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

Mormonism Research Ministry ^ | Bill McKeever

[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...