Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Polygamy Dilemma - Is Plural Marriage a Dead Issue in Mormonism?
Mormonism Research Ministry ^ | Bill McKeever

Posted on 07/12/2013 3:47:27 PM PDT by 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

Related Resources



TOPICS: History; Other non-Christian; Religion & Culture; Theology
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda; inman; lds; mormonism; pluralmarriage; polygamy; romney; romney4gaymarriage; romney4polygamy; romneyagenda; sectarianturmoil
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-131 next last
170 years ago TODAY...A dozen years AFTER Joseph Smith started fooling around with a teen-age live-in housekeeper whom he eventually made into a "plural wife" before Smith's first wife kicked her out...Smith FINALLY unveiled the official LDS "doctrine" of plural marriage...STILL on the books in the Lds "scriptures"...known as "Doctrines & Covenants 132"

Interestingly tho...Mormons STILL did NOT go "public" with D&C 132 til 1852...when a book that included mention of Mormon Utah polygamy unveiled it earlier that same year.

So...quite interesting that Mormons invested so much in a Smith "doctrine" that was really only openly published and defended for just 38 years!

Be sure ya check out the many links in the article!

1 posted on 07/12/2013 3:47:27 PM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

It would be kind of funny if someday the government forced plural marriage on the state of Utah.


2 posted on 07/12/2013 3:49:48 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Nothing is a dead issue, particularly the dead.


3 posted on 07/12/2013 3:51:39 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
I get the sense that although the LDS church does not publicly support polygamy - indeed to the contrary it denounces it, there is still an undercurrent of acceptance. Otherwise how could the polygamous communities that have thrived in Utah for decades? It seems to me that the church has merely winked at their existence because the polygamous branches of the Mormon church are being consistent with the teachings of Joseph Smith & Bringem Young.
4 posted on 07/12/2013 3:55:53 PM PDT by Nevadan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nevadan

By the same token, you could say the U.S. government winked at it too. But, I doubt your theory is right. In 1953, when Arizona cracked down on polygamists, LDS supported it, and the Deseret News was one of the few newspapers to protray the raid as positively. The raid was criticized by the non-LDS world.


5 posted on 07/12/2013 4:00:38 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Nevadan; All
I get the sense that although the LDS church does not publicly support polygamy - indeed to the contrary it denounces it, there is still an undercurrent of acceptance.

Yes...and no...

If you look @ that 2nd to the last link of the article -- the Pew poll -- supposedly only 2% of Mormons accept polygamy morally.

But that's this side of eternity "polygamy."

The fact is that Mormon policy ALLOWS for a guy to line up several serial wives in "forever" marriages in the Mormon temple. Upon death, then, he supposedly becomes an eternal polygamist.

The only thing is...that the guy's previous wife or wives have to be dead before he can add to his eternal harem.

Some of the CURRENT Lds "apostles" even have 2 such wives apiece.

6 posted on 07/12/2013 4:09:16 PM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Nevadan

“I get the sense that although the LDS church does not publicly support polygamy - indeed to the contrary it denounces it, there is still an undercurrent of acceptance.”

That undercurrent may be due to the LDS afterlife being clearly polygmous in nature.


7 posted on 07/12/2013 4:21:18 PM PDT by GladesGuru (Islam is antithetical to, and Islam is irreconcilable with, America. Therefore - Islam Delenda Est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

The author is incorrect in one assertion. The author states “...polygamy was merely tolerated by God and never commanded by Him.” That is not entirely true.

Levirate marriage is a type of marriage in which the brother of a deceased man is obliged to marry his brother’s widow, and the widow is obliged to marry her deceased husband’s brother. Levirate marriage is law under Deuteronomy 25: 5-6

While not always the case, this could result in a plural marriage. In fact, there is no excuse or “out” if the brother is already married.


8 posted on 07/12/2013 4:29:15 PM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Horn-dog Prophet Placemarker


9 posted on 07/12/2013 4:40:12 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion ( “The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.” - Tacitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol; All
Levirate marriage is a type of marriage in which the brother of a deceased man is obliged to marry his brother’s widow, and the widow is obliged to marry her deceased husband’s brother. Levirate marriage is law under Deuteronomy 25: 5-6

Sorry...but the way you state this is completely inaccurate.

First of all, there are conditions even for this coerced arrangement:

One such "condition" is if the dead man did not leave a son to carry on his name.

So...that automatically left out ALL moms who already had sons.

A second condition was for those brothers to have ALREADY been living together (v. 5).

That condition then did not REQUIRE that even a sonless wife move in with her brother-in-law.

Then, on top of all of that, my reading of Deut. 25 -- and you'll have to give me additional sources for me to consider something different here -- doesn't assume that the remaining brother-in-law is already married.

It may have been assumed in that culture that this applied to an unmarried brother-in-law.

Finally, we also know that if the widow's sister was married to this "live-in" brother-in-law, then Leviticus 18:18 specifically forbid any such "arrangement": 18 “‘Do not take your wife’s sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living."

I also note that while you cite Deut. 25, you didn't cite Deut. 17:17: 17 He must not take many wives...

10 posted on 07/12/2013 4:45:57 PM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Colofornian ~:” The only thing is...that the guy’s previous wife or wives have to be dead before he can add to his eternal harem.
Some of the CURRENT Lds “apostles” even have 2 such wives apiece. “

I beleive that is commonly called “ serial monogamy “
, as what happens when one wife is deceased .

Are you opposed to re-marriage after one’s mate is deceased ?
Or do you consider remarriage under such circumstances as ‘polygamy ‘ ?


11 posted on 07/12/2013 5:24:40 PM PDT by Tilted Irish Kilt (“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.” - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

taxcontrol :” Levirate marriage is law under Deuteronomy 25: 5-6 “

Levirate marriage exists only for the sake of line of inhertance, which follows only the male line , according to Jewish tradition .

Traditional Jewish priesthood , and ‘Jewishness’ if you will , is traced matrilinially .


12 posted on 07/12/2013 5:30:24 PM PDT by Tilted Irish Kilt (“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.” - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

What about Polygamy in the Bible????

Could it be that Abraham, Isaac?, Jacob as well as King David and Solomon, all ancestors of Jesus Christ himself ...

could be EVIL Polygamists?

Sorry Honey, if you have a problem with Mormons that practiced polygamy 125 years ago ..... you also have a problem with God sanctioned polygamy in the Bible.

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


13 posted on 07/12/2013 5:52:28 PM PDT by teppe (... for my God ... for my Family ... for my Country ....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tilted Irish Kilt

“I beleive that is commonly called “ serial monogamy “
, as what happens when one wife is deceased .

Are you opposed to re-marriage after one’s mate is deceased ?
Or do you consider remarriage under such circumstances as ‘polygamy ‘ ?”


In Mormonism, you do not stop being married after death. The marriage is for eternity, and they will continue having sexual relations and children (if they are good enough to enter the Celestial heaven) to populate their own worlds.

In Christianity, marriage ends when one is dead.

Mar_12:25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

Rom_7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.


14 posted on 07/12/2013 6:05:56 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: teppe

“Sorry Honey, if you have a problem with Mormons that practiced polygamy 125 years ago ..... you also have a problem with God sanctioned polygamy in the Bible.”


Except, that it wasn’t sanctioned. It was permitted for the hardness of their hearts, like divorce, but it wasn’t what God intended.

Mat_19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

If polygamy was sanctioned, then you wouldn’t be an adulterer to divorce your wife and marry someone else, per Christ:

Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.


15 posted on 07/12/2013 6:07:53 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: teppe; Colofornian
What about Polygamy in the Bible????

What about it tepee? Did God command them to practice polygamy in order to entitle them to attain the CK? Better yet, what did Jesus say? He said one man - one wife and to marry another while the first is still living is adultery. Further, you will not find God ordering them to marry a woman who is already married to her still living husband. Or God ordering them to marry a mother and her daughter.

No smears or innuendo tepee - just simple facts that you conveniently ignore and try to sweep under the rug.

16 posted on 07/12/2013 6:12:03 PM PDT by Godzilla (3/7/77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

so .. answer the question :
Are you opposed to re-marriage after one’s mate is deceased ?

Or is that considered polygamy ?


17 posted on 07/12/2013 6:13:03 PM PDT by Tilted Irish Kilt (“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.” - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Tilted Irish Kilt

“so .. answer the question :
Are you opposed to re-marriage after one’s mate is deceased ?

Or is that considered polygamy ?”


No, I am not opposed to re-marriage.

What I am opposed to is eternal polygamous marriage in heaven as taught and allegedly practiced by Mormons.


18 posted on 07/12/2013 6:19:38 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: teppe

Hi teppe,

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

I’m not sure what was said that was a smear? Would you please point one out?
I’m not sure what was said that was a innuendo? Would you please point one out?
I’m not sure what was said that was a distortion? Would you please point one out?
I’m not sure what was said that was a fabrication? Would you please point one out?

Did you really identify ANY of these things, or by using those words, did you intend to smear, use innuendo, distort or fabricate things to malign a FReeper’s character?


19 posted on 07/12/2013 6:39:04 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion ( “The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.” - Tacitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Tilted Irish Kilt
I beleive that is commonly called “ serial monogamy “ , as what happens when one wife is deceased .

(Except that in Mormonism, marriage is FOREVER...meaning this is called eternal polygamy -- to Mormons, anyway--upon death)

20 posted on 07/12/2013 7:13:51 PM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: teppe; All
What about Polygamy in the Bible???? Could it be that Abraham, Isaac?, Jacob as well as King David and Solomon, all ancestors of Jesus Christ himself ... could be EVIL Polygamists?

I've been over this ground before with you -- at least 2-3 times.

Therefore, I will respond on the basis of "ALL"

All, Teppe thinks that just because his "D&C" scriptures mentions Isaac as a polygamist, that he was one...Yet the Bible says NOTHING at all about Isaac having more than a single wife!

Jacob became a polygamist because his father-in-law pulled one over on him; so he thinks what was introduced via deception is A-OK!

And as for Abraham, NOBODY called his wife's servant girl his "wife" except for his wife...before she slept with him.

For all we know that may have been one night; one week; one month.

Even his wife then referenced her as a "slave"...post pregnancy.

The angel of the Lord, post pregnancy, referenced her as the wife's servant...Abraham did, too...so did Moses...so did the apostle Paul in Galatians 4.

Abraham's NEXT wife came AFTER his first wife died.

21 posted on 07/12/2013 7:20:28 PM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Tilted Irish Kilt

Or is it “Tilted Irish Kill”?

Could explain a lot of events since 1916.

;^)


22 posted on 07/12/2013 9:16:04 PM PDT by elcid1970 ("The Second Amendment is more important than Islam.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

I do not understand the headline, lds have never given up plural marriage, they just called it celestial marriage now


23 posted on 07/12/2013 9:20:24 PM PDT by svcw (Stand or die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: teppe

Old argument.......get some historical context.......JS may have argued that so he could be the pedophile adulator he was......he was WRONG and so are you


24 posted on 07/12/2013 9:27:09 PM PDT by svcw (Stand or die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: teppe

God Almighty NEVER sanctioned marriage beyond ONE man and ONE woman.
Do your sister wives know what you do?


25 posted on 07/12/2013 9:28:20 PM PDT by svcw (Stand or die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion
ha! Perfect when you get an answer ping me (ok I know I was pissed aggravated before but this is now) really ping me. K?
26 posted on 07/12/2013 9:31:11 PM PDT by svcw (Stand or die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Nevadan
I get the sense that although the LDS church does not publicly support polygamy - indeed to the contrary it denounces it, there is still an undercurrent of acceptance. Otherwise how could the polygamous communities that have thrived in Utah for decades? It seems to me that the church has merely winked at their existence because the polygamous branches of the Mormon church are being consistent with the teachings of Joseph Smith & Bringem Young.

I agree, and I believe that a few years ago when the FLDS branch of Mormonism was in the news I looked into how Utah dealt with it's many polygamists, and saw that they are tolerant of it, that is why it is so open and prevalent there.

27 posted on 07/12/2013 10:27:18 PM PDT by ansel12 (Sodom and Gomorrah, flush with libertarians and liberals, short on social conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: elcid1970
elcid1970: "Could explain a lot of events since 1916. ;^)"

Actually since the 1850's , beginning with " AN GORTA MÓR ".
I think it has to do with food and manner of 'dress' ,
"where the breeze runs thru the trees, and winters run chilley .." , ..and crankey old men !

28 posted on 07/12/2013 10:59:42 PM PDT by Tilted Irish Kilt (“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.” - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
ansel12 ~:" I get the sense that although the LDS church does not publicly support polygamy - indeed to the contrary it denounces it, there is still an undercurrent of acceptance. "

#1: Correct "I get the sense that although the LDS church does not publicly support polygamy - indeed to the contrary it denounces it.. "
#2: Wrong " ..there is still an undercurrent of acceptance. "
There may be clandestine acceptance by LDS members , but not by the Church hierarcy.
The " Law of the Land " says that polygamy is illegal in this country .
That is why many of the polygamists went to Mexico ,and/or Canada where it is not illegal .

29 posted on 07/12/2013 11:12:11 PM PDT by Tilted Irish Kilt (“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.” - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Tilted Irish Kilt; ansel12; All
The " Law of the Land " says that polygamy is illegal in this country .

Give me a break. The "law of the land" has -- for quite some time -- said that polygamy was illegal.

(That didn't stop mainstream Mormons from practicing it in the 1860s...now did it?)

Or the 1870s...right?

Or the 1880s...right?

Or even in the 1890s and early 1900s...when another couple hundred ADDITIONAL plural marriages were solemnized [see Hardy's book on polygamy...appendix for specific list by name on that one]

Also...it didn't stop the Lds church from having their "living prophets" all be polygamists until 1945...right?

30 posted on 07/12/2013 11:54:43 PM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Tilted Irish Kilt

I meant the the Mormon leadership and their influence on the government of Utah and their influence on law enforcement.

Texas reacted to polygamy, Utah, seems to glide along pretty quietly and calmly.


31 posted on 07/13/2013 12:11:30 AM PDT by ansel12 (Sodom and Gomorrah, flush with libertarians and liberals, short on social conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
Last I knew , Utah was a territory , until it applied for Statehood.
As a condition of statehood, it followed the "Law of the Land"
Statehood was granted , and the Church hierachcy refuted polygamy, and began excommunicating members for practicing polygamy.
Some members went to Mexico and/or Canada where it wasn't illegal.
You cite Hardy's book as a reference, right ?
Was Hardy LDS ?
What were his sources ?
32 posted on 07/13/2013 12:12:57 AM PDT by Tilted Irish Kilt (“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.” - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Tilted Irish Kilt
As a condition of statehood, it followed the "Law of the Land"

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.

Is Utah more, or less, effective in fighting and preventing polygamy than the other American states?

33 posted on 07/13/2013 12:57:19 AM PDT by ansel12 (Sodom and Gomorrah, flush with libertarians and liberals, short on social conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
It would be kind of funny if someday the government forced plural marriage on the state of Utah.

Plural GAY marriage, at that!

34 posted on 07/13/2013 4:31:40 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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

Heck...

Even the DEAD aren't 'dead' in MormonISM!

35 posted on 07/13/2013 4:32:25 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion

36 posted on 07/13/2013 4:33:10 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

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 *!!! 
  
            Can't you EVER get straight what GOD tells you???
 
          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;
 
 
 
 
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.


37 posted on 07/13/2013 4:33:52 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

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

Keep up IGNORING the FACT that you are damned, Damned, DAMNED!!!




"Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned;

and I will go still further and say, take this revelation, or any other revelation that the Lord has given,

and deny it in your feelings, and I promise that you will be damned.

Brigham Young - JoD 3:266 (July 14, 1855)

38 posted on 07/13/2013 4:35:21 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: teppe
Keep up the Smears, Innuendo, Distortions and Fabrications .... no one does it better than you! Joseph Smith did it!!!



The "Caractors" are the only tangible evidence in existence related to Smith's story.
No gold plates, no brass plates, no peep stones, no Urim and Thummim...
only these "Caractors," not a single one of which is in the purported languages.



Smith's translation of the Caractors. According to Martin Harris (Joseph Smith - History, 1:64), "I went to the city of New York, and presented the characters which had been translated, with the translation thereof, to Professor Charles Anthon, a gentleman celebrated for his literary attainments. Professor Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. I then showed him those which were not yet translated,* and he said they were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic; and he said they were true characters."

Speak right up now in all truthfulness. Isn't it revealing how Smith started out making a stab at creating believable "caractors" but quckly gave up and produced nothing but squiggles, ending up wih a series of nothing more than crude little scribbles? Yet Professor Anthon supposedly translated them!

*Harris must have had two or three pieces of paper with him—one with characters and a translation of them (on the same paper or a separate one) and one with untranslated characters—quite likely the "Caractors." Some Mormon "scholars" have gone out on a limb, sawed it off, and knocked themselves out trying to translate from these true Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic characters a segment that would correspond with a verse from 1 Nephi.


Modern-day experts in Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic. In 1829, any knowledge of these languages possessed by U.S. scholars would have been rudimentary at best. Expertise in them has vastly improved since then. So go ahead, do it. Get any modern expert in these languages to identify which of these "Caractors" are Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac and Arabic. Better still, accept the claim of Mormon apologists that Anthon did indeed so testify and that his appraisal of the Caractors was correct. (Op. cit, pp. 73-75)

Save your money! Samples of Assyriac/Aramaic and Arabic writing:



 



What say you? Which of Smith's "Caractors" resemble the Assyriac and Arabic ones? No need to pay experts for their analysis. A child could accurately check this out. These writing systems have remained constant for well over 3000 years.


39 posted on 07/13/2013 4:36:41 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: teppe
..... you also have a problem with God sanctioned polygamy in the Bible.

Oh?

THIS what your chosen religious organization has TAUGHT you?

40 posted on 07/13/2013 4:37:56 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion

Good luck, Don Quixote.

But I fear your quest will be in vain.


41 posted on 07/13/2013 4:39:24 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
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!!

42 posted on 07/13/2013 4:44:44 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Tilted Irish Kilt
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

 


43 posted on 07/13/2013 4:47:52 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Tilted Irish Kilt; ejonesie22
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

44 posted on 07/13/2013 4:50:18 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
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.

45 posted on 07/13/2013 4:53:13 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: 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!)

46 posted on 07/13/2013 4:58:17 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: teppe
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.




47 posted on 07/13/2013 5:01:35 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Godzilla; teppe

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...


48 posted on 07/13/2013 5:10:09 AM PDT by ejonesie22 (8/30/10, the day Truth won.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

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.


49 posted on 07/13/2013 5:42:17 AM PDT by ravenwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

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


50 posted on 07/13/2013 6:05:29 AM PDT by Gamecock ("Ultimately, Jesus died to save us from the wrath of God." —R.C. Sproul)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-131 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson