hand, would be dead within a year.

When the revelation was given or recorded is relatively unimportant and does not in any way solve the polygamy dilemma. There is plenty of evidence to show how Smith held to this view long before 1843 and even practiced it secretly. The real question is why was polygamy considered essential for exaltation in the early LDS Church while its practice today is grounds for excommunication?

Polygamy and the Book of Mormon

Despite the importance placed on this practice during the 1800s, the Book of Mormon has relatively little to say about polygamy. We find no reference within its pages that plural marriage was observed with God's permission. In fact, Jacob 2:27 reads, "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."

Some Mormons have countered with Jacob 2:30. This passage reads, "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." The usual argument insists that polygamy was allowed in the early years of Mormonism in order to "raise up seed." Proponents of this rebuttal say God allowed polygamy because there was an overabundance of women in the LDS Church, making it necessary for men to take on more than one wife. This argument is not supported by the facts and is actually refuted by LDS Apostle John Widtsoe. He wrote,

"The United States census records from 1850 to 1940, and all available Church records, uniformly show a preponderance of males in Utah, and in the Church. Indeed, the excess in Utah has usually been larger than for the whole United States, as would be expected in a pioneer state. The births within the Church obey the usual population law -- a slight excess of males. Orson Pratt, writing in 1853 from direct knowledge of Utah conditions, when the excess of females was supposedly the highest, declares against the opinion that females outnumbered the males in Utah. (The Seer, p. 110) The theory that plural marriage was a consequence of a surplus of female Church members fails from lack of evidence" (Evidences and Reconciliations, p.391).

Ironically, one of the best arguments against the Jacob 2:30 rebuttal is Joseph Smith himself. It is no secret that at least ten, possibly eleven, of his plural wives were already married to other men. Mormon historian Richard L. Bushman notes:

“The marital status of the plural wives further complicated the issue. Within fifteen months of marrying Louisa Beaman, Joseph had married eleven other women. Eight of the eleven were married to other men. All told, ten of Joseph’s wives were married to other men. All of them went on living with their first husbands after marrying the Prophet. The reason for choosing married women can only be surmised. Not all were married to non-Mormon men: six of the ten husbands were active Latter-day Saints In most cases the husband knew of the plural marriage and approved” (Joseph Smith—Rough Stone Rolling, p.439).

According to LDS historian Todd Compton,

"Eighteen of Joseph's wives (55 percent) were single when he married them and had never been married previously. Another four (12 percent) were widows…However, the remaining eleven women (33 percent) were married to other husbands and cohabitating with them when Smith married them…If one superimposes a chronological perspective, one sees that of Smith's first twelve wives, nine were polyandrous" (In Sacred Loneliness, p.15).

Unless it can be proven that these women were all married to men who were either impotent or sterile, we have to assume that they were quite capable of "raising up seed" without Smith's help. Apparently Joseph didn't see the need for employing Jacob 2:30 as a proof text for plural marriage.

According to The Encyclopedia of Mormonism (2:617):

"Although polygamy had been practiced privately prior to the exodus, Church leaders delayed public acknowledgment of its practice until 1852. In August of that year, at a special conference of the Church at Salt Lake City, Elder Orson Pratt, an apostle, officially announced plural marriage as a doctrine and practice of the Church. A lengthy revelation on marriage for eternity and on the plurality of wives, dictated by Joseph Smith on July 12, 1843, was published following this announcement (D&C 132)."

No doubt this practice came as quite a surprise to many of the converts who came to Utah from Europe. As far as they knew, polygamy was merely a vicious rumor propounded by enemies of the church. Why should they think otherwise? After all, the idea that Mormons were practicing polygamy was denied outright in the European edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. For example, D&C section CIX:4, which had been printed in Liverpool, England in 1866, read: "Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy; we declare that one man should have one wife; and one woman but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again." Bear in mind that this denial was a part of the Doctrine and Covenants until 1876 -- 24 years after polygamy became an official LDS doctrine!

Polygamy as a Major Theme in LDS Theology

In Utah the message was quite different. It would be only a short matter of time before plural marriage became a major theme in LDS theology. The same year that the above-mentioned Liverpool edition came out in 1866, Brigham Young preached, "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy" (Journal of Discourses (JOD) 11:269).

When this practice came under severe criticism, it was evident that LDS leaders would not go down without a fight. That Mormon leaders were determined to defend this doctrine can be easily documented.

On October 12, 1856, Heber C. Kimball (first counselor to Brigham Young) declared, "You might as well deny 'Mormonism,' and turn away from it, as to oppose the plurality of wives." (JOD 5:203).

In 1866, Brigham Young forcefully stated, "We are told that if we would give up polygamy--which we know to be a doctrine revealed from heaven and it is God and the world for it--but suppose this Church should give up this holy order of marriage, then would the devil, and all who are in league with him against the cause of God, rejoice that they had prevailed upon the Saints to refuse to obey one of the revelations and commandments of God to them." Later in the sermon President Young asked, "Will the Latter-day Saints do this? No" (JOD 11:239).

That same year, John Taylor, Mormonism's future third president, accused those who opposed polygamy within the LDS Church as "apostates." He said:

"Where did this commandment come from in relation to polygamy? It also came from God...When this commandment was given, it was so far religious, and so far binding upon the Elders of this Church that it was told them if they were not prepared to enter into it, and to stem the torrent of opposition that would come in consequence of it, the keys of the kingdom would be taken from them. When I see any of our people, men or women, opposing a principle of this kind, I have years ago set them down as on the high road to apostacy, and I do to-day; I consider them apostates, and not interested in this Church and kingdom" (JOD 11:221).

In 1869 Wilford Woodruff, Mormonism's future fourth president, taught,

"If we were to do away with polygamy, it would only be one feather in the bird, one ordinance in the Church and kingdom. Do away with that, then 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 and turn sectarians and do as the world does, then all would be right. We just can't do that, for God has commanded us to build up His kingdom and to bear our testimony to the nations of the earth, and we are going to do it, come life or come death. He has told us to do thus, and we shall obey Him in days to come as we have in days past" (JOD 13:165 - p.166).

Even as late as 1879, Joseph F. Smith was insisting that plural marriage was essential for LDS exaltation. Speaking at the funeral of William Clayton, Mormonism's future sixth president, stated,

"This doctrine of eternal union of husband and wife, and of plural marriage, is one of the most important doctrines ever revealed to man in any age of the world. Without it man would come to a full stop; without it we never could be exalted to associate with and become god..." (JOD 21:9).

During a message given in 1880, Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt said,

"...if plurality of marriage is not true or in other words, if a man has no divine right to marry two wives or more in this world, then marriage for eternity is not true, and your faith is all vain, and all the sealing ordinances, and powers, pertaining to marriages for eternity are vain, worthless, good for nothing; for as sure as one is true the other also must be true." (JOD 21:296).

Submitting to Government Pressure

Despite the rhetoric, the federal government began its efforts to force the abandonment of polygamy on July 1, 1862. The Anti-bigamy Act defined the illegality of polygamy, but it was not really enforced for another 20 years. In 1882 the government enacted what was known as the Edmunds law. This provision

"made the 'cohabiting' with more than one woman a crime, punishable by a fine not to exceed three hundred dollars, and by imprisonment not to exceed six months. This law also rendered persons who were living in polygamy, or who believed in its rightfulness, incompetent to act as grand or petit jurors; and also disqualified all polygamists for voting or holding office" (B. H. Roberts, Outlines of Ecclesiastical History, p.437).

Five years later the Edmunds-Tucker Act became law. Its effects on the LDS Church proved to be the most devastating and are described in volume 5, page 320 of Messages of the First Presidency:

"During the entire period of the presidency of John Taylor, 1880 to 1887, relentless prosecution of men who had entered into the relationship of plural marriage was intensified.

"Under the provisions of the Edmunds-Tucker law the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was disincorporated, the Perpetual Emigration Fund Company was dissolved, and all property belonging to the Church, with the exception of buildings used exclusively for religious worship, was escheated to the government.

"Hundreds of men who had contracted plural marriages were heavily fined, and imprisoned. All persons who could not subscribe to a test oath which was provided especially for those who practiced or believed in the practice of plural marriage, were disfranchised.

"It became obvious that no human power could prevent the disintegration of the Church, except upon a pledge by its members to obey the laws which had been enacted prohibiting the practice of polygamy.

"It was under these circumstances that Wilford Woodruff was sustained as President of the Church, in April, 1889.

"September 24th, 1890, President Woodruff promulgated his Official Declaration to the Church and to the people of the United States, commonly referred to as The Manifesto." The signing of the Manifesto was certainly a major blow to the "prophetic insight" of Mormonism's leaders. Perhaps Woodruff forgot that it was he himself who said his church would continue to practice polygamy"come life or come death." In light of the numerous statements made by several LDS leaders, it is difficult to take seriously Woodruff's claim that he acted according to the will of God. To do so would be to admit God has a very short memory, or that the previous comments from LDS leaders were outside of his will.

It would appear that the signing of the Manifesto was merely a ploy to get the federal government to relax its sanctions against the LDS Church. Evidence shows that polygamy continued despite the promise to abandon it. In 1899, then Apostle Heber J. Grant (he would become President in 1918) would plead guilty to unlawful cohabitation and be fined $100. In 1906, sixth LDS President Joseph F. Smith "pleaded guilty before Judge M. L. Rictchie in the District Court Friday to the charge of cohabitating with four women in addition to his lawful wife." He was fined $300, the maximum allowed by law. (Salt Lake Tribune, 11/24/1906).

Splinter Groups

Many Latter-day Saints viewed the abandonment of polygamy as religious treason. Almost immediately splinter groups were formed to carry on the "everlasting covenant" of celestial marriage. According to the December 11, 1997 issue of the New York Times, it is estimated that between 30,000 and 35,000 people practice polygamy today. Many modern polygamists skirt the letter of the law by legally marrying one wife, and then perform private services in what they feel is in accord with "God's law."

Fundamentalist Mormons who practice plural marriage have little to fear from the government. According to the June 28, 1998 edition of the Salt Lake Tribune, "even though polygamy is explicitly illegal under the Utah criminal code and prohibited in the state constitution, Utah law-enforcement agencies do not prosecute its practice."

Not only does the government ignore this practice, in many cases it actually subsidizes it. In the polygamous communities of Hildale (UT) and Colorado City (AZ), "fully 33 percent of the residents...are using U.S. Department of Agriculture food stamps to feed their families." Both cities "rank in the top 10 in the intermountain West in relying on Medicaid, which provides health care for the poor" (Salt Lake Tribune 6/28/98).

Former Mormon Prophets Would Today Be Excommunicated from the LDS Church

In today's world of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, John Taylor, and many other well-known heroes of the Mormon faith would be promptly excommunicated from the LDS Church for their participation in practicing their view of celestial marriage. LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie declared, "All who pretend or assume to engage in plural marriage in this day, when the one holding the keys has withdrawn the power by which they are performed, are guilty of gross wickedness" (Mormon Doctrine, pp.579). No doubt, if Brigham Young were alive, he would rebut this by stating, "Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be dammed..." (Journal of Discourses 3:266).

Polygamy Will Commence Again?

It would be incorrect to think polygamy is a dead issue within the LDS Church. While McConkie denounced the practice of polygamy in this life, he did say, "Obviously the holy practice will commence again after the Second Coming of the Son of Man and the ushering in of the millenium." (Mormon Doctrine, p. 578). The most common answer as to why it is no longer a practice in the LDS Church is that it violates the law. Such an argument compels us to ask, "Does God really care what American law says?" A Mormon may argue that present circumstances reflect God's will regarding this subject, but a Mormon who chooses such a defense will find no support for this from leaders prior to 1890. Almost without exception, pressure from the United States to eliminate polygamy was looked upon as a direct refusal of recognizing God's will. Also, what about other countries where polygamy is legal? Is the LDS Church going to be so arrogant as to inflict American precedent upon its members in countries where polygamy is not outlawed?

When Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor addressed a conference at the University of Utah back in 1993, she said she would probably vote in favor of overturning existing anti-polygamy laws should a case ever come before the Court. O'Connor retired in early 2006 but her statement did show how her thinking differed from the Supreme Court of the late nineteenth century. In January of 1879 the U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, found George Reynolds guilty in a case known as Reynolds vs. United States. The court ruled that

"Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people. At common law, the second marriage was always void, and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an ofence against society.... From that day to this we think it may safely be said there never has been a time in any State of the Union when polygamy has not been an offence against society, cognizable by the civil courts and punishable with more or less severity. In the face of all this evidence, it is impossible to believe that the constitutional guaranty of religious freedom was intended to prohibit legislation in respect to this most important feature of social life."

The Court ruled that George Reynolds, a faithful Mormon and practicing polygamist, "be imprisoned at hard labor for a term of two years, and pay a fine of $500."

In recent years much has been said about same-sex marriages. Should any state succeed in allowing homosexual, same-sex marriages to become law, it is almost certain that polygamy will rush in on its heels. Should same-sex marriages become legal, there will be no moral high ground for the court to take. The irony is that the driving force towards polygamy will probably not be a vocal minority of "Fundamentalist" Mormons, but rather the ever growing influence of Muslims.

This "slippery slope" is not at all a new revelation. The late Mike Royko, columnist for the Chicago Tribune, expressed similar concerns in an article printed in the Salt Lake Tribune (12/15/96, pg.A5). Royko described a hypothetical situation in which he stated that all that would be necessary to get the polygamy campaign going is to have the media get behind it and start calling all those who disagree with the concept of multiple wives (husbands?) a bunch of mean-spirited "polyphobes." I have to agree since this type of tactic has worked so well in the past. With such a strategy, it may be only a matter of time before your 1040 form has multiple lines for "spouses" as it does for dependents.

How will the LDS Church react should polygamy become legal? It is hard to tell. It will certainly have a difficult time denouncing it since Doctrine and Covenants section 132 still encourages polygamous relationships. This could very well become a nightmare for the LDS public relations department. Should the LDS Church decide to go back to its teachings of the nineteenth century, I am sure that many of those Mormon fundamentalists will feel they have been vindicated.

Related Quotes

• "I do not wish to say much upon this subject, but I say, woe to you Eves if you proclaim or entertain feelings against this doctrine! Woe to every female in this Church who says, 'I will not submit to the doctrine that God has revealed.' You will wake up by and by and say, 'I have lost the crown and exaltation I might have gained had I only been faithful to my covenants and the revelations which God gave. I might have been crowned as well as you, but now I must go to another kingdom.'" - Brigham Young, "Condition of Apostates, Etc.", Journal of Discourses, vol. 12, p. 97, June 30, 1867.
• "Now I wish to come directly to the point in regard to polygamy as it exists at the present time among the Latter-day Saints. I stated in the beginning of my remarks, that polygamy, or any other institution that was given at one age, might not be binding upon another, without a fresh revelation from God. I made that statement when I was discussing that subject in this house. I still say, that we are not under the necessity of practicing polygamy because God gave laws and commandments for its observance and regulation in ancient times. Why then do the Latter-day Saints practice polygamy? That is a plain question. I will answer it just as plainly. It is because we believe, with all the sincerity of our hearts, as has been stated by former speakers from this stand, that the Lord God who gave revelations to Moses approbating polygamy, has given revelations to the Latter-day Saints, not only approbating it, but commanding it, as he commanded Israel in ancient times...

  "God has told us Latter-day Saints that we shall be condemned if we do not enter into that principle; and yet I have heard now and then (I am very glad to say that only a few such instances have come under my notice), a brother or a sister say, 'I am a Latter-day Saint, but I do not believe in polygamy.' Oh, what an absurd expression! What an absurd idea! A person might as well say, 'I am a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ, but I do not believe in him.' One is just as consistent as the other. Or a person might as well say, “I believe in Mormonism, and in the revelations given through Joseph Smith, but I am not a polygamist, and do not believe in polygamy,” What an absurdity! If one portion of the doctrines of the Church is true, the whole of them are true. If the doctrine of polygamy, as revealed to the Latter-day Saints, is not true, I would not give a fig for all your other revelations that came through Joseph Smith the Prophet; I would renounce the whole of them, because it is utterly impossible, according to the revelations that are contained in these books, to believe a part of them to be divine—from God—and part of them to be from the devil; that is foolishness in the extreme; it is an absurdity that exists because of the ignorance of some people. I have been astonished at it. I did hope there was more intelligence among the Latter-day Saints, and a greater understanding of principle than to suppose that anyone can be a member of this Church in good standing, and yet reject polygamy. The Lord has said, that those who reject this principle reject their salvation, they shall be damned, saith the Lord; those to whom I reveal this law and they do not receive it, shall be damned. Now here comes in our consciences. We have either to renounce Mormonism, Joseph Smith, Book of Mormon, Book of Covenants, and the whole system of things as taught by the Latter-day Saints, and say that God has not raised up a Church, has not raised up a prophet, has not begun to restore all things as he promised, we are obliged to do this, or else to say, with all our hearts, 'Yes, we are polygamists, we believe in the principle, and we are willing to practice it, because God has spoken from the heavens.'

  "Now I want to prophesy a little. It is not very often that I prophesy, though I was commanded to do so, when I was a boy. I want to prophesy that all men and women who oppose the revelation which God has given in relation to polygamy will find themselves in darkness; the Spirit of God will withdraw from them from the very moment of their opposition to that principle, until they will finally go down to hell and be damned, if they do not repent." - Orson Pratt, "God's Ancient People Polygamists, Etc.", Journal of Discourses, vol. 17, pp. 223-225, October 7, 1874.

• "Polygamy is a principle revealed from heaven with a commandment to enter into it practically. The principle is abundantly corroborated in the ancient scriptures, approved of God and sanctioned by all righteous men; and he who labors to overthrow this principle, fights against Jehovah and makes himself a shining target, courting the arrows of the Almighty upon his head, heart and country." - Orson Hyde, "Government of the United States, Etc.", Journal of Discourses, vol. 20, p. 99, November 3, 1878.
• "Congress passed a law making plurality of wives, bigamy, or polygamy if you please, a penal offense. Now it should be distinctly understood that this offense is not sinful because Congress has made it penal. There is no ungodliness in it, because God has revealed it, he has commanded it." - Franklin D. Richards, "Preaching of John the Baptist, Etc.", Journal of Discourses, vol. 20, p. 312, October 6, 1879.

Related Resources

• What is "Celestial Polygamy"?, by Bill McKeever
• A Look at Fundamentalist Mormonism, by Bill McKeever
• John Taylor's 1886 Revelation on Plural Marriage
• Lifting the Veil of Polygamy (Video)
• Interview with a Mormon Fundamentalist (Video)
• Mormonism 201: Chapter 16 - Polygamy (Rejoinder)
• Mormon Polygamy: Comedy or Tragedy? (Blog post)
• The Awful Works of Abraham (Blog post)
• Polygamy and Birth Defects (Blog post)
• John Walsh on FLDS vs. LDS (SLC Tribune blog)
• Polygamy was no Mormon harem, but it tore at marriages and hearts, by Doug Gibson
• Mary Ann Darrow and Edmund Richardson
• Seeming Contradictions: Polygamy (Plural Marriage), by Jeff Spector
• Are Mormons through with polygamy?, by Peggy Fletcher Stack
• Mormons say polygamy morally wrong, Pew poll shows (Deseret News)
• I’m pretty sure Mormons still believe in polygamy. Am I wrong?, by Joanna Brooks (cultural Mormon)

[Elsie]

Good luck, Don Quixote.

But I fear your quest will be in vain.

[Elsie]

All, Teppe thinks that just because his "D&C" scriptures mentions Isaac as a polygamist, that he was one...

A rational person wonders WHY the OTHER things in D&C tend to be IGNORED...

---

          Doctrines and Covenants 49:16 

Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one ^awife, and they twain shall be ^bone flesh, and all this that the ^cearth might answer the end of its creation;

 

And then there is the wholesale SILENCE about polygamy found in the BoM, as well.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

---

 

It's too bad that the ANTIs seem to be more knowledgeable about MORMON scripture than FR Mormons!!

[Elsie]

Statehood was granted , and the Church hierachcy refuted polygamy, and began excommunicating members for practicing polygamy.

That's pretty much it.

They threw their GOD under the bus in favor of Statehood.

What a bunch of SPINELESS WEASELs!

---

 

    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

 

[Elsie]

You cite Hardy's book as a reference, right ?
Was Hardy LDS ?
What were his sources ?

Good questions.

---

Where can we find an 'OFFICIAL MORMON' teaching website??

Official sites are sites supported by LDS officials unless said official sites are considered unofficial by said officials.

 

At that point such sites are unofficial unless officially referenced for official purposes by officials who can do so officially.

 

This should not be misconstrued as an indication that official sites can be unofficially recognized as official nor should it be implied that unofficial sites cannot contain official information, but are not officially allowed to be offical despite their official contents due the their unofficialness.

 

Official sites will be official and recognized as official by officials of the LDS unless there is an official reason to mark them as unofficial either temporally or permanently, which would make the official content officially unofficial.

 

This is also not to imply that recognized sites, often used on FR by haters and bigots cannot contain official information, it just means that content, despite its official status, is no longer official and should be consider unofficial despite the same information being official on an official site elsewhere.

 

Even then the officialness my be amended due to the use of the unofficial information which may determine the officialness of anything be it official or unofficial depending on how and where it is used officially or unofficially.

I hope this clear things up for the lurkers out there.

The haters tend to make things complicated and confusing when it is all really quite crystal clear.

--Ejonesie22

[Elsie]

I believe that the law of the land was written in 1862 to stop Mormon Smithians from their practice of polygamy, Utah never seemed very effective in stopping the Mormon practice.

Strangely enough; the MORMONs who reminded behind - those who did NOT follow the fool Brigham Young on his ill advised HANDCART trips to Utah - managed to stop POLYGAMY on their own!

To this DAY, they claim that it didn't really happen under JS' watch, and it was BY that got it going so strong out West.

[Elsie]

Of the total of 2,962 handcart immigrants, about 250 died along the way...

 

It's OFFICIAL! --->   http://www.lds.org/gospellibrary/pioneer/03_Iowa_City.html

 

 

 

(Looks like Gov. Boggs was a piker!)

[Elsie]

Keep up the Smears, Innuendo, Distortions and Fabrications .... no one does it better than you! Headquarters!

The following are the LYING images that MORMONism has produced, KNOWING that they represent something FALSE!!

 

 

   

"Now the way he translated was he put the urim and thummim into his hat and Darkned his Eyes than he would take a sentance and it would apper in Brite Roman Letters. Then he would tell the writer and he would write it. Then that would go away the next sentance would Come and so on. But if it was not Spelt rite it would not go away till it was rite, so we see it was marvelous. Thus was the hol [whole] translated."

---Joseph Knight's journal.

---

"In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us."
(History of the RLDS Church, 8 vols.

(Independence, Missouri: Herald House,1951),

"Last Testimony of Sister Emma [Smith Bidamon]," 3:356.

---

"I, as well as all of my father's family, Smith's wife, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, were present during the translation. . . . He [Joseph Smith] did not use the plates in translation."
---(David Whitmer,

as published in the "Kansas City Journal," June 5, 1881,

and reprinted in the RLDS "Journal of History", vol. 8, (1910), pp. 299-300.

---

In an 1885 interview, Zenas H. Gurley, then the editor of the RLDS Saints Herald, asked Whitmer if Joseph had used his "Peep stone" to do the translation. Whitmer replied:

"... he used a stone called a "Seers stone," the "Interpreters" having been taken away from him because of transgression. The "Interpreters" were taken from Joseph after he allowed Martin Harris to carry away the 116 pages of Ms [manuscript] of the Book of Mormon as a punishment, but he was allowed to go on and translate by use of a "Seers stone" which he had, and which he placed in a hat into which he buried his face, stating to me and others that the original character appeared upon parchment and under it the translation in English."

---

"Martin Harris related an incident that occurred during the time that he wrote that portion of the translation of the Book of Mormon which he was favored to write direct from the mouth of the Prophet Joseph Smith. He said that the Prophet possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seer stone, Martin explained the translation as follows: By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin and when finished he would say 'Written,' and if correctly written that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used."
(Edward Stevenson, "One of the Three Witnesses,"

reprinted from Deseret News, 30 Nov. 1881

in Millennial Star, 44 (6 Feb. 1882): 86-87.)

---

In 1879, Michael Morse, Emma Smith's brother-in-law, stated:

 

 "When Joseph was translating the Book of Mormon [I] had occasion more than once to go into his immediate presence, and saw him engaged at his work of translation. The mode of procedure consisted in Joseph's placing the Seer Stone in the crown of a hat, then putting his face into the hat, so as to entirely cover his face, resting his elbows upon his knees, and then dictating word after word, while the scribes Emma, John Whitmer, O. Cowdery, or some other wrote it down."
(W.W. Blair interview with Michael Morse,

Saints Herald, vol. 26, no. 12

June 15, 1879,  pp. 190-91.)

---

Joseph Smith's brother William also testified to the "face in the hat" version:

 

"The manner in which this was done was by looking into the Urim and Thummim, which was placed in a hat to exclude the light, (the plates lying near by covered up), and reading off the translation, which appeared in the stone by the power of God"

("A New Witness for Christ in America,"

Francis W. Kirkham, 2:417.)

---

"The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret was the same manner as when he looked for the money-diggers, with the stone in his hat, while the book of plates were at the same time hid in the woods."

---Isaac Hale (Emma Smith's father's) affidavit, 1834.

---

---

[ejonesie22]

Teppe always misses that little point. Guess it comes from a lack of familiarity with the Holy Bible or the reduction of reasoning skills one must posses to fall for LDS doctrine and propaganda...

[ravenwolf]

I think the reason it was only defended for 38 years is because it was misrepresented to begin with and was realized.

It is kind of hard to make any sense from but appears that the Prophet was the only one that was under command to have more than one wife and that is the reason Emma was mentioned personally.

And there could only be one prophet on this earth at one time.

Well if plural marriage comes back again it is not going to matter to me as i could never have supported or took care of more than one wife even when i was young.

So i am sure not going to worry about it now.

[Gamecock]

Traditional Mormons, like the fLDS, still embrace good old fashioned Mormon principles. It’s these new school folks that have sold out.

[ravenwolf]

Keep up the Smears, Innuendo, Distortions and Fabrications .... no one does it better than you!

---

That is saying it like it is.

If some one wants to Go after what they refer to as false religion there are so many other things that is a lot more clear from the Bible that they could use.

It is my belief that they are not going after false religion at all because that would include their own church, but they are only going after plural marriage which is mostly a non issue.

And also many comments which i have read in prior threads seem to equate plural marriage to gay marriage.

Several comments was against gay marriage because it might lead to plural marriage, which is a way of saying that polygamy is worse that homosexuality.

Making a big to do over plural marriage may be a way of taking peoples attention from gay marriage, which is supporting it.

An other example.
They equate polygamy with gay marriage, so what they are doing is calling many of our Christian founders queers.

Although one man an one woman is probably the ideal, i see nothing that forbids plural marriage.

If they think the Bible forbids plural marriage then they should do every thing they can to get rid of the very Bible they claim to believe in because many of the people who made possible the books which made the Bible possible had more than one wife.

This is part of the reason that i belong to no religion, and probably no religion would have me any way, ha ha.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“An other example. They equate polygamy with gay marriage, so what they are doing is calling many of our Christian founders queers.”

Will you please point out which Christian Founders had multiple wives?

Jesus?
The 12 Apostles?
The replacement Apostle that took the place of Judas?
Paul?
Nope.

Well, that covers the foundation of the Church.

Any 1st generation Church Fathers have multiple wives?
None I know of... can you provide some names?

Any Popes?
Nope.

Luther?
Calvin?
Zwingli?
Nope.

Founders of Methodists?
Founders of Baptists?
Founders of Presbyterians?
Founders of Anglicans?
Nope.

You simply have to do better. There are not “many Christian Founders” who were polygamous. If there were some hidden there that fits your definition of “many”, please list them and educate me. Obviously, I must need it.

I will add that opposing “gay marriage” is based on changing the definition from one man and one woman who are not closely related to anything less.

To change the definition of marriage to two of anything, opens the door to polygamy, polyandry, bestiality, assorted groups, etc. No one is calling anyone else gay. They are opposing changing the definition of marriage from God’s definition - and here you should refer to creation and Christ’s reaffirmation of that definition in Genesis - to everything less than that.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

"But I fear your quest will be in vain."

Oh, no. teppe has LOTS AND LOTS of evidence, I bet. I am providing her an opportunity to post ANY FACT, instead of just making claims.

I am giving her the benefit of the doubt here that she is sincere.

How about it teppe. Please show the distortions, the fabrications, the smears, etc. that you claimed were in post #1.

"Where's the beef?"

[Colofornian]

If they think the Bible forbids plural marriage then they should do every thing they can to get rid of the very Bible they claim to believe in because many of the people who made possible the books which made the Bible possible had more than one wife.

The NT plainly talks about how leaders must be the husband of ONE WIFE.

Old Testament: Deut. 17:17: 17 He must not take many wives...

Besides Solomon, what OT book listed by his name was a polygamist?

Moses is offered up as the author of the first 5 books...was Moses a polygamist? (No)

Your argument comes down to a few like David & Solomon...and if you're thinking that Solomon's 1,000 combined concubines & wives was somehow common, think again.

David is usually the main "complex" one to sort out.

Some of his "wives" were actually concubines inherited along with everything else the new "king" inherited.

One of his wives, Michal, was taken away from him. Bathsheba was "unionized" via sheer adultery...not exactly exemplary as some sort of "model" to be followed.

All of this still doesn't explain ALL of his wives; but you are the one asserting "many"...

So beyond those few, who are your "many?"

[taxcontrol]

You bring up only tangentially associated points. Yes there are several restrictions. must be male must be brother must be....

That does not change the original requirement of the law. Further, it misses the point of my post. The original comment that I was responding to was the assertion that God only tolerated polygamy and never commanded it. Deu 25: 5-6 flatly rebuts that assertion.

Further, you are reaching when you attempt to assert that the culture may have assumed that the marriage would not have been allowed. This is because we KNOW that Jews practiced polygamy. While it was not widespread due to the need to support those “extra” wives, the practice was never banded under OT law. Further, there are OT laws about not only the treatment of wives, but concubines as well. See Exod 21:7-10

As for Deu 17:17 go back and read 17:16 as well. It says he must not multiply horses and then it says he must not multiply wives. Do you really think it is a reasonable assertion to limit the king to ONE horse? Kind David was a man after God’s own hart (Acts 13:22), yet we know he had two wives and possibly others before he was anointed king.

[taxcontrol]

I understand WHY the law existed. It does not change the rebuttal to the original assertion that God never commanded polygamy. The fact is simply this. God did give a commandment that could quite possibly result in polygamy. Further, there are OT laws about how plural wives and even concubines are treated.

Deu 25:5-6 is a flat rebuttal of the assertion of the author.

[Elsie]

FAIRLDS may have a job opening for you!

It is kind of hard to make any sense from but appears that the Prophet was the only one that was under command to have more than one wife and that is the reason Emma was mentioned personally.

---

Yeah... GOD 'mentioned' Emma alright!!

---

Doctines and Covenants section 132

 

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.

[Elsie]

Traditional Mormons, like the fLDS...

You mean by 'traditional' those that actually BELIEVE what their SCRIPTURES require them to do?

[Elsie]

Although one man an one woman is probably the ideal, i see nothing that forbids plural marriage.

Yes; it appears so.

Do you 'see' anything in the BIBLE that says it is an ambivalent issue to GOD?

[Elsie]

Muddying the issue...