Containing 5,717 Articles Spanning 332 Topics  
Ex-Mormon News, Stories And Recovery  
Online Since January 1, 2005  
PLEASE NOTE: If you have reached this page from an outside source such as an Internet Search or forum referral, please note that this page (the one you just landed on) is an archive containing articles on "POLYGAMY". This website, The Mormon Curtain - is a website that blogs the Ex-Mormon world. You can read The Mormon Curtain FAQ to understand the purpose of this website.
⇒  CLICK HERE to visit the main page of The Mormon Curtain.
  POLYGAMY
Total Articles: 60
The Mormon Church stopped the practice of Polygamy "officially" in 1890, but practiced it in secret for several decades afterwards. Today, Mormons practice "Spiritual Polygamy" wherein their Doctrine And Covenants section 132 states that Polygamy is "The New And Everlasting Covenant". Two living Mormon Apostles are currently married to more than one woman.
topic image
Polygamy Was Never Legal
Thursday, Aug 19, 2004, at 01:35 AM
Original Author(s): Randy Jordan
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." - 12th Article of Faith, written by the Prophet Joseph Smith

Why did God command Joseph Smith to enter "plural marriage" in the 1830s, when bigamy was already illegal in the state of Illinois?

"Sec 121. Bigamy consists in the having of two wives or two husbands at one and the same time, knowing that the former husband or wife is still alive. If any person or persons within this State, being married, or who shall hereafter marry, do at any time marry any person or persons, the former husband or wife being alive, the person so offending shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine, not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisoned in the penitentiary, not exceeding two years. It shall not be necessary to prove either of the said marriages by the register or certificate thereof, or other record evidence; but the same may be proved by such evidence as is admissible to prove a marriage in other cases, and when such second marriage shall have taken place without this state, cohabitation in this state after such second marriage shall be deemed the commission of the crime of bigamy, and the trial in such case may take place in the county where such cohabitation shall have occurred." Revised Laws of Illinois, 1833, p.198-99 The fact that polygamy was illegal is the very reason Smith and his followers practiced it in secret, and steadfastly denied teaching or practicing polygamy when accused of it or when asked about it.

In fact, the 1835 edition of the "Doctrine and Covenants," which was the official edition during Joseph Smith's church administration, specifically prohibited the practice of polygamy: Doctrine and Covenants Section 101, Verse 4 (1835 edition)

"Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy; we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife; and one woman but one husband; except that in the event of death when either is at liberty to marry again." Joseph Smith himself affirmed monogamy to be the only form of marriage permissible in his church in an 1838 church publication:

"Do the Mormons believe in having more wives than one? No, not at the same time. But they believe that if their companion dies, they have a right to marry again." -The Prophet Joseph Smith, May 1, 1838, as quoted in "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith", p. 119.

Can we believe that Joseph Smith's actions in marrying at least 33 women, and having sex with many of them , between the years of 1833 and 1844, indicate an effort on his part to obey the laws of the church or the land?

And why did Joseph Smith, on May 25, 1844, deny having any wives other than Emma Hale Smith?

Joseph Smith was indicted on charges of polygamy and adultery on May 23, 1844: "The marriage to the Lawrence sisters became public knowledge when William Law, Joseph's second counselor in the First Presidency, became alienated from the Prophet. Law, who had known the Lawrence family since their conversion in Canada, chose the marriage of Smith and Maria Lawrence as a test case with which to prosecute Smith for adultery. On May 23 he filed suit against the Mormon leader in Hancock Count Circuit Court, at Carthage, charging that Smith had been living with Maria Lawrence 'in an open state of adultery' from October 12, 1843, to the day of the suit. In response, Smith flatly denied polygamy in a speech delivered on May 26: 'What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can find only one.' As polygamy was illegal under US law, Smith had little choice but to openly repudiate the practice. But as is often the case with secret policies that are denied publicly, Smith's credibility would later suffer. Realistically he must have understood that thirty-three or more marriages could not be kept a secret forever, and that when they became known the gulf between his public statements and private practice would come back to haunt him." -"In Sacred Loneliness by Todd Compton ", pp. 476-477. Thus we see that not only did Joseph Smith commit the crimes of bigamy and adultery, he denied doing so, which made him a liar and hypocrite. It was that May 1844 denial which set into motion the events that led to Smith's death one month later.

Furthermore, Mormon polygamy was never legal, at any time - not even in the Utah territory from 1847 to 1890.

Marriage is a legal contract between one man and one woman. There has never been a law enacted to allow otherwise. All the married Mormons who emigrated to Utah in 1847 had been married under the civil laws of their respective states; each one of those states had laws against bigamy, thus making monogamy the "common law."

The very reason Brigham Young chose to move to Utah, rather than Oregon, California, or Texas, as others suggested, was because Utah was an uninhabited "no man's land". However, the area was legally Mexican territory and polygamy was illegal in Mexico.

In the United States, marriage is a legal contract regulated by the various states. When the Mormons went to Utah in 1847, all married Mormons at that time had been married under laws of the states they had come from. Utah became U.S. territory in 1848 after the Mexican War, and thus all citizens living therein became subject to the common laws of the nation, including marriage laws. (To use an analogy, you get your drivers' license from your state, but it is recognized as being legal in all the states. Marriage licenses are similar.)

Once in Utah, Young attempted to establish the "Territory of Deseret," and operate the area as a theocracy, under the "Law of the Lord," which included plural marriage and blood atonement. However, Congress rejected Young's attempt, and in 1850, the area was officially established as Utah Territory, with territorial overseers appointed from Washington D.C.. President Millard Fillmore appointed Young as governor. Thus, polygamy became specifically illegal under U. S. common laws in 1850; but, since polygamy was also illegal under Mexican laws beforehand, there was never a time when polygamy was legal in Utah.

The 1862 federal Morrill Act was not the first law which made bigamy illegal; it was merely the first law which specifically reinforced existing state anti-bigamy laws. It was enacted specifically to close the "loophole" that the Mormons mistakenly believed they were operating under.

And of course, even after the passage of the 1862 Morrill Act, the Mormons continued to practice polygamy in violation of the law for another half-century, and repeatedly challenged those laws. So anyone who argues that "The Mormons stopped practicing polygamy when it was made illegal" are either misinformed or lying.

The final nail in the coffin which demonstrates polygamy's illegality was when Ann Eliza Webb filed for "divorce" from Brigham Young and sued him for alimony in 1877. Young successfully argued that their relationship was "an ecclesiastical affair, not a legal one," and the judge rightly ruled that since there was never any legal marriage, Webb could not file for divorce nor seek alimony.

Since Young himself admitted that his own "plural marriages" were not legal marriages, that means that no other Mormon "plural marriage" at any time was a legal marriage either. No legal marriage licenses were ever applied for nor granted, and every single child born of Mormon "plural marriages" was illegitimate - i.e. not born in a legal marriage.

All of the federal laws enacted against Mormon polygamy from 1862 to 1879 merely served to force the Mormons to comply with existing common laws. But the fact that those additional laws were enacted does not mean that Mormon polygamous marriages were ever legal in the first place.

And, since the 1862 Morrill Anti-Bigamy act, the 1879 SCOTUS Reynolds decision, and the 1882 Edmunds Act all reaffirmed the illegality of Mormon "plural marriage," then why did the Mormon God wait until 1890 to reveal to Wilford Woodruff that the church needed to obey the laws of the land which had already been in force for over 40 years?

And if the Mormon God told Woodruff to obey the laws of the land in 1890, then why did Woodruff himself "plural marry" Lydia Mountford in 1897? And why did other LDS general authorities secretly authorize dozens of other "plural marriages" between 1890 and at least 1906? And why was LDS church president Joseph F. Smith convicted of unlawful cohabitation and fined $300 in 1906?

What we must keep in mind is that Joseph Smith's "revelation on celestial marriage," which introduced and authorized "plural marriage," is Mormon scripture, even today as Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants.

But in introducing the "revelation on celestial marriage," Joseph Smith directly contradicted the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants scripture which specifically prohibited the practice of polygamy; and by practicing polygamy, Joseph Smith violated his God's order to "obey the laws of the land."

So we have a little problem here. And Smith's Prophetic successors as church leader Brigham Young, and then John Taylor, continued to advocate and practice polygamy in violation of the law for another half-century. And the LDS church's current editions of the Doctrine and Covenants still contains the "revelation on celestial marriage", which sanctions plural marriage.

So why did the founding prophet of the LDS church contradict and violate his own "revelations", as well as the laws of the land, by secretly teaching and practicing polygamy?

Why did Smith's successors continue to teach and practice polygamy for another half a century, in violation of the laws of the land?

If the practice of polygamy was wrong, then why did Joseph Smith tell his followers that God sent an angel with a flaming sword to threaten him with death if he did not practice polygamy? Did Joseph Smith just make up all that or what?

Mormonism warns us against "trusting in the arm of flesh." If Joseph Smith was in error when he introduced and practiced polygamy, then why should we trust in his arm of flesh on any other doctrines or principles he taught, including the temple ceremon
topic image
The Polygamy Contradiction
Wednesday, Apr 20, 2005, at 08:15 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
Book of Mormon Jacob 2:23-29
23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

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.

Doctine and Covenants 132:1, 132:38,39

1 VERILY, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, JUSTIFIED my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines?

38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.

39 David's wives and concubines WERE GIVEN UNTO HIM OF ME, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.
topic image
The Mormon Temple As A Lasting Relic Of Polygamy
Monday, May 9, 2005, at 07:55 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
Ever wonder what today's Mormon Church would be like if Joseph Smith had never practiced polygamy?

Here's just a few of the lasting legacies due to Joseph Smith andquot;restoringandquot; the doctrine of Polygamy:

1. Creation of Temple Endowment
In order to keep Smith's Polygamy a secret, he came up with the temple endowment with its oaths of secrecy. For the first year, only a very select few men received the endowment and all were sworn to secrecy based on a death oath. By using a secret ceremony and oaths, Smith was able to keep his practice of polygamy a secret for years. History of the Church Volume 5:1 documents these first meetings and the participants. They were all in Smith's inner-circle of polygamy. Heber C. Kimball's journal (1840-45) also describes the introduction of the secret endowment as it relates to polygamy.

2. Closing of Temple Marriages
The practice of closed Temple marriages started with polygamy. Before polygamy in Nauvoo, mormon marriages were performed anywhere. In fact, those performed in the Kirtland Temple were open to non members! Joseph Smith's own diary lists marriages he performed in the temple, which included non-members as participants and as witnesses. See "The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, 1835-1836." Today, mormons have the tradition of closed temple marriages as a direct legacy of Smith's attempt to keep polygamy a closely-guarded secret. When he was marrying other men's wives without their knowledge, he had to have the ceremonies closed and secret.

3. Concept of Eternal Marriage
Until Smith started secretly practicing polygamy, Smith taught that marriage was until death only. That's right - the doctrine of "together forever" started when he began proposing to other women. He told them that marrying him would "seal" their whole family to him "forever." But before these proposals, Smith believed and taught that marriage ended at death. In fact, before Nauvoo, his love letters to his first wife Emma reflect his beliefs. In a letter to Emma on May 18th, 1834, Smith signed "...your husband until death." Writing from Carthage Jail on 4 November 1838, Smith told his wife "If I do not meet you again in this life may God grant that we may somehow meet in heaven."

4. The term "Celestial Marriage"
Modern mormons think this means monogamous temple marriage. Actually, this term always referred exclusively to plural marriage until the 1890s. Until that time, faithful members married in the temple to only one spouse did not have a celestial marriage! According to ALL Church presidents until 1890, celestial marriage was achieved only by marriage to multiple wives. See 27 Rules of Celestial Marriage, by Apostle Orson Pratt. Also, William Clayton said: "From Joseph Smith I learned that the doctrine of plural and celestial marriage is the most holy and important doctrine ever revealed to man on the earth, and that without obedience to that principle, no man can ever attain to the fullness of exaltation in celestial glory." Historical Record, Vol. 6, pp. 225-227. Read even more historical references here: http://www.mormons.org.uk/cpmr.htm

5. The Practice of "Sealings"
Once again, before polygamy, marriage was just that; marriage. But to take on a second wife, especially one that was already married, a new term needed to be used, so it wouldn't sound like adultery. Smith chose to call his plural marriages "sealings." Reference from Emma Hale Smith Biography, page 140: "Simultaneously with the endowment and plural marriage, Joseph formalized a third concept. He explained to Emma (for the first time) that husbands and wives could be married, 'sealed,' forever by proper priesthood authority. Understanding this new doctrine led to the next step, which was the marriage of a living husband to several living wives. This doctrine seemed to alleviate some of the repugnance to plural marriage." This allowed women that already had husbands to say they were married to their first husband, but sealed to Smith. Although women had sex with both Smith and their husbands, they perceived the marriage contract different.

6. Creation and Wearing of Secret Garments
These too, were a result of Smith's polygamous affairs. It started with the secret circle of men that accepted and practiced his plural wife doctrine. It was his way of setting them apart from monogamous men. It was originally the "uniform" required for men to perform spiritual wifery. Reference from Emma Hale Smith Biography, page 140: "After being involved in the construction and design of the garments, the building of the temple, and hearing about their place in the endowment in the Relief Society (by Smith), why had women not been admitted to the Endowment? Joseph taught that a man must obey God to be worthy of the endowment and that a wife must obey a righteous husband to merit the same reward. Until Emma could be obedient to Joseph (see DandC Sec. 132) and give him plural wives, she could not participate in the endowment ceremonies, yet Smith taught her that the endowment was essential for exaltation."

Brigham Young and Joseph F. Smith condemned Smith for taking off his garments before he went to Carthage Jail. Part of their reason was that it was a sign he had regretted his practice of polygamy. "Smith removed his own endowment "robe" or garment before he went to Carthage Jail and told those with him to do likewise. His nephew Joseph F. Smith later explained, "When Willard Richards was solicited [by Smith] to do the same, he declined, and it seems little less than marvelous that he was preserved without so much as a bullet piercing his garments."" (The Mormon Hierarchy : Origins of Power, page 146) Michael Quinn references Heber J. Grant journal sheets, 7 June 1907, LDS Archives.

7. Design of Modern Temples
Why was the Nauvoo temple so different than the Kirtland temple? Both came from the same unchanging God, right? The Kirtland Temple was actually an expensive church, not an endowment house like the Nauvoo temple. Modern temples with their closed doors, secret ceremonies and odd clothing started in the polygamy-inspired Navuoo temple. In fact, the whole concept of a "Celestial Room" was created to reinforce the doctrine that Smith would be with all of his wives in "heaven" as one big family. The touching experience today when mormon families reunite after the veil in the temple, started out as an experience Smith could use to show how polygamy worked in heaven.

Polygamy (one man married to two or more living wives) may not be practiced today in the church, but its influence on church doctrine and practices still haunts the lives of millions of active members. The temple endowment, garments and oaths of secrecy all have their origins in Joseph Smith's practice of polyg

topic image
TBMS Making Excuses For Joseph Smith's Polygamy
Friday, Sep 2, 2005, at 09:39 AM
Original Author(s): Deconstructor
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
Here are some examples of a TBM (and radio talk show host) making excuses for Joseph Smith's polygamy. I've added some facts that show just how far off this TBM is in his claims.

Denial of Denial

Van Hale Public Statement, August 2005: "I have never made any assertion of any sort that I had found no evidence that polygamy served to provide Joseph Smith with increased sexual opportunities."

Van Hale Public Statement, September 2004: "In my forty years of looking very closely at polygamy, it's been a subject that has been of some interest to me, there's not a single instance where I have encountered what, uh, the speculations that have been presented, uh, far and wide throughout the history of the LDS faith about polygamy, that polygamy was about, uh, providing a promiscuous sexual uh, opportunity, uh, increase, uh, sexual opportunities to Joseph Smith and other polygamists."

Straw Man

Van Hale Public Statement, August 2005: "Go back through LDS history and you look at the revelation in Section 132, look at the letter that Joseph Smith wrote to Nancy Rigdon on, explaining plural marriage. You look at all of the numerous sermons and articles and things that were written during the polygamy period of the 1900s and you simply cannot find anywhere in there in which any of the LDS perspective being presented by, ties into this or buys this idea, buys into this idea that polygamy was initiated originally for the purpose of satisfying anyone's sexual desires. That was not the purpose of it. And that's clear throughout and consistent throughout the literature."

There goes Hale again, using the "satisfying sexual desire" straw man argument. The issue here is SEXUAL ACCESS, not satisfying sexual desire. Of course Joseph Smith never said the purpose of polygamy was to satisfy his sexual desire. But it's very clear that Joseph Smith's polygamy was about provinding him greater SEXUAL ACCESS to women.

"And if Joseph Smith have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore he is justified for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified." - Doctrine and Covenants 132:62-63

In Joseph Smith's polygamy letter to the young Nancy Rigdon, he again justifies why he propositioned her for marriage that obviously had a sexual dimension: "Even things which might be considered abominable to all who understand the order of heaven only in part, but which in reality were right because God gave and sanctioned by special revelation. ... Do my will in all things–who will listen to my voice and to the voice of my servant whom I have sent; for I delight in those who seek diligently to know my precepts, and abide by the law of my kingdom; for all things shall be made known unto them in mine own due time, and in the end they shall have joy." - Official History of the Church, Vol. 5, p.134-136, http://www.i4m.com/think/history/smit...

Claiming There's No Strong Evidence

Van Hale Public Statement, Agust 2005: "There has to be a reason why we don't have evidence, strong evidence, for Joseph Smith having sexual relations, sexual marriages with these plural wives. Why don't we have more evidence for that than what we have?"

The fact is, we do have strong evidence that Joseph Smith was having sexual realtions with his plural wives.

Smith's secretary William Clayton recorded a visit to his young wife Almera Johnson on May 16, 1843: "Prest. Joseph and I went to B[enjamin] F. Johnsons to sleep." Johnson himself later noted that on this visit Smith stayed with Almera "as man and wife" and "occupied the same room and bed with my sister, that the previous month he had occupied with the daughter of the late Bishop Partridge as his wife." Almera Johnson also confirmed her secret marriage to Joseph Smith: "I lived with the prophet Joseph as his wife and he visited me at the home of my brother Benjamin F." - Zimmerman, "I Knew the Prophets", page 44. See also "The Origin of Plural Marriage, Joseph F. Smith, Jr., Deseret News Press, page 70-71.)

While in hiding, Joseph Smith wrote a letter which he addressed to the parents of another of his secret wives, inviting them to bring their daughter to visit him "just back of Brother Hyrums farm." He advised Brother Whitney to "come a little a head and knock at the south East corner of the house at the window." He assured them, especially Sarah Ann, that "it is the will of God that you should comfort me now." He stressed the need for care "to find out when Emma comes," but "when she is not here, there is the most perfect saftey." The prophet warned them to "burn this letter as soon as you read it" and "keep all locked up in your breasts." In closing he admonished, "I think Emma won't come to night if she dont, dont fail to come tonight." - http://www.xmission.com/%7Eresearch/f...

Faithful Mormon Melissa Lott (Smith Willes) testified that she had been Joseph's wife "in very deed." (Affidavit of Melissa Willes, 3 Aug. 1893, Temple Lot case, 98, 105; Foster, Religion and Sexuality, 156.)

In a court affidavit, faithful Mormon Joseph Noble wrote that Joseph told him he had spent the night with Louisa Beaman. (Temple Lot Case, 427)

Emily D. Partridge (Smith Young) said she "roomed" with Joseph the night following her marriage to him and said that she had "carnal intercourse" with him. (Temple Lot case (complete transcript), 364, 367, 384; see Foster, Religion and Sexuality, 15.)

In total, 13 faithful latter-day saint women who were married to Joseph Smith swore court affidavits that they had sexual relations with him!

Joseph Smith's personal secretary records that on May 22nd, 1843, Smith's first wife Emma found Joseph and Eliza Partridge secluded in an upstairs bedroom at the Smith home. Emma was devastated. William Clayton's journal entry for 23 May (see Smith, 105-106)

See more strong evidence here: http://www.i4m.com/think/history/jose...

Primary reason was there weren't enough righteous men

Van Hale Statement, August 2005: "But basically, the reason, the primary reason given for the institution of plural marriage, and this, we find this advocated in many, many places. I could present quite a number of references on this but the principle reason was to provide righteous women the opportunity to have a marriage relationship and to have children and a family, be married to a righteous man. Now I have never advocated the idea that the imbalance of men and women was the reason for plural marriage in just, in that sense, but the imbalance of righteous women and righteous, wanting to be married to and have children with a righteous man, that imbalance is what is uh presented uh throughout the history of uh plural marriage as the basic reason."

Although even Hale's reason for polygamy includes sexual access, it still flies in the face of what the Lord, through His first prophets, gave as the primary reason for polygamy:

Brigham Young declared that "This is the reason why the doctrine of plurality of wives was revealed, that the noble spirits which are waiting for tabernacles might be brought forth." (Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 197.)

Joseph Smith's First Revelation on Polygamy from 1831:

Prophesying to a group of all married men, Joseph Smith speaking for the Lord revealed: "For it is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity may become white, delightsome and Just, for even now their females are more virtuous than the gentiles." - Prophet Joseph Smith, The Joseph Smith Revelations Text and Commentary, p. 374-376, http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/i...

In the Book of Mormon, the Lord gives one reason only for allowing polygamy. Jacob 2: 24-30: "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... 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."

Again, DandC 132 gives only one reason for Joseph Smith's polygamy, "for they are given unto him (Joseph Smith) to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified." Doctrine and Covenants 132:63

Nowhere in scripture does the Lord say polygamy is about providing righteous women with already-married righteous husbands. Van Hale's assertion is completely absurd. It's apologetics at its worst because it has no basis in the Lord's revelations, which clearly state that the primary reason for polygamy is providing certain men sexual acccess to women.

TBM's Reason for Polygamy Doesn't Include Joseph Smith

Van Hale, August 2005: "So, yes, of course there was a sexual element intended in the ideal plural marriages. The ideal plural marriages were marriages wherein a woman who wanted to have, be married to a righteous man would be married as a plural wife to a righteous priesthood holder and she would have children by that man and that was because there were not enough righteous priesthood holders for the number of righteous women who wanted to have husbands and families with a righteous man."

This claim simply does not apply to Joseph Smith's behavior. Not only did he marry other righteous men's wives, he also married teenagers that could have married righteous men. Neither did Joseph Smith provide for his plural wives. As the historical record shows, these secret marriages provided little more than sexual rondevous.

Joseph Smith also married his own foster daughters. Couldn't they have found righteous husbands besides Joseph Smith?

Van Hale's primary reason for polygamy is nowhere in the scriptural revelation commanding Joseph Smith to take virgins "a hundred fold" in order to bear his children in this life. So what repreresents a more accurate reason for Joseph Smith's polygamy, Van Hale or DandC 132?

For those who think this is a "misrepresentation" of Van Hale's statements, you can both listen to and read Van Hale's complete statements for yourself:

http://www.i4m.com/think/van_hale2.ht...

Scroll down to the bottom and click on the link for August 21st, 2005.
topic image
Prophets And Polygamy - Church Still Hides Truth For Image
Wednesday, Oct 5, 2005, at 10:10 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
This weekend someone from my wife's ward dropped by some "morg reading" for my daughter about the prophets of the church.

It got me started checking on something at lds.org.

There they have a whole section on the President's of the Church which you can find here:

http://www.lds.org/churchhistory/pres...

What I found very telling is that with the exception of a brief mentioning of Emma in Joseph Smith's bio, the church does not mention any of the wives of any Prophets before the eighth president, George Albert Smith. George Albert was the first "monagomous" prophet as were all others after him.

If you click on "Significant Events" tab, the dates and names of all marriages are shown only for the monagamous prophets. Yet not one wife or one marriage is reflected for any of the polygamous prophets. I guess this did not qualify as a "Significant Event" if it was a "polygamous marriage"!!!!!!

This is an insult in two ways:

It is an insult to the intellegent reader, AND, it is an insult to the wives and marriages of those who lived in polygamy.

With all we hear about how the church is now comfortable with it's polygamous past, it's own website clearly demonstrates the lengths it will go to cover it up and hide the past STILL.

For those of you still attempting to demonstrate the deceit of the lds church with your lds spouse, or other church members, show them this site!
topic image
Mormon Prophets Warn Of Evils Of Monogomy
Wednesday, Oct 26, 2005, at 10:07 AM
Original Author(s): Deconstructor
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
See here inspired words from Mormon Living Prophets (now dead):

andquot;It is a fact worthy of note that the shortest lived nations of which we have record have been monogamic. Rome...was a monogamic nation and the numerous evils attending that system early laid the foundation for that ruin which eventually overtook her.andquot;
- Apostle George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 202

andquot;Since the founding of the Roman empire monogamy has prevailed more extensively than in times previous to that. The founders of that ancient empire were robbers and women stealers, and made laws favoring monogamy in consequence of the scarcity of women among them, and hence this monogamic system which now prevails throughout Christendom, and which had been so fruitful a source of prostitution and whoredom throughout all the Christian monogamic cities of the Old and New World, until rottenness and decay are at the root of their institutions both national and religious.andquot;
- Prophet Brigham Young Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, p. 128

andquot;... the one-wife system not only degenerates the human family, both physically and intellectually, but it is entirely incompatible with philosophical notions of immortality; it is a lure to temptation, and has always proved a curse to a people.andquot;
- Prophet John Taylor, Millennial Star, Vol. 15, p. 227

andquot;Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of heaven among men. Such a system was commenced by the founders of the Roman empire....Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged. Thus this monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a holy sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers.... Why do we believe in and practice polygamy? Because the Lord introduced it to his servants in a revelation given to Joseph Smith, and the Lord's servants have always practised it. 'And is that religion popular in heaven?' it is the only popular religion there,...andquot;
- Prophet Brigham Young, The Deseret News, August 6, 1862

andquot;This law of monogamy, or the monogamic system, laid the foundation for prostitution and the evils and diseases of the most revolting nature and character under which modern Christendom groans,...andquot;
- Apostle Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, page 195

We've all heard today's Mormon leaders blaming the fall of the Roman empire and the decline of civilization on Homosexuality. Here's just a sampling of Mormon Prophets making this claim:

andquot;This heinous homosexual sin is of the ages. Many cities and civilizations have gone out of existence because of it. It was present in Israeland#146;s wandering days, tolerated by the Greeks, and found in the baths of corrupt Rome.andquot;
- Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, andquot;President Kimball Speaks Out on Morality,andquot; LDS New Era, Nov. 1980, Page 39

andquot;Alternatives to the legal and loving marriage between a man and a woman are helping to unravel the fabric of human society. I am sure this is pleasing to the devil. The fabric I refer to is the family. These so-called alternative life-styles must not be accepted as right, because they frustrate Godand#146;s commandment for a life-giving union of male and female within a legal marriage as stated in Genesis. If practiced by all adults, these life-styles would mean the end of the human family.andquot;
- Apostle James E. Faust, andquot;Serving the Lord and Resisting the Devil,andquot; Liahona, Nov. 1995, Page 3.

But this is the SAME argument that Mormon Prophets have used against good-old heterosexual monogomy!

History will look back and correctly see today's Mormon prophets to be just as ignorant, bigoted and self-serving as Mormon prophets of the 19th Century. These men are not inspired representatives of God, but petty tyrants. And all those who follow them are on the wrong side of history.

topic image
Polygamy & The Sad Story Of Faithful Early Mormon Convert, Henry Jacobs
Tuesday, Nov 1, 2005, at 07:28 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
I will bet that not many TBMs are familiar with the story of Henry Jacobs and how the "new and everlasting covenant" of plural marriage introduced by founding Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith affected this good and faithful early Mormon convert and priesthood holder. Here is a summary of this man's life:

- Baptized into the Mormon Church in 1832 and endured the hardships of the saints in Kirtland and Missouri.

- Ordained a seventy, a missionary calling, on Jan. 19, 1839 then served a short mission starting in May that same year. Served many missions for the Church and is described as a staunch dedicated Mormon and an eloquent preacher.

- Met 19 year old Zina D. Huntington in early Nauvoo in 1839 while she was living for a time with her family at the home of Joseph Smith and his wife, Emma. They took a liking to each other and began courting that same year.

- Sometime during the midst of Hery and Zina's courting, JS taught Zina the principal of plural marriage and proposed to her. Despite Zina's reverence for the Mormon prophet, she declined JS's proposal and put him off at that time and continued to court Henry. (This in the year 1840) JS continued to press his suit with Zina at the same time she was courting Henry. In 1841, Zina made her choice and decided to marry Henry.

- On March 7, 1841, Henry and Zina were married. JS had agreed to marry them but on the date of the marriage, he failed to show up for the ceremony and so they turned to John C. Bennett (Mayor of Nauvoo and hight Church leader at the time) who performed the ceremony.

- Even right after the marriage, JS revealed to Zina and Henry that the Lord had made it known to him that Zina was to be his celestial wife and that God had commanded him to marry her. Zina continued to put off the prophet with his suit. In Oct of 1841, Zina received a message from JS that an angel from God had appeared to him with a drawn sword and told JS that he would lose "his position and his life" if he did not established polygamy and marry Zina. Thus, Zina, after sincere prayer, finally acquiesced to marry the prophet JS on October 27th, despite the fact that she was 7 months pregnant with Henry Jacobs child. JS allowed Zina (as with all his other wives who were married to other men) to continue to live and cohabit with her first husband, Henry. Thus Henry lost an eternal companion in Zina to JS but at least he could live with her and their children in this life. They ended up having two children (sons) together.

- During 1842 to 1844, Henry is sent on several short missions by JS. JS is killed by a mob on June 27, 1844. It now appears that Henry will be able to have Zina to himself at least for the remainder of their earthly life.

- After JSs death, Brigham Young approached Zina (as he did with many other of JS's widows and says it is his responsibility to his fallen leader to take on JS's wives and to be sealed to them for "time" (not eternity). Thus BY was sealed to Zina for time in September of 1844. Henry went along with his Church leaders council and probably thought this marriage to BY only a formality, it is assumed, as he and Zina continued to live together and even had another child on the way by the time the saints were forced out of Nauvoo by mobs in Feb. of 1846. As the persecution against the Mormons mounted in Nauvoo toward the end of 1845 the saints prepared to leave for the "wilderness" and the temple was just completed at that time, Henry and Zina received their temple endowments together on Jan 2, 1846. A month later, Zina (now 25 years old) and 7 months pregnant with Henry's 2nd child is married in the temple to JS for "eternity" and to BY (standing proxy for JS) for "time" as Henry stands as a witness. Thus now Henry is married to Zina for "time" as also is Brigham Young but at least Henry is still being allowed to live with Zina.

- Henry and Zina leave Nauvoo and their home on Feb 9, 1846 and in the bitter cold head across the frozen Mississippi and towards the long journey to Winter Quarters, Iowa. Zina bares their 2nd child along the way in the wagon with Henry nearby. On May 22nd, though Henry was halfway across Iowa, driving a covered wagon for his wife and 2 sons, one newly born, though danger and privatation, at this difficult time, of all times, he was suddenly sent away on a mission to England by order of BY. He faithfully and with obedience, followed his Church leaders and left for England along with Zina's brother, Oliver. Zina was moved in with BY's other wives and cared for.

- Henry completes an honorable and very successful mission to England. On Aug 12, 1847, Henry and Oliver arrive in New York City as they are returning from their mission. At this time, Henry gets a letter from Zina telling him that their marriage is over and she will be living with BY as a plural wife from now on.

There is much more to this story, but I will just mention a few things. Despite all that happened to Henry, he remained faithful to the Church. He never lost his love and longing to be with this sweet Zina and their two sons. When he got to SLC in Utah he was later sent by BY to California to help with needs there. He was later excomunicated (BY, again, ordering this) for sending letters to Zina telling her how much he longed to be with her and his family while he was in California. He repented and was later rebaptized into the Church. He lived in California for many years before being brought back to Utah by his now grown sons (from his marriage to Zina) in 1880. He died at age 69 in SLC in 1886. He did have 3 or 4 other marriages along the way but they were never happy. He remained a faithful member of the Church his whole life.
topic image
Mormon Polygamy Was Never Legal
Saturday, Jan 21, 2006, at 09:39 AM
Original Author(s): Randy Jordan
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." - 12th Article of Faith, written by the Prophet Joseph Smith
Why did God command Joseph Smith to enter "plural marriage" in the 1830s, when bigamy was already illegal in the state of Illinois?
"Sec 121. Bigamy consists in the having of two wives or two husbands at one and the same time, knowing that the former husband or wife is still alive. If any person or persons within this State, being married, or who shall hereafter marry, do at any time marry any person or persons, the former husband or wife being alive, the person so offending shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine, not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisoned in the penitentiary, not exceeding two years. It shall not be necessary to prove either of the said marriages by the register or certificate thereof, or other record evidence; but the same may be proved by such evidence as is admissible to prove a marriage in other cases, and when such second marriage shall have taken place without this state, cohabitation in this state after such second marriage shall be deemed the commission of the crime of bigamy, and the trial in such case may take place in the county where such cohabitation shall have occurred." Revised Laws of Illinois, 1833, p.198-99
The fact that polygamy was illegal is the very reason Joseph Smith and his followers practiced it in secret, and steadfastly denied teaching or practicing polygamy when accused of it or when asked about it.

In fact, the 1835 edition of the "Doctrine and Covenants," which was the official edition during the Prophet Joseph Smith's church administration, specifically prohibited the practice of polygamy:
Doctrine and Covenants Section 101, Verse 4 (1835 edition)

"Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy; we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife; and one woman but one husband; except that in the event of death when either is at liberty to marry again." (History of the Church, vol. 2, pg. 247)
Joseph Smith himself affirmed monogamy to be the only form of marriage permissible in his church in the church's official 1838 publication:

"Do the Mormons believe in having more wives than one? No, not at the same time. But they believe that if their companion dies, they have a right to marry again." -The Prophet Joseph Smith, May 1, 1838, as quoted in "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith", p. 119.

Can we believe that Joseph Smith's actions in marrying at least 33 women, and having sex with many of them, between the years of 1833 and 1844, indicate an effort on his part to obey the laws of the church or the land?

And why did Joseph Smith, on May 25, 1844, deny having any wives other than Emma Hale Smith?

Joseph Smith was indicted on charges of polygamy and adultery on May 23, 1844:
"The marriage to the Lawrence sisters became public knowledge when William Law, Joseph's second counselor in the First Presidency, became alienated from the Prophet. Law, who had known the Lawrence family since their conversion in Canada, chose the marriage of Smith and Maria Lawrence as a test case with which to prosecute Smith for adultery. On May 23 he filed suit against the Mormon leader in Hancock Count Circuit Court, at Carthage, charging that Smith had been living with Maria Lawrence 'in an open state of adultery' from October 12, 1843, to the day of the suit."

"In response, Smith flatly denied polygamy in a speech delivered on May 26: 'What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can find only one.' As polygamy was illegal under US law, Smith had little choice but to openly repudiate the practice. But as is often the case with secret policies that are denied publicly, Smith's credibility would later suffer."

"Realistically he must have understood that thirty-three or more marriages could not be kept a secret forever, and that when they became known the gulf between his public statements and private practice would come back to haunt him." -"In Sacred Loneliness by Todd Compton", pp. 476-477.
Thus we see that not only did Joseph Smith commit the crimes of bigamy and adultery, he lied about doing so. It was that May 1844 denial which set into motion the events that led to Smith's death one month later.

Furthermore, Mormon polygamy was never legal, at any time - not even in the Utah territory from 1847 to 1890.

Marriage is a legal contract between one man and one woman. There has never been a law enacted to allow otherwise. All the married Mormons who emigrated to Utah in 1847 had been married under the civil laws of their respective states; each one of those states had laws against bigamy, thus making monogamy the "common law."

The very reason Brigham Young chose to move to Utah, rather than Oregon, California, or Texas, as others suggested, was because Utah was an uninhabited "no man's land". However, the area was legally Mexican territory and polygamy was illegal in Mexico.

In the United States, marriage is a legal contract regulated by the various states. When the Mormons went to Utah in 1847, all married Mormons at that time had been married under laws of the states they had come from. Utah became U.S. territory in 1848 after the Mexican War, and thus all citizens living therein became subject to the common laws of the nation, including marriage laws. (To use an analogy, you get your drivers' license from your state, but it is recognized as being legal in all the states. Marriage licenses are similar.)

Once in Utah, Young attempted to establish the "Territory of Deseret," and operate the area as a theocracy, under the "Law of the Lord," which included plural marriage and blood atonement. However, Congress rejected Young's attempt, and in 1850, the area was officially established as Utah Territory, with territorial overseers appointed from Washington D.C.. President Millard Fillmore appointed Young as governor. Thus, polygamy became specifically illegal under U. S. common laws in 1850; but, since polygamy was also illegal under Mexican laws beforehand, there was never a time when polygamy was legal in Utah.

The 1862 federal Morrill Act was not the first law which made bigamy illegal; it was merely the first law which specifically reinforced existing state anti-bigamy laws. It was enacted specifically to close the "loophole" that the Mormons mistakenly believed they were operating under.

Even after the passage of the 1862 Morrill Act, the Mormon Church continued to practice polygamy in violation of the law for another half-century, and repeately challenged those laws. So anyone who argues that "The Mormons stopped practicing polygamy when it was made illegal" are either misinformed or misrepresenting the truth.

The final nail on the coffin which demonstrates polygamy's illegality was when Ann Eliza Webb filed for "divorce" from Brigham Young and sued him for alimony in 1877. Young successfully argued that their relationship was "an ecclesiastical affair, not a legal one," and the judge rightly ruled that since there was never any legal marriage, Webb could not file for divorce nor seek alimony.

Since Young himself admitted that his own "plural marriages" were not legal marriages, that means that no other Mormon "plural marriage" at any time was a legal marriage either. No legal marriage licenses were ever applied for nor granted, and every single child born of Mormon "plural marriages" was illegitimate - i.e. not born in a legal marriage.

All of the federal laws enacted against Mormon polygamy from 1862 to 1879 merely served to force the Mormons to comply with existing common laws. But the fact that those additional laws were enacted does not mean that Mormon polygamous marriages were ever legal in the first place.

And, since the 1862 Morrill Anti-Bigamy act, the 1879 SCOTUS Reynolds decision, and the 1882 Edmunds Act all reaffirmed the illegality of Mormon "plural marriage," then why did the Mormon God wait until 1890 to reveal to Wilford Woodruff that the church needed to obey the laws of the land which had already been in force for over 40 years?

And if the Mormon God told Woodruff to obey the laws of the land in 1890, then why did Woodruff himself "plural marry" Lydia Mountford in 1897? And why did other LDS general authorities secretly authorize dozens of other "plural marriages" between 1890 and at least 1906? And why was LDS church president Joseph F. Smith convicted of unlawful cohabitation and fined $300 in 1906?

What we must keep in mind is that Joseph Smith's "revelation on celestial marriage," which introduced and authorized "plural marriage," is Mormon scripture, even today as Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants.

But in introducing the "revelation on celestial marriage," Joseph Smith directly contradicted the 1835 Doctrine andCovenants scripture which specifically prohibited the practice of polygamy; and by practicing polygamy, Joseph Smith violated his God's order to "obey the laws of the land."

So we have a little problem here. And Smith's Prophetic successors as church leader Brigham Young, and then John Taylor, continued to advocate and practice polygamy in violation of the law for another half-century. And the LDS church's current edition of the Doctrine and Covenants still contains the "revelation on celestial marriage", which sanctions plural marriage.

So why did the founding prophet of the LDS church contradict and violate his own "revelations", as well as the laws of the land, by secretly teaching and practicing polygamy?

Why did Smith's successors continue to teach and practice polygamy for another half a century, in violation of the laws of the land?

If the practice of polygamy was wrong, then why did Joseph Smith tell his followers that God sent an angel with a sword to threaten him with death if he did not practice polygamy? Did Joseph Smith just make up all that or what?

http://www.i4m.com/think/polygamy/polygamy_illegal.htm
topic image
Mormon Doctrine Flip Flops On Polygamy And Adultery
Saturday, Jan 21, 2006, at 09:49 AM
Original Author(s): Deconstructor
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
See for yourself...

Flip-Flop #1:

How many wives does God allow a man to have?

Timothy 2:2
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1 Tim. 3: 12
Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Jacob 1:15
And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son.

Jacob 2: 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;

Jacob 3: 5
Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them.

DandC 42: 22
Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else.

DandC 49: 16
Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation;

Now look at Joseph Smith's "revelation" on polygamy:

DandC 132: 54-55
And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law. 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 hundredfold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds. And if he (Smith) have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.

Flip-Flip #2:

What about coveting another man's wife?

Ex. 20: 17
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.

Deut. 5: 21
Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour’s wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour’s house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour’s.

Mosiah 13: 24
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor’s.

DandC 19:24-25
I am Jesus Christ; I came by the will of the Father, and I do his will. And again, I command thee that thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife;

Now the reality...

Apostle Jedediah M. Grant of the First Presidency, on Feb. 19 1854, revealed in General Conference:
"What would a man of God say, who felt right, when Joseph asked him for his money? He would say, 'Yes, and I wish I had more to help to build up the kingdom of God.' Or if he came and said, 'I want your wife?' 'Oh yes,' he would say, 'here she is, there are plenty more.'... Did the Prophet Joseph want every man's wife he asked for?... If such a man of God should come to me and say, 'I want your gold and silver, or your wives,' I should say, 'Here they are, I wish I had more to give you, take all I have got."' (Journal of Discourses, vol.2, pages 13-14)

A letter Joseph Smith wrote to the daughter of a friend:

"The only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty. Only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible, I know it is a heroick undertakeing; but so much the greater friendship, and the more Joy, when I see you I will tell you all my plans, I cannot write them on paper, burn this letter as soon as you read it; keep all locked up in your breasts, my life depends upon it. I close my letter, I think emma wont come tonight if she dont, dont fail to come to night, I subscribe myself your most obedient, and affectionate, companion, and friend. Joseph Smith."
- Joseph Smith Letter, quoted by Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness page 180

In a speech given at Brigham Young University, Mrs. Lightner bore her testimony that Joseph claimed an "angel" came with a "drawn sword" and told him that if he did not enter into polygamy "he would slay him." She frankly admitted that she "had been dreaming for a number of years that I was his [Joseph's] wife." Since both Joseph and herself were already married, she "felt it was a sin." Joseph, however, convinced her that the "Almighty" had revealed the principle and while her "husband was far away," she was sealed to him. (Read her full BYU testimony here: http://www.ldshistory.net/pc/merlbyu.htm)

For details on the other MARRIED WOMEN that Joseph Smith coveted and seduced, see:
http://www.i4m.com/think/history/joseph_smith_sex.htm

Flip-Flop #3:

What does the Book of Mormon and the original DandC say about polygamy?

Jacob 1
15 And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son.
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

DandC First Edition in 1835 and remaining until 1876 Edition, Section 101, verse 4:
Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again. (History of the Church, vol. 2, pg. 247)

Now the flip-flop:

DandC 132
1 VERILY, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines.

What do these flip-flops tell us about the so-called divine origin of the Mormon Church?
topic image
Randy Maudsley, "Apostle" Of The True & Living Church Of Jesus Christ (a Polygamous Group In Utah) Knows His Mormon Doctrine Better Than Gordon B. Hinckley
Tuesday, Feb 28, 2006, at 08:29 AM
Original Author(s): Freeatlast
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
I just finished watching AandE's "Inside Polygamy". One of the polygamists interviewed was Randy Maudsley, a very stocky, long-haired, articulate "Apostle" of the True and Living Church of Jesus Christ of Saints of the Last Days. "Apostle" Maudsley has four wives, and on camera, declared without hesitation that they were practicing the "principle of plural marriage" as taught by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. He also said that he and his wives were doing so to be obedient to God because "We want to become Gods".

I'll give this to randy...oops...Randy Maudsley - he has more integrity to his religious beliefs than President "I-Don't-Know-We-Teach-That" Gordon B. Hinckley. Hinckley has had many opportunities to publicly declare fundamental aspects of LDS theology, such as God once being mortal and the "divine plan" for "men" to become Gods, but he has "shrunk back" from doing so as part of the church's plan to mainstream itself.

One of the women in the program who left a polygamous marriage and community, Roni Backer, said, "This [polygamy and the polygamy-focused religion of the community] is so mind-bending that there's no room for reality." How very applicable her words are to Mormonism.

Other things I noted that were not uncommon in the LDS Church when I was a member - One of the polygamists, John Harper, said, "Our women have freedom to come and go as they wish." OUR women?! The idea that God commands wives to obey their husbands is at the root psychologically of the mindset that polygamous men have/possess wives and children (his "eternal increase").

I noted the greater psychological independence of the women who had left polygamous marriages and communities in the program. I could see it in their faces and hear in their voices. They had gone through hell, including sexual abuse in some cases, and had really struggled to liberate their "soul", as one of the women who had been sexually abused by her polygamous father described it. As we know from personal experience, Mormonism also imprisons people's "souls" through its many fear-, guilt-, and shame-inducing teachings and psychologically unhealthy LDS beliefs.

One more thing the program reminded me about in relation to Mormonism was the church teaching and LDS belief that after Jesus returned to the Earth (in the Second Coming), he would re-establish polygamy as the "higher law of celestial marriage" for the "Saints" to live.

"Inside Polygamy" stated that although 30,000 to 50,000 people are involved in polygamy (rooted in 19th-century Mormonism), the actual number may be much higher. One of the women interviewed said she knew of at least 20 polygamous families in which sexual abuse had occurred. Here in British Columbia, the Attorney General, like his counterparts in UT, AZ, and other U.S. states, has been struggling to find way to deal with the polygamous community in Bountiful. He ordered the RCMP to investigate various allegations of sexual abuse of young women. The investigation is ongoing.

One man - Joseph Smith Jr. - is ultimately responsible for all the heartbreak, misery, fear, and "soul murder" (as one of the women in the AandE program called it) that has come from Mormonism-based polygamy in the past 150+ years. He introduced the "principle" into Mormonism, secretly lived it before publicly preaching about plural marriage, and psychologically manipulated women and his closest associates to accept the "doctrine". In my opinion, polygamy, more than any other aspect of Mormonism, proves that Smith was not enlightened.
topic image
Hypocritical Lying Mormon Church Issues Yet Another Statement About HBO's "Big Love"
Wednesday, Mar 8, 2006, at 07:54 AM
Original Author(s): Polygamy Porter
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
Oh this is choice! Polygamy Porter(me) reviewing another pathetic public plea wherein TSCC cries foul over stereotypes being dug back up and confusion by the new HBO series "Big Love"

Ready the barf bag and proceed to read it here.

My review follows(comments in bold after paragraphs):

Church Responds to Questions on TV Series
6 March 2006

Over the past few weeks, Church Public Affairs has received numerous calls from newspaper, magazine and TV entertainment writers about a new television series called Big Love. In the series, set in a modern suburb of Salt Lake City, the main character keeps up a deceptive life in a fringe world of polygamy with his three wives and households. Journalists want to know what the Church thinks of the program, the subject matter and HBO’s decision to promote it.


HEY! Just like the founder of mormonism and POLYGAMY in the US, Joseph Smith! He too was DECEPTIVE in living the "sacred principal" of dirty old polygamy.

Hell, he even
  • Lied to his own wife, first wife Emma

  • When he was finally caught by Emma, he quickly whipped up some scriptures(DandC 132) that threatened her with DEATH if she did not accept it

  • Excommunicated friends who did not agree with it(like Oliver Cowdery)

  • Published scriptures that stated he did not practice it(1835 ed of DandC 101:4)

  • Published a list of things he(and his followers) claimed to believe and one in particular said he obeyed the laws of the land, even though polygamy had been against the law in Illinois since 1833

  • Burned down a printing press because it was exposing the truth about his DECEPTIVE life, that he was indeed marrying additional women AND some were still married to their first husband!
Hmmm, I wonder if the producers will end the series with this deceptive man being killed by masons? Just like JOE was!


In responding, Church spokesmen have made three major points:

1. Concern for abuse victims
The Church has long been concerned about the illegal practice of polygamy in some communities, and in particular about persistent reports of emotional and physical child and wife abuse emanating from them. It will be regrettable if this program, by making polygamy the subject of entertainment, minimizes the seriousness of that problem and adds to the suffering of abuse victims.
Oh reeeaaaahiiillllyy? Put your money were your mouth is! Take some of that BILLION and a half dollars you plan on spending on your cathedral of consumption(mall) and spend it helping squash what old Joe started...

One other thing, do you really think it is sexually abusive for a middle aged man to have sex with a teenager? Or to threaten his wife with death? C'mon! Your founder Joseph Smith did not think so!


2. Confusion over the continued practice of polygamy
The central characters of Big Love are not “Mormons,” or, more properly termed, Latter-day Saints. HBO has said the script makes it clear that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints don’t practice polygamy. Still, placing the series in Salt Lake City, the international headquarters of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is enough to blur the line between the modern Church and the program’s subject matter and to reinforce old and long-outdated stereotypes.
Curelom shit! Look, these people are exactly like the rest of you "non polygamist" mormons, but with one exception, THEY STILL PRACTICE POLYGAMY.
So get this through your pea brains, looks like a mormon, lives like a mormon, teaches like a mormon, believes everything mormon, smells like a mormon, reads like a mormon, ANNNND has more than one wife, LIKE EARLY MORMONS, hmmmmmmmmmmm POLYGAMIST MORMONS!

Got it dumb ass? k?


Polygamy was officially discontinued by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1890. Any Church member adopting the practice today is excommunicated. Groups that continue the practice in Utah and elsewhere have no association whatever with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Most of their practitioners have never been among its members.
Oh huge LIE! Actions speak louder than words you fool. You see, while the mormons may have publicly promised to discontinue polygamy in 1890, their leaders did not keep their word until 15-20 years later(read more here).

Unfortunately, this distinction is often lost on members of the public and even on some senior journalists. When ABC network’s Prime Time recently aired a program focused on the secretive polygamous community of Colorado City, the reporter repeatedly referred to members of the community as “Mormon polygamists.” In response, the Church points to the Associated Press style guide for journalists which states: "The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other ... churches that resulted from the split after [Joseph] Smith's death." In other words, polygamous communities should never be referred to as "Mormon" polygamists or “Mormon” fundamentalists.
Yippie Skippie! Hey can ya do all of us exmormons and BILLIONS of non mormons a favor, write this down and please memorize it: "MORMON = POLYGAMIST and POLYGAMY = MORMON" See, we all know this and so should you. K?

3. Concern over the moral standards of television entertainment
Despite its popularity with some, much of today’s television entertainment shows an unhealthy preoccupation with sex, coarse humor and foul language. Big Love, like so much other television programming, is essentially lazy and indulgent entertainment that does nothing for our society and will never nourish great minds. Parents who are casual about their viewing habits ought not to be surprised if teaching moral choices and civic values to their children becomes harder as a result.

For that reason and others, Church leaders have consistently cautioned against such entertainment, joining with other religious, education and government leaders in inviting individuals and families to follow a higher road of decency, self-discipline and integrity.
Talk about bald faced hypocrites!!!! This sounds like a great description of your very own channel 5, KSL-TV.. an NBC network affiliate....

Again, actions speak louder than words. Shall we talk about the Rock radio stations that TSCC owns also?
topic image
Polygamy: The Black Eye That Won't (and Can't) Go Away
Tuesday, Mar 14, 2006, at 07:19 AM
Original Author(s): Skeptical
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
Polygamy: The Black Eye that won’t (and can’t) go away

The LDS church officially stopped practicing polygamy in 1890, although it appears that the practice continued until 1907, at least. Thereafter, the LDS church prohibited the practice of polygamy while it continues to permit the practice of men being sealed to more than one wife (although the man is prohibited for being a bigamist). For example, a man is married in a temple with a woman and later is divorced civilly. The usual case will permit the man to remarry in a temple to a new wife, thus having two wives in the eternities.

Polygamy is the black eye on the church which just won’t go away. No matter how much the LDS church complains, educates, or wishes, it will always be tied to polygamy. And it should be. IT STARTED THE PRACTICE. But for the LDS church, polygamy would have probably never existed in America or the intermountain west.

Yesterday, Bishops across the United States read or re-printed a letter from the First Presidency complaining to the members that HBO was producing a series which wrongly depicted the practice of polygamy. Some bishops explained that the purpose of the letter was to provide members of the church with “talking points” should they be asked about it by co-workers, friends or family members.

But the tenure of the letter was more of a: “Damn it, after a hundred years, we are still up to our ears with this damn stereotype.”

What to do?

Nothing, but complain.

The LDS church could officially repudiate polygamy and distance itself from its implications by declaring it a false doctrine and removing Section 132 from the Doctrine and Covenants. However, by so doing, the LDS church would also remove all doctrinal support for the concept of eternal marriage and Families Are Forever™. Also, there will be a lot of confused active members of the Church who have been sealed to several women. Additionally, there will be a question of “spiritual bastardism” by descendants of polygamist marriages.

But the real loser will be Joseph Smith and his successors in interest. If the church leaders renounce polygamy as a false doctrine and mistake, they renounce Smith, and erode their own authority bedrock.

So, the most the LDS church can do is send protest letters to its own members sporting a black eye that won’t go away.
topic image
"Big Love" Right Out Of The Current Mormon Teachings -- The New And Everlasting Covenant. Ordinance Still Practiced! How To Become Gods!
Tuesday, Mar 14, 2006, at 07:29 AM
Original Author(s): Susieq#1
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
Know the truth.Know exactly what they actually believe and teach. Read their own words from their own scriptures. Decide for yourself if The Mormon Church teaches polygamy.

The New and Everlasting Covenantis Plurality of Wives or Polygamy - Temple ritual and DandC 132, with the promise to become Gods with a "continuation of seeds forever...".

It is still part of the cannon of Mormon teachings. Every temple marriage/sealing is the ordinance of "The New and Everlasting Covenant".

The New and Everlasting Covenant, known as Celestial Marriage- Plurality of Wives (Polygamy)-cannot commit adultery, men can become gods has never ceased being performed by The Mormon Church.

The temple marriage ceremony comes from DandC 132.

reference:
http://www.lds-mormon.com/veilworker/marriage.shtml


• • • The Current LDS Marriage Ritual• • •

As with other LDS rituals, this ceremony may be performed for either the living or the dead. When performed by proxy, it is used to "seal" deceased married members of the LDS Church to each other for time and eternity, while for the living it serves as the current marriage ceremony.

This ceremony is performed in a "Sealing Room." The room has an altar in its center with kneeling cushions on each side. At the head of the altar are two seats for the "Witnesses." Their signatures will appear on the temple’s marriage certificate. Others attending the ceremony stand about the room on either side of the altar. The Officiator who performs the sealing stands at the head of the altar.

If performed for the living the Officiator welcomes the group and usually makes a few remarks on the importance of marriage as an institution of God, stating that only those who marry in the temple can become Gods themselves. He counsels the couple to be kind to and understanding of each other throughout their lives, remembering that they seek a common goal, which can only be achieved by mutual cooperation.

When sealings are performed for and in behalf of the dead only the proxies, Officator and two Witnesses are present in the room. No speech is given, and the couple remains kneeling at the altar. They briefly release the token after each sealing, rejoining it again when instructed.

Officiator: Will the Witnesses please take their seats at the head of the altar.

Witnesses: Take their seats as requested.

Officiator: Brother ______, [naming groom] and Sister ______, [naming bride] will you please take your places and kneel opposite each other at the altar.

Marriage Couple: Kneels opposites each other as requested.

Officiator: Brother ______, [naming groom] and Sister ______, [naming bride] please join hands in the Patriarchal Grip or Sure Sign of the Nail.

Marriage Couple: Joins hands in the "Patriarchal Grip, or Sure Sign of the Nail." This token is given by clasping the right hands, interlocking the little fingers and placing the tip of the forefinger upon the center of the wrist. No clothing should interfere with the contact of the forefinger upon the wrist.

Officiator: Brother ______, [acting as proxy for ______, who is dead,] do you take Sister ______ [acting as proxy for ______, who is dead] by the right hand and receive her unto yourself to be your lawful and wedded wife for time and all eternity, with a covenant and promise that you will observe and keep all the laws, rites, and ordinances pertaining to this Holy Order of Matrimony in the New and Everlasting Covenant, and this you do in the presence of God, angels, and these witnesses of your own free will and choice?

Groom: Yes.

Officiator: Sister ______ [acting as proxy for ______, who is dead,] do you take brother ______ [acting as proxy for ______, who is dead,] by the right hand and give yourself to him to be his lawful and wedded wife, and for him to be your lawful and wedded husband, for time and all eternity, with a covenant and promise that you will observe and keep all the laws, rites and ordinances pertaining to this Holy Order of Matrimony in the New and Everlasting Covenant, and this you do in the presence of God, angels, and these witnesses of your own free will and choice?

Bride: Yes.

Officiator: By virtue of the Holy Priesthood and the authority vested in me, I pronounce you ______, and ______, legally and lawfully husband and wife for time and all eternity, and I seal upon you the blessings of the holy resurrection with power to come forth in the morning of the first resurrection clothed in glory, immortality and eternal lives, and I seal upon you the blessings of kingdoms, thrones, principalities, powers, dominions and exaltations, with all the blessings of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob [if living, he adds: and say unto you: be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth] that you may have joy and rejoicing in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. All these blessings, together with all the blessings appertaining unto the New and Everlasting Covenant, I seal upon you by virtue of the Holy Priesthood, through your faithfulness, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen.

This concludes the ceremony. A kiss over the altar (for non-proxy couples) is customary, but not essential. Any exchange of rings may now also be performed, though it is not part of the ceremony.

(Note: there is only one sentence that satisfys the requirement of the laws of the land: "authority vested in me, I pronounce you ______, and ______, legally and lawfully husband and wife,..." There is no mention of love.


THE DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS

SECTION 132
To read the rest, see lds.org or the DandC.

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also plurality of wives. HC 5: 501–507. Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831.

1–6, Exaltation is gained through the new and everlasting covenant; 7–14, The terms and conditions of that covenant are set forth; 15–20, Celestial marriage and a continuation of the family unit enable men to become gods; 21–25, The strait and narrow way that leads to eternal lives; 26–27, Law given relative to blasphemy against the Holy Ghost; 28–39, Promises of eternal increase and exaltation made to prophets and saints in all ages; 40–47, Joseph Smith is given the power to bind and seal on earth and in heaven; 48–50, The Lord seals upon him his exaltation; 51–57, Emma Smith is counseled to be faithful and true; 58–66, Laws governing the plurality of wives are set forth.

1 VERILY, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines–

2 Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, ...
3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; ...

4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an 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.

5 For all who will have a blessing at my hands ..... as were instituted from before the foundation of the world.

6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.

7 And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, boaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this gpower (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.

15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.

16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.

18 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that covenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, saith the Lord, neither by my word; when they are out of the world it cannot be received there, because the angels and the gods are appointed there, by whom they cannot pass; they cannot, therefore, inherit my glory; for my house is a house of order, saith the Lord God.

19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is csealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them–Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths–then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their jexaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have call, power, and the angels are subject unto them.

21 Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my alaw ye cannot attain to this glory.


25 Broad is the gate, and wide the way that leadeth to the deaths; and many there are that go in thereat, because they receive me not, neither do they abide in my law.

26 Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God.

30 Abraham received promises concerning his seed, and of the fruit of his loins–from whose loins ye are, namely, my servant Joseph–which were to continue so long as they were in the world; and as touching Abraham and his seed, out of the world they should continue; both in the world and out of the world should they continue as innumerable as the stars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them.


34 God acommanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.

35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, acommanded it.

36 Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac; ...

39 David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.
41 And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy banointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.

42 If she be not in the new and everlasting covenant, and she be with another man, she has committed adultery.

43 And if her husband be with another woman, and he was under a avow, he hath broken his vow and hath committed adultery.

44 And if she hath not committed adultery, but is innocent and hath not broken her vow, and she knoweth it, and I reveal it unto you, my servant Joseph, then shall you have power, by the power of my Holy Priesthood, to take her and give her unto him that hath not committed adultery but hath been faithful; for he shall be made ruler over many.


48 And again, verily I say unto you, my servant Joseph, that whatsoever you give on earth, and to whomsoever you give any one on earth, by my word and according to my law, it shall be visited with blessings and not cursings, and with my power, saith the Lord, and shall be without condemnation on earth and in heaven.

49 For I am the Lord thy God, and will be awith thee even unto the bend of the world, and through all eternity; for verily I seal upon you your exaltation, and prepare a throne for you in the kingdom of my Father, with Abraham your father.

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 prove 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, receive 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.

54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave• unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, 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 hundredfold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds.

56 And again, verily I say, let mine handmaid forgive 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 rejoice.

60 Let no one, therefore, set on my servant Joseph; for I will justify him; for he shall do the sacrifice which I require at his hands for his transgressions, saith the Lord your God.

61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood–if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse aanother, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

62And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.

63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.

64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.

65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife.

66And now, as pertaining to this law, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will reveal more unto you,...



As long as The Mormon Church considers DandC 132 their cannonized scriptures, they believe in and practice the law of plurality of wives or The New and Everlasting Covenant which carries the promise to become gods and have eternal increase.


In practice, it is possible for a man to be sealed to more than one woman in the temple, just not, generally at the same time.

Mormons have never stopped teaching this law known as polygamy.
topic image
Church News Spin: Dancing Around Henry Jacobs (first And Only Legal Husband Of Zina)
Wednesday, Mar 22, 2006, at 12:11 PM
Original Author(s): Reader
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
I don't know if anyone else noticed, but in the Church News for the week ending February 25, 2006, on page 4, there is an article entitled, "Among Last Living Children of Pioneers." The article discusses a 97-year old man named "Joseph Smith Jacobs," who lives in Provo, Utah. He is the last living child of a "pioneer" named "Henry Chariton Jacobs," who himself was the second son (born in 1846) of Henry Jacobs and Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young.

What is interesting about the article is that the still-living "Joseph Smith Jacobs" is the grandson of the man who was at the center of polyandry in the early LDS Church. Many of you will recall the story (detailed in Compton's "In Sacred Loneliness" and Von Wagoner's "Mormon Polygamy"), but here is some background.

Henry Jacobs and Zina Diantha Huntington both were early converts to the LDS Church (in the 1830's). They eventually fell in love, but before they could marry Zina caught the eye of Joseph Smith. While still single, she was one of the early LDS women to whom Joseph preached plural marriage and proposed (in late 1840 or early 1841, when she was 19). She refused Joseph's proposal, and instead, married Henry Bailey Jacobs on March 7, 1841 (a legal marriage under Illinois law, performed by John C. Bennett, then mayor of Nauvoo). Joseph did not give up, however; he later told her an angel had appeared and threatened him with a sword if he did not marry Zina (the same argument he would use with other potential plural wives); Zina (apparently with Henry's consent) eventually gave in, and on October 27, 1841 (when Zina was 7 months pregnant with her first son by Henry), she married Joseph (she continued to live with Henry, however, and there is no evidence of sexual relations with Joseph, but there also is not evidence against sexual relations -- based on sexual relations evident in other of Joseph's plural marriages, Compton believes that this union "probably" included sexual relations).

After Joseph's murder, Zina (still married to and living with Henry) married Brigham Young on February 2, 1846 (it may have been as early as September 1844). Henry (still her legal husband) stood by as witness as Zina was sealed to Joseph Smith "for eternity" and to Brigham "for time" (that Zina was sealed to Brigham "for time," instead of Henry, is odd, because Henry was a faithful LDS member at this time and had already participated in temple ordinances -- family tradition holds that Brigham convinced Zina to do this by arguing she would receive greater blessings by marrying someone with higher priesthood authority -- BY, at this time, was an apostle and president of the 12, and Henry was a mere seventy). In any event, Zina now had her SECOND polyandrous marriage.

Not long thereafter, as Henry was taking his wife and two small sons (the "pioneer" in the Church News article, Chariton, having been born just days after Zina's marriage to BY and the Jacobs family's leaving Nauvoo) across Iowa, Henry received word that BY had called him on a mission to England (his prior missions had all been in the States); despite being very ill at the time, and his young family also sick and in the middle of a traumatic exodus, Henry heeded Brigham's call and turned around and left his family to embark on the mission.

Henry would not return until well over a year later. During that time, Zina and her two sons had moved in with Brigham Young, and Zina and Brigham cohabited openly as husband and wife (Zina eventually had a daughter by Brigham).

Henry's letters make clear that he never got over his first love, Zina. She never legally divorced him (as far as I know), and he always remained her sole legal husband (shared by two other husbands). Henry married others plurally, and stayed faithful to the Church for many years (going to Utah), but was eventually disciplined out of the Church and settled in California. Zina stayed in Brigham's household, and her two sons by Henry were raised by him.

That's the brief sketch of the story -- here is what bothers me about the Church News article. First, there is NO mention of Henry Jacobs as the father of Chariton. Instead, the article reads:

"Joseph Smith Jacobs begins with the birth of his father, an infant pioneer. On a rainy Sunday in March 1846, only five minutes after crossing the Chariton River in Iowa, Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs gave birth to a son in her wagon. She chose as his middle name Chariton, after the location where he was born."

It's fine to mention the mother, but why not the lad's father, who was present at the birth? He is not mentioned here or anywhere else in the article.

The article goes on to state about Chariton: "Carried on to the Salt Lake Valley, where he arrived in 1848, Henry Chariton Jacobs was raised in President Young's household."

How did Chariton come be be raised in BY's family? The article doesn't say. Could it be because (1) the unnamed Henry Bailey Jacobs was Chariton's biological and legal father (having married Zina first); (2) Joseph Smith was Chariton's eternal father (having married Zina 7 months later); and (3) Brigham Young was Chariton's current father "for time" (having married Zina just days before Chariton was born)? In any event, the reason Chariton was "raised in President Young's household" is pretty obvious, but the Church would rather not discuss that sordid part of the story.

In sum, I found it very interesting how the Church News article carefully avoided the very existence of Henry Jacobs and the scandalous polyandry he was forced to endure, first, with Joseph, and then, with Brigham, which resulted in his losing his young wife and two sons. Yep, the sad memory of Henry Jacobs, and how he was screwed by the hierarchy, is well remembered, evidently even by Church leaders (which can only explain how the article so artfully writes him out of Chariton's and the grandson's lives).
topic image
The Evil Institution Of Monongamy
Monday, Mar 27, 2006, at 07:11 AM
Original Author(s): Gdteacher
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
The Big Love e-mail got me thinking about how earlier church leaders preached of the evils of a monogamous system of marriage. Since the church actively participates in slamming "alternative" marriages today, it is kind of ironic that the church itself was the target of the Christians in the latter half of the 19th century and early 20th century. These quotes by church leaders are almost laughable in that context. I am taking these quotes with me for potential use during a lesson tomorrow which touches on tolerance. These quotes are courtesy of Deconstructor's site. He starts out with a couple of quotes on the "evils" of homosexuality, but then follows up with the same types of quotes as it relates to monogamy. We've all heard today's LDs Church leaders blaming the fall of the Roman empire and the decline of civilization on Homosexuality. Here's just a sampling of Mormon Prophets making this claim:

"This heinous homosexual sin is of the ages. Many cities and civilizations have gone out of existence because of it. It was present in Israel's wandering days, tolerated by the Greeks, and found in the baths of corrupt Rome." - Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, "President Kimball Speaks Out on Morality," LDS New Era, Nov. 1980, Page 39

"Alternatives to the legal and loving marriage between a man and a woman are helping to unravel the fabric of human society. I am sure this is pleasing to the devil. The fabric I refer to is the family. These so-called alternative life-styles must not be accepted as right, because they frustrate God's commandment for a life-giving union of male and female within a legal marriage as stated in Genesis. If practiced by all adults, these life-styles would mean the end of the human family." - Apostle James E. Faust, "Serving the Lord and Resisting the Devil," Liahona, Nov. 1995, Page 3.

But this is the SAME argument that Mormon Prophets have used against good-old heterosexual monogamy! See here other inspired words from Inspired Mormon Prophets:

"It is a fact worthy of note that the shortest lived nations of which we have record have been monogamic. Rome...was a monogamic nation and the numerous evils attending that system early laid the foundation for that ruin which eventually overtook her." - Apostle George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 202

"Since the founding of the Roman empire monogamy has prevailed more extensively than in times previous to that. The founders of that ancient empire were robbers and women stealers, and made laws favoring monogamy in consequence of the scarcity of women among them, and hence this monogamic system which now prevails throughout Christendom, and which had been so fruitful a source of prostitution and whoredom throughout all the Christian monogamic cities of the Old and New World, until rottenness and decay are at the root of their institutions both national and religious." - The Prophet Brigham Young Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, p. 128

"...the one-wife system not only degenerates the human family, both physically and intellectually, but it is entirely incompatible with philosophical notions of immortality; it is a lure to temptation, and has always proved a curse to a people." - Prophet John Taylor, Millennial Star, Vol. 15, p. 227

"Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of heaven among men. Such a system was commenced by the founders of the Roman empire....Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged. Thus this monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a holy sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers.... Why do we believe in and practice polygamy? Because the Lord introduced it to his servants in a revelation given to Joseph Smith, and the Lord's servants have always practiced it. 'And is that religion popular in heaven?' it is the only popular religion there,..." - The Prophet Brigham Young, The Deseret News, August 6, 1862

"This law of monogamy, or the monogamic system, laid the foundation for prostitution and the evils and diseases of the most revolting nature and character under which modern Christendom groans,..." - Apostle Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, page 195

"We breathe the free air, we have the best looking men and handsomest women, and if they (Non-Mormons) envy us our position, well they may, for they are a poor, narrow-minded, pinch-backed race of men, who chain themselves down to the law of monogamy, and live all their days under the dominion of one wife. They ought to be ashamed of such conduct, and the still fouler channel which flows from their practices; and it is not to be wondered at that they should envy those who so much better understand the social relations." - Apostle George A Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, page 291

"I have noticed that a man who has but one wife, and is inclined to that doctrine, soon begins to wither and dry up, while a man who goes into plurality [of wives] looks fresh, young, and sprightly. Why is this? Because God loves that man, and because he honors his word. Some of you may not believe this, but I not only believe it but I also know it. For a man of God to be confined to one woman is small business. I do not know what we would do if we had only one wife apiece." - Apostle Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses Vol 5, page 22

"Just ask yourselves, historians, when was monogamy introduced on to the face of the earth? When those buccaneers, who settled on the peninsula where Rome now stands, could not steal women enough to have two or three apiece, they passed a law that a man should have but one woman. And this started monogamy and the downfall of the plurality system. In the days of Jesus, Rome, having dominion over Jerusalem, they carried out the doctrine more or less. This was the rise, start and foundation of the doctrine of monogamy; and never till then was there a law passed, that we have any knowledge of, that a man should have but one wife. " - The Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses Vol. 12, page 262
topic image
Should We Put Polygamists In Jail? For Polygamy?
Monday, Mar 27, 2006, at 07:51 AM
Original Author(s): Troy
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
Should polygamy be illegal? That is the question that hasn't been adequately answered, I think, yet it is illegal. It wouldn't be difficult to prove, by poll for example, that the majority of US citizens believe polygamy should remain illegal. But we shouldn't shy away from this question if we're going to take the matter seriously.

My position has changed quite a lot in the last two to three years. This change has come by necessity, and it has been painful at times. But I can honestly tell myself that I changed in an effort to get to the truth. I had no ulterior motives. Anyone who reads the things I wrote about polygamy several years ago would plainly see my hostile attitude toward the practice. Today, I'm still very troubled by the whole matter, but I've worked very hard to shed my biases in order to deal with it philosophically. In addition to this, I've had to recognize my own ignorance in certain areas that fall outside my own specific areas of expertise. For example, I tried to make arguments against polygamy that were based on the science of genetics, but I didn't have the background necessary for defending my position when I was confronted by people who actually have studied genetics from a serious, academic perspective. If they could punch holes in my arguments, I was obliged to investigate their critiques and take them seriously. But something I have spent a lot of time studying from an academic perspective is ethics. So the flavor of my arguments is quite different now from what it was a few years ago. I place more focus now on philosophical arguments rather than scientific. This is fitting since ethics concerns questions about what to do, as opposed to what is the nature of things.

We can look at the ethics of polygamy by drawing a distinction between legal possibilities and other non-legal ethical concerns. This last part often trips people up because the difference between legal permissibility and ethical permissibility is blurred in society. I blame ignorance for this. The problem is that people frequently see the law as the final word on what is right and wrong. Part of this is a result of abandoning ethical systems based on divine command and having no other coherently developed outlook to fall back upon. But we can remedy this matter, since we do not need religion to have ethical lives. We often deceive ourselves to the contrary, but that is another discussion. I think a lot of people see the law as the only reason for ethical behavior, so when something offends them, the natural reaction is to suggest legal sanctions. But law and morality are two separate realms. Law is a manifestation of our ethical needs. It is not the reason for our ethical needs. To keep things clear, let mejust state that I use the terms "morality" and "ethics" rather interchangeably. I do not use these terms in an authoritative way as in Mormonism. To me, there is no authority when it comes to questions of morality. Not human, divine or otherwise. Law is a form of authority, but laws exist because of moral principles. Unless we are living in a totalitarian society, that is.

What all of this means is that in order to discuss the legal aspects of polygamy, we have to clarify what the moral concerns are first of all. Then later, if we have compelling reasons for making it illegal, we should formulate the legal apparatus. Throughout this whole process, we have to keep in mind that laws that are unenforceable are nothing but trouble down the road. Sometimes we just don't have the justification or the means for making something illegal, no matter how offensive it seems. That is where we are at with anti-polygamy legislation. It is outdated, impractical and poorly conceived. We haven't got a good argument to put behind our current prohibitions against polygamy. As things stand, they are doomed. People frequently declare that polygamy is illegal, so we should simply throw the offenders in jail and be done with the problem. But it is immensely more complicated than this. It's not going to happen this way without massive offense to human rights.

But leaving all legal concerns aside, I can still make some complaints about polygamous society, particularly if it is a polygynous society, like almost all polygamous societies on earth. In such a society, polygamy is defined as one man and many women. The women have no right to play it the other way around. Such a society opposes justice from the beginning because justice differs from one individual to another, based simply on gender. This is a recipe for abuse. There is nothing to praise about patriarchy, if you ask me. Most polygamous societies that I'm aware of do not allow the option to not participate, particularly if one is female. The men may have some options, but the women have none at all. This is why polygyny proliferates in male-dominated society. Indeed, the presence of polygyny as a cultural norm is pretty powerful evidence that the society in question is male-dominated. Justice can never support such a system.

As it is, the best way I can conceive for fighting against the abuses inherent to compulsory-polygynous society is to provide education and other such benefits like adequate public health. In Mormon-fundamentalist society, there has been a holocaust of neglect when it comes to these matters. Making laws forbidding polygamy has not curtailed the practice effectively, but making it illegal and driving these societies underground has promoted a situation where this neglect could take place. The abuses have multiplied under these conditions. The effects of driving these societies underground has done far more harm than any anti-polygamy legislation could prevent.

Now that we've revealed the abuses in these societies to the point where the local LDS powers can no longer conceal them, it is time to reconcile the matter once and for all. We need to build a bridge between mainstream society and the innocent who are in these abusive cults. New legislation dealing with polygamy is sorely needed. As the laws remain, reconciliation remains difficult, if not impossible. Victims are afraid to ask for help because they are living in an outlawed society. When I was a child, I lost a lot of sleep at night because I was deathly afraid of being raided by federal troops. This fear keeps people from coming forward and it keeps the abuse in obscurity. When this happens, getting the public aware of the problem is an enormous challenge, and one that I've become familiar with over the years, intimately.

The thing that will break the backs of these abusive patriarchal societies will not be prison walls, but adequate schools run by honest people. In Colorado City, the public education system is profoundly corrupt. In addition to this, medical conditions are more like one might expect to find in a third-world country. The police and judges have themselves been criminals and abusers. It's a neglect of basic human rights that we should rightfully be shocked to find in the US.

It is the lack of opportunity to decline participation that makes polygamy the hideous thing it is. I've become very familiar with the arguments made by Elizabeth Joseph, who advocates the freedom to live in such a way if one chooses, but clearly she opposes polygamy that gives no option for non-participation. I have a hard time condemning such an arrangement objectively. If the Joseph family has caused specific harm or abuse because of polygamy, I have a hard time seeing it. I certainly wouldn't hold them up as a model family, but it seems to have worked for them in some respects. But that is just the case we have. It won't work for everyone. Societies that enforce this lifestyle are societies filled with human rights abuses. But given good opportunities for education and self-development, how powerful would groups like the FLDS be?

Certainly not as powerful as they have been in past decades. Ignorance has kept them in power. Sound familiar?
topic image
The Doctrine Of Polygamy Is Still In The Mormon Scriptures
Thursday, Apr 20, 2006, at 07:48 AM
Original Author(s): Adieu Lds
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
The doctrine of polygamy is still in their scriptures, Doctrine and Covenants, section 132. Mormons are instructed not to practice polygamy during this life but the practice will be permitted in heaven. Today if a Mormon man outlives his first wife (after having a temple marriage) he can marry again in the temple. This would guarantee him two wives in heaven.

God assigns a positive value to polygamy. He makes a covenant to deal with plural marriage, and threatens both Mormon men and women if they reject polygamy. This revelation was given to Joseph Smith and recorded on 1843-JUL-12: God starts by stressing the universality of the covenant, its permanence, and a curse for any who reject it: 3: "...all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same."

4: "For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an 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."

6: "...he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned...."

God reviews the many figures in the Hebrew scriptures who had concubines and/or were involved in plural marriages: Abraham, David, Solomon, Moses and many others.

God commands Joseph Smith's wife, Emma, to follow this commandment or be destroyed.

God introduces the "law of the priesthood": that a man can, with the approval of his first wife, marry one or more other women without committing adultery "...for they belong to him and they are given onto him...": 61: "....if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else."

62: "And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified."

However, if a woman, after she is espoused, engages in sex with another man, she is guilty of adultery and is to be destroyed. What is sauce for the gander is definitely not sauce for the goose.

The "law of the priesthood" was taught as an important, foundational practice by the early Mormon church. Thus, in 1890, many Mormons found the church's suspension of new polygynous marriages to be unacceptable. They upheld the original revelation given to Joseph Smith and continued their plural marriages, even though it generally meant excommunication from the LDS. The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, mainly centered in Utah, Arizona and British Columbia, was founded as a break-away Mormon sect, and is the main denomination within the Mormon movement which continues to practice polygyny today.
topic image
Polygamy, The Morg's Achilles Heel
Monday, May 15, 2006, at 07:50 AM
Original Author(s): Rob Shiveley
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
After watching tonight's episode of HBO's Big Love, I can't but feel that the Mormon Church's goose is finally cooked.

By the way, today the L.A. Times finished its 2-part series on Fundamentalist Mormon Polygamy, in case you missed it. The great reporting of the LA Times has Pulitzer written all over these stories which broke over the last couple of days. Here's the links to the online articles:

Blind Eye to Culture of Abuse: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedit...

Where Few Dare to Disobey http://www.latimes.com/news/printedit...

Plenty of Parents but No Protectors http://www.latimes.com/news/printedit...

A Sect's Prophet, Teacher, Fugitive http://www.latimes.com/news/printedit...

Arizona's 1953 Raid on Sect Backfired http://www.latimes.com/news/printedit...

A Family Seized as Church Property http://www.latimes.com/news/printedit...

This series of articles breaking in one of the top U.S. newspapers, along with the popular HBO 'Big Love' series about modern day polygamy, and the fact that one of the FBI Ten Most Wanted fugitive, Fundamentalist LDS Prophet, Warren Jeffs, is capturing the attention of the world's media, the church's long association with polygamy is combining to create quite a 'sticky wicket' for the Morg.

It's ironic that the LDS PR dept is stating that the media is not reporting the "correct angle" of the church's position on polygamy. Apparently the spin meisters in LDS PR aren't quite up to task: "Church spokesman Dale Bills said LDS Public Affairs has fielded "a number of questions" from media – presumably both national and international – following Jeffs' Ten Most Wanted listing along with Osama bin Laden and other high-profile fugitives. Reporters have called for the church's comment, though "there is no reason why the church would wish to comment about a legal action concerning a group with which it has no affiliation or connection," the release said."

Media get a big 'F' for stories on FLDS: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249...

I wonder when how long it will take before the church bows its head and says 'yes' in acknowledgment towards its longstanding ambivalent attitude towards the repression and exploitation of children and women? A bit of light shining brightly on a dark secret the church would rather not talk about may cause some discomfort for a number of folks, including Mitt Romney, the Massachusetts Mormon governor kicking the tires about a run for the white house in 2008.

Ah, now it gets interesting!

Rob Shiveley
topic image
Ah, Think Of Life In "Zion" During The Days Of The Pioneers
Monday, Jul 24, 2006, at 09:23 AM
Original Author(s): Lightfingerlouie
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
I like to think about life in Utah during the early days. What the "saints" endured was something worth thinking about. I do marvel at their toughness.

Think about what life in Utah must have been like, living in cabins, wearing wool clothes, sweating in summer sun, or freezing in the winter. People took a bath weekly, so you know how they smelled.

Food was scarce, and starvation a reality. But that is just the surface. Think about what was under the veneer.

Blood atonement made everyone obey. No doubt of that. Brigham preached the joys of a slit throat from the pulpit. Castration was an added benefit for those who stepped out of line, and wanted, say, that cute girl the Stake President wanted. In short, everyone in one way or another, was Brigham's prison bitch.

And there was polygamy, that wonderful Mormon practice. Lecherous old geezers would meet the wagon trains as they came into Salt Lake. They wanted to see who might be available for their, uh, spiritual needs.

Heber C. Kimball, that remarkable ass, wanted the pretty ones saved. He did not want the lovely girls picked until he could sort them out. After all, his daughter had been sorted out by the Prophet Joseph. What was good for Joseph was good for Heber. Took a little time to get used to it, but it worked out just fine.

If Brother Brigham wanted a wife, and she was already married, no matter. She was his anyway. The husband could go to hell. This happened to one of my ancestors. I was never told the truth until I read it on this board. My father knew, but did not let the truth escape. Brigham did not let the women escape, so what the hell. All part of the tradition.

I recall all the stories about polygamy, told with a sincere sugar coating. The women "liked it," they "did not complain," and they did not leave when they could. Right. I can imagine how much some of them liked it. Of course, leaving could bring a death sentence, so I would imagine staying seemed like an acceptable alternative.

And think of the other characters. There were the crazy Pratts. Interesting fellows . Orson had his problems, and was in and out of favor. Parley ended up "assassinated," which was Mormon-speak for killed by an angry husband. Those Pratt boys were never boring.

Wilford Woodruff is another favorite. Those wild dreams, and crazy notions. He went on to great things, of course, and is venerated to this day--lesson manuals, and a bust in the "Hall of Prophets."

I honestly do admire the pioneers--the common pioneers-- who went through things we can't imagine. I can see why people go to Martin's Cove, or why they are fascinated with the tough life so many endured. I am not without feeling for those who paid the price.

I recall Wallace Stegner writing about the Mormon women, and how remarkable they were. He seemed to feel they made the system work. Not the men, the women. The men, after all, had the "Priesthood." The women had the burdens, and the real suffering.
topic image
Apologists Claim D&C 101:4 (1835 Version) Is Not Revelation - That It Was Written By Oliver Cowdery, Not Joseph Smith
Friday, Aug 25, 2006, at 06:39 AM
Original Author(s): Randy Jordan
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
Doctrine and Covenants 101:4 (1835 edition) :
"Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy; we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife; and one woman but one husband; except that in the event of death when either is at liberty to marry again."
Note: this is not found in the current editions of Doctrine and Covenants. Reasonably ask yourself why.

Mormon Apologists claim:
"We are well aware of Section 100 and what it says. That particular Section was written by Oliver Cowdery and approved by the membership of the Church while Smith was out of town. "
To begin with, the AoM was in Section 101 of the 1835 DandC, and RE-PUBLISHED as Section 109 in the *1854* edition, IN UTAH. For those unfamiliar with it, the crux of the policy states: "Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have but one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again."

The idea that JS was out of town, and that Cowdery somehow slipped the "Article on Marriage" into the DandC without his approval, is a prevarication designed purely as an apology for Joseph's adulterous affair with the teenage Fannie Alger.

Joseph Fielding Smith perpetuated the misinformation:
"This article on marriage was not a revelation and I want you never to forget it....at this conference held on August 17, 1835, Joseph Smith and Frederick G. Williams...were not present; they were in Michigan....this article on marriage...was written by Oliver Cowdery in the absence of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and the Prophet knew nothing of the action that was taken ordering them printed with the revelations. These were not revelations, never were so considered, were ordered printed in the absence of Joseph Smith, and when Joseph Smith returned from Michigan and learned what was done---I am informed by my father, who got this information from Orson Pratt---the Prophet was very much troubled. Orson Pratt and Joseph F. Smith, my father, were missionary companions; they traveled together, and my father learned a great many things from Orson Pratt of these early days. When the Prophet came back from Michigan, he learned of the order made by the conference of the Church and he let it go through." (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 11, pp. 194-95.)
First off---Joseph Fielding Smith claimed to have gotten his information third-hand. By the time Pratt allegedly told this to JF Smith, the Mormons were in Utah, and Pratt himself was a practicer and apologist for polygamy. It served his agenda to "blame" the AoM on the excommunicated Cowdery, because of its obvious contradiction to the 1843 "revelation on celestial marriage." Also, Mormons constantly repeat that the only official LDS doctrine that is binding on the members is what is found in the "Standard Works." The Article on Marriage was voted on by "common consent", approved, and published in the 1835 DandC, whether JS was out of town or not. If, as later Mormons claimed, that JS had had his first "revelation" on PM as early as 1831, then it is obvious that upon returning from Michigan, and learning of the AoM, he should have immmediately called a meeting, corrected the mistake, and ordered the AoM torn out or stricken through in each copy. JS lived another nine years after the 1835 DandC was published, and I am not aware of a single statement he made against the AoM, nor of any action he took to correct it. That being true, it is obvious that JS was perfectly willing to maintain the AoM as a public policy, while privately teaching and practicing the exact opposite. And, if you're going to argue that the AoM was not "official doctrine" IN SPITE of it being canonized, then you cannot also consistently argue that JS' practice of polygamy was proper or "doctrinally secure"----because when Smith attempted to have his "revelation on celestial marriage" approved on August 12, 1843, by his Nauvoo High Council, the attempt failed to carry, which is necessary according to LDS rules of "common consent." That means that Smith secretly taught and practiced polygamy without having proper approval----which was no big deal for him, however, since he had been a polygamist for at least ten years before he even presented his "revelation" for a vote. The High Council's refusal to approve the "revelation" obviously slowed him down, however, because he took no more plural wives for the last eight months of his life, as opposed to having taken more than 30 before that time.

On top of all of this, the idea that Smith was in the dark about Cowdery's inclusion of the AoM is ridiculous on its face. Smith claimed to be in regular communication with God. If that were truly the case---and God had previously "revealed" the "ancient order of plural marriage" to Smith---then it should have been a snatch for God to put a bug in Smith's ear, perhaps telling him something like, "Joseph, my son, Oliver is trying to mess up your love life. Go therefore, and tell him to ixnay the Article on arriage-May." For Mormons to believe that Cowdery could slip an incorrect principle into the "standard works," they must concede that Smith's pipeline to God was operating at somewhat less than peak efficiency. Objective thinkers will naturally conclude that in light of the events, Smith possessed no such pipeline.

As I've documented several times previously, the historical context of the origin of the AoM was JS' "nasty, filthy affair" with Fannie Alger, which began as early as 1833, when she was sixteen. According to some accounts, Emma herself caught them together, and JS expressed remorse over it in a meeting with Emma and Cowdery.

In none of the accounts is the "prophet" quoted as saying, "I have received a revelation that allows me to have sex with Fannie." No mention of an angel with flaming sword threatening to kill him. No hint of asking the "first wife" for permission to couple with Fannie, as DandC 132:61 requires; Emma was obviously shocked and saddened at the discovery. All of the accounts paint a simple picture of a married man having in illicit fling with a teenage girl, being caught, and apparently being remorseful and repentant of it.

Because news of the incident spread quickly----there are numerous first-and-secondhand accounts of it----Cowdery, and others, undoubtedly realized that if it became widespread public knowledge that the "prophet" was boinking a teenager, it could discredit their church, and destroy their infant commune. That is undoubtedly why the AoM states that the "church has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy." It was designed as an official statement to nip the rumors in the bud. And it worked for awhile---after being caught with Fannie, there is no evidence of any more extra-marital activity on Smith's part until his affair with Lucinda Morgan Harris at Far West in 1838. Fannie and family left Kirtland in 1836, she married a Solomon Custer, and thereafter refused to discuss her relationship with JS. In fact, the very REASON JS skipped town to Michigan during the period may well have been so that he could avoid having to deal with the fallout over being caught.

But the problem with JS, the AoM, and the truth, goes much deeper than all of this.

Although [apologists] attempt to call the AoM "unauthoritative" and "not official doctrine"----DandC 42, a "revelation received" on February 9, 1831, ALSO condemns extra-marital relations: "Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her AND NONE ELSE.....Thou shalt not commit adultery; and he that committeth adultery, and repenteth not, shall be cast out." Obviously, this "revelation" WAS "official doctrine," and regardless that JS later claimed to have received his first "inspiration" on PM in 1831 or 1832, monogamy and fidelity was the canonized standard of behavior even without the AoM. If JS had been dealt with according to the "canonized" DandC 42:26, he should have been excommunicated over the Fannie affair; but instead, JS excommunicated Cowdery in part for "accusing the prophet of adultery." That fact indicates that contrary to what modern Mormons try to assert, JS held a position of infallibility, and that he could violate a canonized rule of his church, and not be punished for it. The incident reveals that JS was totalitarian and held absolute power, accountable to no one for his behavior. It's also possible that since Smith arrived at Far West on March 14, 1838---and he began a sexual relationship with Lucinda Harris almost immediately, while living in her home---Cowdery may have got wind of that relationship, and it may have been the adultery that he accused Smith of that got him excommunicated on April 6, just three weeks later.

As I've documented many times, Smith steadfastly publicly denied PM his entire life. All public statements from him, and other Mormons, were that PM was not an LDS practice, and that it was strictly forbidden. Smith and his followers carried on a lifetime campaign of denial and deception concerning the practice.
topic image
Yes, Faithful LDS (Not FLDS) Members - You Do Believe In Polygamy
Wednesday, Aug 30, 2006, at 08:02 AM
Original Author(s): Jw The Inquizzinator
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
In fact, you worship it. I present as evidence:
  1. You worship a god that has multiple wives.
  2. You believe that your god is the son of yet another polygamous god...and his father...and his father
  3. Your scriptures say that polygamy is ok (not old timey scriptures, the scriptures you take to church every week)
  4. You believe, if you are a worthy male, that you will have multple wives in the afterlife.
  5. You believe, if you are female, that you will be one of many priestesses to your king (maybe your husband, maybe not)in the afterlife
  6. You believe Jeffs is a dirtbag/scumbag but he has done nothing that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Parley Pratt, and other church leaders did.
  7. The "polygamy" proclamation only applies to life right now on earth. It is not called a "sin" for a reason [because you don't thnk it is a sin, only wrong because it is against the law of the land].
  8. Your leaders practice Temple Polygamy - Russel M. Nelson just took another wife half his age.
topic image
Mormon Apostles And Teenager Brides
Tuesday, Sep 5, 2006, at 08:30 AM
Original Author(s): Alex71va
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
With all the talk this week about Warren Jeffs and his arrest for arranging underage marriages I think these links provide some useful historical perspective.

Cut and past any of these links into your browser.

http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=384089
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=6708
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=652268
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=519004
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=59383
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=182262
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=944742
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=68658
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=31993
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=1156
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=145734
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=822581
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=123950
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=2146429
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=1663871
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=5776184
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=1663910
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=419174
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=757004
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=1663846
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=2910577
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=91176
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=32861
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=739564
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=8515868
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=1855454
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=1663867
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=952846
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=630396
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=2093236
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=1663796
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=11300118
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=147311
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=171325
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=55596
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=1733829
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=655144
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=1663839
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=410599
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=1663809
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=806530
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=667
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=118909

Take the year of marriage and minus the date born and you'll see that most all of these were teenage brides.
topic image
Here Are The Facts: The Mormon Church Headquartered In Salt Lake City Still Practices The Ordinance Of Plurality Of Wives By Covenant In Their Temples
Monday, Sep 11, 2006, at 07:45 AM
Original Author(s): Susieq#1
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
The marriage, sealing covenant/ordinance performed in all the temples is exactly the same for everyone.

It is the "Holy Order of Matrimony, the New and Everlasting Covenant" as explained in DandC 132.

This is the ordinance made by covenant with the promised blessings.

Only one short sentence fulfills the local US legal requirements.

Full disclosure for informed consent is not made available to members going to the temple for the first time.

This is the wording of the marriage/sealing ordinance.

"• • • The Current LDS Marriage Ritual• • • Performed in their temples -- Marriage for time and eternity...

As with other LDS rituals, this ceremony may be performed for either the living or the dead. When performed by proxy, it is used to "seal" deceased married members of the LDS Church to each other for time and eternity, while for the living it serves as the current marriage ceremony.

This ceremony is performed in a "Sealing Room." The room has an altar in its center with kneeling cushions on each side. At the head of the altar are two seats for the "Witnesses." Their signatures will appear on the temple’s marriage certificate.

Others attending the ceremony stand about the room on either side of the altar. The Officiator who performs the sealing stands at the head of the altar.

If performed for the living the Officiator welcomes the group and usually makes a few remarks on the importance of marriage as an institution of God, stating that only those who marry in the temple can become Gods themselves.

He counsels the couple to be kind to and understanding of each other throughout their lives, remembering that they seek a common goal, which can only be achieved by mutual cooperation.

When sealings are performed for and in behalf of the dead only the proxies, Officator and two Witnesses are present in the room. No speech is given, and the couple remains kneeling at the altar. They briefly release the token after each sealing, rejoining it again when instructed.

Officiator: Will the Witnesses please take their seats at the head of the altar.

Witnesses: Take their seats as requested.

Officiator: Brother ______, [naming groom] and Sister ______, [naming bride] will you please take your places and kneel opposite each other at the altar.

Marriage Couple: Kneels opposites each other as requested.

Officiator: Brother ______, [naming groom] and Sister ______, [naming bride] please join hands in the Patriarchal Grip or Sure Sign of the Nail.

Marriage Couple:

Joins hands in the "Patriarchal Grip, or Sure Sign of the Nail." This token is given by clasping the right hands, interlocking the little fingers and placing the tip of the forefinger upon the center of the wrist.

No clothing should interfere with the contact of the forefinger upon the wrist.

Officiator: Brother ______, [acting as proxy for ______, who is dead,] do you take Sister ______ [acting as proxy for ______, who is dead] by the right hand and receive her unto yourself to be your lawful and wedded wife for time and all eternity, with a covenant and promise that you will observe and keep all the laws, rites, and ordinances pertaining to this Holy Order of Matrimony in the New and Everlasting Covenant, and this you do in the presence of God, angels, and these witnesses of your own free will and choice?

Groom: Yes.

Officiator: Sister ______ [acting as proxy for ______, who is dead,] do you take brother ______ [acting as proxy for ______, who is dead,] by the right hand and give yourself to him to be his lawful and wedded wife, and for him to be your lawful and wedded husband, for time and all eternity, with a covenant and promise that you will observe and keep all the laws, rites and ordinances pertaining to this Holy Order of Matrimony in the New and Everlasting Covenant, and this you do in the presence of God, angels, and these witnesses of your own free will and choice?

Bride: Yes.

Officiator: By virtue of the Holy Priesthood and the authority vested in me, I pronounce you ______, and ______, legally and lawfully husband and wife for time and all eternity, and I seal upon you the blessings of the holy resurrection with power to come forth in the morning of the first resurrection clothed in glory, immortality and eternal lives, and I seal upon you the blessings of kingdoms, thrones, principalities, powers, dominions and exaltations, with all the blessings of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob [if living, he adds: and say unto you: be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth] that you may have joy and rejoicing in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. All these blessings, together with all the blessings appertaining unto the New and Everlasting Covenant, I seal upon you by virtue of the Holy Priesthood, through your faithfulness, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen."

reference: http://www.lds-mormon.com/veilworker/...

THE DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS SECTION 132 [To read the rest, see lds.org or the DandC.]

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also plurality of wives. HC 5: 501–507. Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831.

1–6, Exaltation is gained through the new and everlasting covenant; 7–14, The terms and conditions of that covenant are set forth; 15–20, Celestial marriage and a continuation of the family unit enable men to become gods; 21–25, The strait and narrow way that leads to eternal lives; 26–27, Law given relative to blasphemy against the Holy Ghost; 28–39, Promises of eternal increase and exaltation made to prophets and saints in all ages; 40–47, Joseph Smith is given the power to bind and seal on earth and in heaven; 48–50, The Lord seals upon him his exaltation; 51–57, Emma Smith is counseled to be faithful and true; 58–66, Laws governing the plurality of wives are set forth.
topic image
The Dirty Little Secret (And Problem) Haunting The LDS Church
Wednesday, Sep 13, 2006, at 07:27 AM
Original Author(s): Skeptical
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
Part I: Families can be together forever

Many LDS hope that their non-LDS neighbors view them as good family-oriented people. The LDS church has positioned itself as a family-oriented church even using public services to remind people: “Families, isn’t it about time?”

The bedrock of the LDS church’s family focus is the belief that a family can be together permanently in heaven if a husband and wife are sealed in an LDS temple. According to LDS belief, without the temple sealing ordinance (and enduring the end), a family has no claim on being an eternal family.

Where is the scriptural basis for this promise of an eternal family? It is ONLY found in Section 132 of the LDS Doctrine and Covenants.

Part II: Polygamy

Today’s LDS Church would desperately want the world to think it no longer believes in polygamy. Whenever possible, LDS spokespeople always state that the LDS Church no longer practices polygamy and excommunicates those within the LDS Church who practice it. It repeatedly informs the media that the LDS Church discontinued the practice of polygamy in 1890.

However, despite all the talk of the 1890 Manifesto and excommunication, the LDS Church has NEVER renounced polygamy. Far from it, the LDS Church today continues to permit men to marry subsequent wives in LDS temples. Many of these subsequent marriages are sealings – intended to endure throughout eternity. Although the LDS Church does not permit cohabitation of a man with more than one wife, the LDS Church teaches that men sealed in LDS temples to more than one woman today will practice polygamy throughout eternity.

Where is the scriptural basis for polygamy? It is ONLY found in Section 132 of the LDS Doctrine and Covenants.

Part III: Evolution of polygamy into temple marriages

When Nauvoo and pre-manifesto LDS church members and leaders spoke of eternal marriage or celestial marriage, they were speaking exclusively of polygamous marriages. The two terms were interchangeable for them (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestia...). There are many quotes from pre-manifesto LDS prophets and apostles which indicate that eternal or celestial marriage was polygamous marriage.

However, after the 1890 Manifesto, and more particularly after the Sen. Smoot debacle at which time an LDS President was forced to commit perjury before the US Senate, the LDS Church has discontinued permitting cohabitation of those who are sealed to more than one spouse.

Today’s LDS Church members now believe the celestial marriage means the sealing of monogamous marriages for eternities. Some understand that a man can be married to more the one women in the temple following a civil divorce and First Presidency permission to be sealed to the subsequent wife; or after the first wife passes away.

Part IV: The Dilemma facing the LDS Church today

Many critics of the LDS Church rightfully reject the church’s pleas of innocence as to polygamy. Many such critics call on the LDS Church to renounce polygamy by renouncing the doctrine has a heavenly revealed teaching and by removing DandC 132 from official church canon.

Of course, the LDS Church cannot easily remove Section 132 from its canon for two simple reasons: First, by so doing, it would be removing any scriptural basis for temple marriages. The LDS Church would destroy the bedrock of its unique doctrine and cause members to stop wanting temple marriages. Second, it would be acknowledging that Joseph Smith, Jr. spoke deceptively as a prophet to further his personal agenda. This would probably cause LDS Church members to call into question the authenticity of other of Smith’s claims, such as the 1838 First Vision story. The result of removing Section 132 would likely cause significant membership problems within the LDS Church.

There are some options available to the LDS Church. First, it can attempt to find other doctrinal support for temple marriages outside of Section 132. It appears that the LDS Church is already on this path. In the current LDS hymnal, the church prints scriptural references for each hymn at the bottom of the hymn. At the conclusion of Hymn 300, “Families Can Be Together Forever” the LDS Church has not referenced Section 132, but DandC 138:47-48 (Joseph F. Smith’s alleged vision of the spirit world). (http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dl...)

Second, the LDS Church could stop authorizing and permitting subsequent temple sealings. Of course, this would be very difficult for those who are divorced after a temple marriage, remain active in the LDS Church, remarry but would be prohibited from forming an “eternal family” with their new wife and children. Such a prohibition might also be disappointing to those longtime single LDS women who marry a widower in an LDS temple. Gone would be their hope of securing an eternal mate.

Part V: Conclusion

If the LDS Church could find alternative support for temple marriages outside of Section 132 and prohibit subsequent temple marriages, it could take the focus away from Section 132 and its other child – polygamy. In a few generations, Section 132 could probably be quietly removed from the canon of LDS Scripture.

However, I do not personally believe the LDS Church wants to stop all subsequent LDS temple sealings. Just recently, Russell Nelson was married in the temple to the previously single Wendy Watson, just more than one year from the death of Nelson’s first wife, Dantzel Nelson. (http://www.lds.org/newsroom/showrelease/0,15503,3881-1-23192,00.html).

It seems to me that polygamy may be the one issue which causes the LDS Church to decline. If it were ever to deal with polygamy and its origins it would have to renounce Joseph Smith, Jr. by implication. If the LDS Church ever “collapses” or melts into greater obscurity, it will be as a direct result of the polygamy issue.
topic image
Yahoo Article On Polygamy And LDS Inc.'s Related PR Headaches
Monday, Oct 2, 2006, at 06:41 AM
Original Author(s): Timmy Teaboy
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
The article seems mostly balanced, but lets the LDS PR office get away with some shameless spin.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060930/a...

From the article:
"Mormon officials, however, say a few shared traits don't put the fundamentalists in the same category as members of the Salt Lake City-based church. "Warren Jeffs is Not a Mormon," the church's Web site declares.

"Catholics, Protestants, Methodists, Jehovah Witnesses, Lutherans, evangelicals and a host of other faiths believe in Jesus and claim the Bible as their own, yet all consider themselves separate and distinct faiths," said Kim Farah, a Mormon church spokeswoman."
My comments:

Uhmm, that may be the case. However, they all have some commonalities that allow them to be lumped together under terms such as "Bible believers" or "Christians". Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans, etc., can all be referred to as "Protestants".

In the case of the Polygamist Mormons, the connections are much closer. The Polygamist Mormons are simply following the "revealed will of god" made known to them by the MORMON Prophets Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff. All of these prophets are revered today by the Church led by Gordon B. Hinckley (namely, LDS, Inc.).

LDS Inc's efforts to pretend that the fundamentalist Mormon polygamists are from a completely different faith tradition and that they cannot even be referred to as real "Mormons" is dishonest.

From the article:
"Mormons believe in continuing revelations, meaning church doctrine can change. Woodruff's manifesto, Farah notes, came long after original doctrine was written."
My comment:

The notion that continuing revelation can CHANGE doctrines seems to call the whole enterprise of "living prophets" and doctrines into question. Maybe clarifying doctrine or revealing new truths...but changing already revealed doctrine? Sounds like someone is pulling a fast one. In any case, the Manifesto did not change doctrine. The doctrine of plural marriage remains firmly in place as memorialized in the Doctrine and Covenants.

The fundamentalist Mormon polygamists have as much claim to being called Mormons as anyone in Gordon B. Hinckley's church. In fact, if you were to ask Brigham Young, John Taylor, Heber C. Kimball or even Joe Smith who the real Mormons are, they would probably point to the fundamentalist polygamists and disown Hinckley's group. (Then again, Hinckley's group has more money and power--so who knows?)
topic image
Current Deception Of The Church Re: Polygamy
Thursday, Oct 26, 2006, at 07:48 AM
Original Author(s): Darthbillgr
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
Okay, I just ran across this today. It is my view that the church is trying to make Joseph Smith out to be someone who did not practice polygamy (Which is a lie). I point to the church's own website on Joseph Smith as proof of that.

www.josephsmith.net/portal/site/Josep...

No where on this site is there mention that Joseph practiced polygamy.

For more proof of the deception I point to an article in the church news where the following can be found.

www.lds.org/newsroom/issues/answer/0,...
"PUBLIC AFFAIRS: The emphasis that has been placed in this conversation on traditional marriage between a man and a woman has been consistent throughout. Do you see any irony in the fact that the Church is so publicly outspoken on this issue, when in the minds of so many people in the United States and around the world the Church is known for once supporting a very untraditional marriage arrangement that is, polygamy?

ELDER OAKS: I see irony in that if one views it without the belief that we affirm in divine revelation. The 19th century Mormons, including some of my ancestors, were not eager to practice plural marriage. They followed the example of Brigham Young, who expressed his profound negative feelings when he first had this principle revealed to him. The Mormons of the 19th century who practiced plural marriage, male and female, did so because they felt it was a duty put upon them by God.

When that duty was lifted, they were directed to conform to the law of the land, which forbad polygamy and which had been held constitutional. When they were told to refrain from plural marriage, there were probably some who were unhappy, but I think the majority were greatly relieved and glad to get back into the mainstream of western civilization, which had been marriage between a man and a woman. In short, if you start with the assumption of continuing revelation, on which this Church is founded, then you can understand that there is no irony in this. But if you don t start with that assumption, you see a profound irony."
Elder Oaks would have us believe that Brigham Young introduced the practice of polygamy and not Joseph. "The 19th century Mormons, including some of my ancestors, were not eager to practice plural marriage. They followed the example of Brigham Young, who expressed his profound negative feelings when he first had this principle revealed to him."

Do we actually believe that Elder Oaks doesn't know that Joseph Smith was the first one to practice polygamy? Notice that he does not mention who revealed polygamy to Brigham. It is natural for a active Mormon who believes that Brigham Young was a prophet of God, to think that it was God who revealed polygamy to him when in fact it was Joseph, if that Mormon doesn't know the true history of the church.

The church, even today, continues to mislead and distort the truth for it's own purposes. That is my opinion and I leave it up to the reader to decide if I am wrong. If I am right, then I ask you, how can The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints be the true church?
topic image
Banking On Heaven - A Polygamy Trailer
Monday, Nov 20, 2006, at 07:36 AM
Original Author(s): Pencil105
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
BANKING ON HEAVEN is an unflinching look at a cult of Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints (FLDS). The polygamist communities of Colorado City, Arizona and Hildale, Utah are home to a culture that routinely practices child rape, welfare fraud and systematic mind-control. Director Dot Reidelbach and writer/producer Laurie Allen (an escapee from the FLDS) have constructed a documentary out of secret camera footage (outsiders are looked upon as agents of Satan and systematically shunned), interviews with polygamist escapees, 'lost boys' (young men and children cast out of the community for such infractions as not rolling their sleeves down), and government officials. An unholy trinity of sex, power and wealth are at the dark heart of this deeply troubling story.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gI6pBf... Banking On Heaven: http://www.bankingonheaven.com/
topic image
Of Romneys, Kimballs, Eyrings, And Polygamy
Wednesday, Feb 28, 2007, at 07:38 AM
Original Author(s): Randy Jordan
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
In another thread, I mentioned that I had once read that Spencer W. Kimball's father-in-law had continued to live with two plural wives in Mexico into the 1950s. I found an article which gives the details at:

http://www.religious-freedoms.org/PLU...

Before reading that article, I didn't know that Camilla Eyring's father had married two Romney sisters. Here's the most relevant excerpt as concerning post-Manifesto polygamy:
"While the leaders were encouraged to qualify for their positions by living "the law," many of the most faithful and dedicated lay members of the Church also entered plural marriage of their own free will. They knew the true relationship between the manifesto and the higher law. One example of this was the father of Camilla Eyring Kimball, wife of the current Church President, Spencer W.

Kimball. On 3 November 1903 (over thirteen years after the manifesto was "unanimously" accepted by the Church) her father, Edward Christian Eyring took his wife's younger sister, Emma Romney, as a plural wife. The marriage was performed at Colonia Juarez by the Stake President, Anthony W. Ivins who had been sent to Mexico by President Wilford Woodruff to continue performing plural marriages after the manifesto, even though they knew such marriages were illegal in Mexico. (see Heber Grant Ivins, Polygamy in Mexico, Op. Cit., p. 5)

"In her biography, Sister Kimball said:

" . . . Mother told me that Aunt Emma would be coming to live with us as Father's second wife, . . . she had given her consent, believing as Father did that the only way for them to attain the highest glory in the celestial kingdom was to live faithfully by The Principle." (Caroline Eyring Miner and Edward L. Kimball, Camilla, [Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1980], p. 13)

"In spite of the manifesto, according to Sister Kimball, her parents understood that "it was still permissible, and were encouraged [by their leaders] in that understanding." (Ibid.) Not only was Edward Eyring not excommunicated for entering plural marriage after the manifesto, but the early 1950's found him and his plural wife faithfully doing temple work in the Mesa, Arizona temple (Ibid., p. 142). Hundreds of situations similar to these have existed throughout the Church."
Oh yeah, and today's church leaders assert that the mainstream Mormon church has nothing whatsoever to do with fundamentalist polygamists. There's no contradiction in the fact that a sitting apostle in the 1950s had a polygamous FIL living in full fellowship in the church and was a temple worker, more than half a century after church leaders claimed to have abandoned polygamy. Nope, no relationship between the mainstream church and today's polygamists anywhere.
topic image
Post Manifesto Polygamy And Church Deception
Friday, May 25, 2007, at 09:57 AM
Original Author(s): John Larsen
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
Under strong political pressure, in 1890 Wilford Woodruff issued the “manifesto” supposedly ending the practice of polygamy. The actual response of the Church was to openly continue with polygamous marriages in Canada, Mexico or aboard sea vessels and to perform some clandestine marriages in the Utah territory. Married men would often take an unmarried woman with them to either Canada or Mexico, become married to the new polygamous spouse, and head back to Utah.

Utah was granted statehood in 1896 largely due to the abolition of polygamy. As time went on, the federal government got wind of what was really going on in Utah. All of this came to a head when Reed Smoot, an apostle, was elected to the senate. Confirmation hearings were commenced and the government fired a warning shot across the bow. The church knew they had to do something for real this time or suffer serious consequences.

Fortunately, by this time, polygamy had fallen out of favor with most of the membership. Only a few die-hards still continued the practice. Unfortunately, some of these strong supporters were apostles and some of the strong-power, broker Mormon families. The brethren knew they couldn’t deny that the practice was happening since this was easily disproved, and furthermore most general authorities still believed it was a divine principle–only on hiatus.

There had to be a public action that would accomplish three things: 1. Satisfy the federal government. 2. Allow for the eventual return of polygamy when the time was right (i.e. do not deny the doctrinal basis of polygamy). 3. Satisfy those Apostles who still strongly believed in polygamy.

They could not do all three, so a crafty plan was concocted. We now flash back to the spring general conference 1904, the last session on Wednesday afternoon. President Joseph F. Smith takes the stand. In a time when the talks were almost always given extemporaneously, President Smith makes an apology for reading a statement: “I have taken the liberty of having written down what I wish to present, in order that I may say to you the exact words which I would like to have conveyed to your ears, that I may not be misunderstood or misquoted.” Obviously what was about to be said had been careful construed so as not to be misunderstood. The statement was read:

“Inasmuch as there are numerous reports in circulation that plural marriages have been entered into contrary to the official declaration of President Woodruff of September 26, 1890, commonly called the Manifesto, which was issued by President Woodruff and adopted by the Church at its general conference, October 6, 1890, which forbade any marriages violative of the law of the land; I, Joseph F. Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, hereby affirm and declare that no such marriages have been solemnized with the sanction, consent or knowledge of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and I hereby announce that all such marriages are prohibited, and if any officer or member of the Church shall assume to solemnize or enter into any such marriage he will be deemed in transgression against the Church and will be liable to be dealt with according to the rules and regulations thereof, and excommunicated therefrom.”

Notice the slight-of-hand: no marriages had been solemnized with the “knowledge” of the Church, not “the knowledge of the brethren”. They knew full well what was happening. “The Church” was unaware because there was an order following the first manifesto to stop recording these marriages in the record books. Notice that although excommunication was mentioned, the real consequence was to be “liable to be dealt with” which was merely a threat of possible action not a fixed penalty and easily avoided. The brethren wanted the practice to stop, but they did not want to suffer the schism that would occur if they aggressively went after those who had continued in the post manifesto practice.

At this point in the conference another 2 resolutions were read affirming the end of polygamy and a general vote was taken. The vote was, of course unanimous. President Anthon Lund confirmed the vote:

“…the Church, by its vote in solemn assembly, has ratified this resolution, and the Saints know just where the Church stands on this question. If any come to you with such, rumors, you know that the Church is true to that which it accepted thirteen years and six months ago, and which it has again ratified here in this Conference.”

This crafty message fulfilled the purpose of laundering the rumors. Notice that Lund does not deny the practice occurred; it just refers membership to the “Church’s” stand on the practice. It also demonstrates a pattern that will be used many times after: issuing an insufficient statement of proof, declaring the issue closed and then referring all future questions to the statement. Ignorant members would be satisfied that the Church had ended the practice in 1890. Members with knowledge of post manifesto practice would know how to respond. Everyone would know to not believe the rumors–even if they were true.

But the real craftiness and deception by the Church had occurred a few minutes prior to the reading of the statement. The brethren were not able to reach a consensus on the manifesto. John Taylor had taught that polygamy would never be removed and a few of the brethren would not budge. The last hold outs were John W. Taylor (son of the former president) and Matthias Cowley. These two individuals did not attend this session of conference. Everyone else agreed to vote for the resolution. Thus the church could publish that the voting was unanimous–deceptively giving the impression that all of the church leadership was on board.

The ruse did not work. The federal government kept pressure on. The church had to respond more seriously and in 1905 Cowley and Taylor were removed from the quorum of the 12 for their continued practice of sealing polygamous marriages. Cowley eventually reconciled with the church and the later appointment of his son, Matthew Cowley, to the 12 is seen by many as a compensation for his father’s act as a sacrificial lamb. Taylor remained loyal to his father and polygamy to the end and was eventually excommunicated in 1911.

Here we see an early example of the church practice of differentiating between the individuals and the church where politically expedient. The brethren consistently refer to the Church without really defining what that is or what it means. Any statement, made by any church authority can, at any time, be regarded as the words of a man and not synonymous with the church. In this case, the Church becomes a blanket under which they hid and helps to perpetuate an insidious deception. However, like always, the members do not have the same privilege of distinguishing between the two.
topic image
Mormon Apologists: There Was Only About 2% Of The Brethren In The Church Who Actually Practiced Polygamy
Tuesday, Jun 5, 2007, at 06:58 AM
Original Author(s): Randy Jordan
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
There's another shining example of LDS numbers-skewing. On my mission 25 years ago, when someone would ask us about Mormon polygamy, I was taught to respond with "The Mormons practiced polygamy because a lot of Mormon men were killed by persecutors, so other men took their widows and children into their own households. And, only about 4% of Mormons practiced polygamy, when at the same time, 7% of all Americans were, so it wasn't out of line." That response usually satisfied inquisitors. Unfortunately, there's not a shred of truth to it. It's simply another example of how Mormons are taught to "lie for the lord," and I'm personally ashamed that I repeated that lie many times throughout my LDS mission, albeit that my repetition was borne of ignorance, and blind trust in my superiors.

The Mormons didn't practice polygamy because men were murdered; Joseph Smith's first well-documented extra-marital relationship began in 1833, with a 16-year-old servant girl, Fannie Alger, who was unmarried; his second one was with Lucinda Morgan Harris, who was married to another Mormon man at the time. Not a single one of Joseph Smith's 33 known "plural wives" was the widow of a murdered Mormon man; in fact, 11 of them were currently married to other men at the time of their "sealing" to Smith. Smith sent several men on "missions," and while they were away, he "plural married" their wives without their knowledge, which when discovered, caused scandal and apostasy. Smith did not provide for any children of his "plural wives"; although some of those women did indeed live in his house, they also worked as servants or teachers. When Smith's legal wife, Emma, grew tired of her husband's blatant philandering, she ordered those "plural wives" from her home--making it obvious that the women weren't there to be "provided for," but rather to provide female company for Joseph Smith.

I have found no evidence that 19th-century Americans in general practiced any sort of "multiple wifery" to the degree of the "7%" that I was taught to repeat. If such a phenomenom had existed, it would be duly noted in our history and sociology textbooks. It's obvious that some Mormon apologist simply made up those figures to make Mormon polygamy appear to be a 19th-century norm.

As to your "2%" figure, that line was invented by LDS Apostle John A. Widtsoe nearly 100 years ago:

"Before 1890 there were no records showing the number of polygamists in the church. In 1890 it was found by careful survey that there were in the church 2,451 men with more than one wife. At that time the church membership was approximately 172,754 individuals. The men living in polygamy in 1890 were therefore 1.4 percent of the total church population....Probably, the reliable records for 1890 represent the general conditions in the years that polygamy was practiced." (Evidences and Reconciliations, p. 390.)

In his recent interview with Larry King, current LDS President Gordon B. HInckley repeated Widtsoe's lowball figure:

"The figures that I have are from, between, 2% and 5% of our people were involved in it. It was a very limited practice, carefully safeguarded."

Are those figures accurate? Let's examine the facts: In 1890, when Widtsoe's survey was allegedly taken, LDS leaders had the motivation to lowball the percentage of polygamists, to show the federal government that they were complying with their promise to end polygamy in order to qualify for statehood. Also by 1890, polygamy was on the wane; most of its first-generation practitioners had died (including Brigham Young, its chief advocate, in 1877). Polygamy had become less prevalent because of its obvious social unworkability; many older, higher-ranking Mormon men had taken many "plural wives", over four decades, often up to three dozen each, making it difficult for younger men to find wives their own age. Because of increased knowledge of Mormon polygamy and criticism from non-Mormon society, Mormon missionaries were no longer able to convert and import "plural wives" from Europe. In addition, Mormon male polygamists had been subject to arrest and imprisonment since the Reynolds decision in 1879, making it advisable for Mormon men to deny their polygamous situations; that fact, combined with those above, renders Widtsoe's 1890 estimate useless.

Also, note Widstoe's very dishonest use of numbers: he compares the number of confessed Mormon male polygamists to the total LDS population, to attain his "1.4%." Obviously, neither adult women nor unmarried children of either sex could be numbered as a polygamist, yet Widtsoe included them to derive his distortingly low percentage. A more honest and accurate percentage would have been derived if Widtsoe had only compared the total number of claimed married men to the number of married women; the difference between the two would have produced the number of polygamous men, assuming that respondents were honest about their situations. If we assume that unmarried children comprised 2/3 of Mormon population in 1890, then obviously, Widtsoe's figure is off by at least 2/3. But to repeat, even that number could be low, because since 1879, Mormons routinely denied their polygamous relationships. And, the recent revelations of possibly hundreds of secret "underground" plural marriages performed between 1890 and 1904 further invalidates Widtsoe's 1890 estimate.

Later researchers have disputed Widtsoe's figures. For example, LDS historian Stanley Ivins commented: "Visitors to Utah in the days when polygamy was flourishing were usually told that about one-tenth of the people actually practiced it...Of more than 6,000 Mormon families, sketches of which are found in a huge volume published in 1913, between fifteen and twenty percent appear to have been polygamous. And a history of Sanpete and Emery counties contains biographical sketches of 722 men, of whom 12.6 percent married more than one woman. From information available from all sources, it appears that there may have been a time when fifteen, or possibly twenty, percent of the Mormon families were polygamous." (Western Humanities Review, "Notes on Mormon Polygamy," vol. 10, p. 230.) LDS writer T. Edgar Lyon estimated the true figure to be "six or eight times" Widtsoe's, and late Utah Senator Wallace F. Bennett, using Census figures, estimated eight to ten percent.

During the inception and height of Mormon polygamy, LDS leaders taught that the practice was "essential to salvation." Joseph Smith's "revelation on celestial marriage" stated "as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant,...he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God" (Doctrine and Covenants 132: 6.) Brigham Young repeated that mandate when he preached that "the only men who will become gods...are those who enter into polygamy." Young, Heber C. Kimball, and other leaders often rebuked men who were reluctant to enter into polygamy, "counseling" them to "do their duty." The claimed necessity of plural marriage even prompted Mormon leaders to advocate the idea that Jesus Christ himself had been a polygamist. And Joseph F. Smith, who was the LDS president until 1918, stated emphatically that a man with only one wife could not receive "an exaltation as great and glorious..as he possibly could with more than one." (JoD, vol. 20, p. 28.) Until 1890, Mormon men clamored to be "sealed" to as many wives as possible, up to a stated "limit" of 99, on the hope that those wives would be part of their "celestial inheritance." All of these statements put the lie to Gordon B. Hinckley's recent assertion that polygamy was intended to be a "very limited practice....carefully safeguarded."

Considering Mormon leaders' teaching that polygamy was "essential to salvation," it seems remarkable that today's Mormons should attempt to downplay the number of polygamist practitioners among their pioneer forefathers, because the modern LDS Church portrays its pioneer ancestors as being faithful, obedient, and willing to sacrifice everything for their religion. The claimed "2 to 5%" figure, if accurate, demonstrates that to the contrary to that desired portrayal, 19th-century Mormon men were not terribly obedient to the prophets' "revelations."

One may question why modern Mormons seek to downplay the extent and orthodoxy of polygamy among their forbears. The answer is revealed by considering the proselyting efforts of today's LDS Church. Hinckley, who has been a major force in his church's media relations efforts for more than half a century, wants the LDS Church to attain a status of being a worldwide, mainstream religion. Hinckley is well aware that the single greatest negatively-perceived aspect of Mormonism, throughout its history, is its polygamy practice; polygamy is therefore the biggest public relations hurdle that the LDS Church must constantly clear with the "buying public". That is why, when questioned about modern Mormon fundamentalist polygamists (estimated to number about 30,000), Hinckley treated them as somewhat less than dirt, even going so far as to say that polygamy "is not doctrinal" and "we have nothing to do with them." Hinckley wants the public to believe that his church bears no responsibility for the promulgation of the polygamy practice, which embarrasses the mainstream church today with its widely-reported arrests and legal cases.

It's also why, in recent LDS-published materials, all mention of polygamy among 19th-century Mormons has been obliterated. A 1997 church lesson manual based on the teachings of Brigham Young failed to even mention polygamy; and recent articles in the church's monthly "Ensign" magazine, on the lives and ministries of both Joseph Smith and Young, also failed to even hint at their polygamy practice, even though Smith's secret polygamy was a prime factor in his 1844 murder, and controversy over polygamy dogged Young to his death. And, to further demonstrate the church's downplaying of polygamy, the sum total of information on the subject on the church's official website is the following:

"Myth: Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are polygamists. Some early leaders and members of the Church entered into plural marriages during the latter half of the nineteenth century. After receiving a revelation, Church President Wilford Woodruff declared the practice should be discontinued in 1890. That position has been reaffirmed by every President of the Church since. Members of the Church who enter into plural marriage today face Church disciplinary action, including excommunication."

Note that the website states that some Mormons began entering into plural marriages "during the latter half of the nineteenth century." To the contrary, the first mention of polygamy in Mormonism came from Joseph Smith in 1831, and numerous LDS historians have affirmed that Joseph Smith's first "plural marriage" was as early as 1833. Smith eventually secretly "married" at least 33 "plural wives" until his 1844 death, while publicly denying the practice until his death.

Smith, Young, Heber C. Kimball, John Taylor, John D. Lee, and numerous other Mormon men took multiple "plural wives" before the expulsion of the Mormons from Illinois in 1846. The LDS website deceptively asserts a "latter half of the ninetenth century" beginning for polygamy because the church does not want its members and prospective converts to learn the extensiveness and orthodoxy of their early leaders' polygamy practice' they want the public to think that it was "highly restricted." Also, polygamy was illegal in the state of Illinois the entire time Smith instituted and practiced it there; if the LDS website publicly admitted that Smith practiced polygamy, it would also by default admit that Smith was a lawbreaker. A tenet of Mormonism is that "he that keepeth the commandments of God hath no need to break the laws of the land", and Smith's breaking of bigamy laws reveals him as contradictory and hypocritical.

The website article is also very careful to state that polygamy was ended after Wilford Woodruff "received a revelation" to cease the practice, while neglecting to inform the public that the mandate to practice polygamy was itself an alleged "revelation from God";and the "revelation on celestial marriage", instituting the polygamy practice, is "canonized" in LDS theology, while Woodruff's alleged "revelation" calling for the cessation of the practice, has never been published or canonized.

The website also fails to mention that LDS leaders fought the federal government for four decades over polygamy, and that to force the church to end the practice, the government disincorporated the church and seized its assets---thus making Woodruff's claim of receiving a "revelation" to cease the practice highly suspect. The website also fails to note that LDS leaders continued to sanction secret "plural marriages" until at least 1904, skirting the law by performing such unions in Canada, Mexico, or offshore, and that those unions were embarrasingly brought to light during the 1904 Reed Smoot hearings. That information refutes the idea that Woodruff's 1890 Manifesto was a "revelation from God," or else LDS leaders knowingly acted contrary to such a "revelation." And, the website fails to mention that LDS President Joseph F. Smith himself was convicted of unlawful cohabitation in 1906.

The website declares emphatically that Mormons who enter into polgyamy today are disciplined or excommunicated; but the website fails to note that the "revelation" commanding the practice is still "canonized" in LDS "scriptures", published and distributed to millions of Mormons to this day. It should go without saying that the maintaining of such a "commandment" in "modern scriptures," while simultaneously forbidding its actual practice, is extremely contradictory and hypocritical. One would think that LDS leaders, on the basis of their claim of "continuing revelation," could simply delete all portions pertaining to the mandate of "plural marriage." If they were to do so, they could end their "lying for the lord" about polygamy, and begin to erase the stigma which infests Mormonism.

This issue of the lowball percentage of polygamy practitioners is exemplary of how myths are created and perpetuated in Mormon culture. First, Widstoe invents a figure using highly suspect raw numbers and counting methods; he publishes it in a highly popular, widely-distributed book; nearly a century later, Gordon B. Hinckley (who claims to be knowledgeable in Mormon history) repeats those same suspect numbers, because Widtsoe, being a late apostle, is a "trusted source"; and then a young Mormon like Chip Snow repeats the figure, because Hinckley has done so before him. Chip trusts Hinckley, and Hinckley trusts Widtsoe. It's a syndrome that drives much of Mormon culture----an allegedly trustworthy Mormon invents an assertion, and because Mormons trust their leaders and forbears, they continue to repeat those assertions for 100 years, without ever pausing to question whether the assertion is valid to begin with. This culture of trusting in, and repeating speculative assertions or rumors, without verifying facts for one's self, is what makes Mormonism what it is today. For a "true believing Mormon," facts place a poor second to "faith-promoting" assertions.
topic image
Mormons Are Still Polygamists
Thursday, Jul 19, 2007, at 07:48 AM
Original Author(s): Shaman Channel
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
Confront any Mormon regarding the subject of polygamy and the latest status of their belief and you’ll generally receive the response of, “we don’t believe that anymore” or “we don’t practice that anymore.”

To the individual unfamiliar and unacquainted with Mormon history, practice and theology–this reaction usually suffices. However, the truth is, is that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints still practices and believes, completely, in the doctrine of polygamy.

Indeed; they are still polygamists.

This is not just in principle; Mormons actually still practice the doctrine of polygamy, as will be illustrated further.

The true question that must be confronted by Mormons, is whether or not, they believe polygamy to be true principle or a false principle. If they believe it to be a true principle, it is therefore of natural sequence that they believe in polygamy–unequivocal conclusion; Mormons are very much still polygamists and practice the doctrine this very day.

Because polygamy has been deemed, as socially, most irreprehensible and morally unacceptable, to say that one is a polygamist is tantamount or akin to declaring oneself a terrorist. Consequently, Mormons will always resist such a banner of acceptance of the practice or they will certainly appear hesitate to proclaim their spiritual alignment with such practice and activity.

As a distinct result, accordingly, the subject and treatment of polygamy will, in Mormonism, always be approached most reservedly apprehensive with a whisper of nervous, uneasy deception; always being careful not to divulge any more information than is absolutely necessary to satisfy inquires, questions, or concerns; careful not to be perceived or construed as expressly lying.

I truly believe that Mormon Apostle Dallin Oaks said it most delicately, although perfectly, when he stated “The whole experience with polygamy was a fertile field for deception. It is not difficult for historians to quote LDS leaders and members in statements justifying, denying, or deploring deception in furtherance of this religious practice (“Gospel Teachings About Lying.” Fireside address given to faculty, students, and alumni of BYU on September 12, 1993. http://www.ldsmormon.com/oakslying.sh...).”

Polygamy is also a tremendous source of embarrassment to the church, yet inescapable from them due to their eternal belief of the truth of it. For this reason, giving full disclosure and extent of their embracement of the true principle of polygamy, by the Mormon Church, will always be an issue of hesitation, cautious and shrewd selection of one’s words and reluctance.

This type of approach is also spoken of, and candidly justified, by Mr. Oaks, “Here we see that although a man is not justified in lying to detect a liar, he is justified (indeed, Joseph Smith was commanded!) to withhold things from the world in order to preserve himself and safeguard the work in which he is involved. In other words, we must not lie, but we are free to tell less than we know when we have no duty to disclose (“Gospel Teachings About Lying.” Fireside address given to faculty, students, and alumni of BYU on September 12, 1993. http://www.ldsmormon.com/oakslying.sh...).”

An exact case in point illustration of this would be Mormon President Gordon Hinckley’s interview with Larry King aired on September 8th 1998. In this interview Larry King asks Mr. Hinckley in regards to polygamy. Although, in his responses respecting the subject of polygamy, Mr. Hinckley is guilty of either unbelievable ignorance or deliberately lying so as to not place the Mormon church in any more of a controversial spectacle than it already has to be.

You be the judge.

Larry King asks, “First tell me about the church and polygamy. When it started it allowed it?

(Side note by author of this post: Now, to me, the honest answer and reasonable approach would have to been to simply state, “Well, Larry, The Lord commanded the Church to practice the principle of plural marriage or polygamy in the early 1830’s and it, the church, did so until the Lord commanded them to discontinue the practice in the 1890’s.)

Yet this is not what you get with Mr. Hinckley. Instead you get something that is shifty, hesitant and suspicious, opening the door to greater controversies.

Mr. Hinckley states, “When our people came west they permitted it on a restricted scale.”

To anyone with remote familiarity with the historical subject matter, there are 3 obvious lies in this statement alone.
  1. “When our people came out west.” Polygamy had already been being practiced for approximately 15-16 years before the church “came our west.” Mr. Hinckley is fully aware of this. It is obvious though, why he has chosen to lie and he is banking on the ignorance of the masses.
  2. “they permitted it.” He is attempting to make it sound as though there was a renegade splinter faction in the church that was tolerated or “put up with” in their observance of this principle. Again, it is obvious why Mr. Hinckley has chosen to lie. The fact is, is that polygamy was a commandment.
  3. “on a restricted scale.” Polygamy was essential and requisite with the order of heaven, as deemed by Mormons, and participation was mandatory, obligatory for entrance onto heaven. It was not on a restricted scale–all were commanded to indulge the calling or be damned. Polygamous practice was rampant and commanded.
Regarding plural marriage, polygamy or, “the new and everlasting covenant,” Joseph Smith wrote, “ For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an 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. For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world. And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God (DandC 132:4-6).”

As well as DandC 131, which states this regarding polygamy and its relationship with being saved in the Celestial Kingdom:

“IN the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; And if he does not, he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase (DandC 131:1-4)

Polygamy was the order of heaven and according to official Mormon sources, instituted from the foundations of the universe, and mandatory for entrance into heaven. This was undisputed.

“I am the Lord thy God, and will give unto thee the law of my Holy Priesthood, as was ordained by me and my Father before the world was (DandC 132:28).”

In Mormonism, polygamy remains in effect as the order of heaven, as Mormons believe that God acknowledges all of the sealed polygamous relationships prior to 1920 and the ones that are still going on in the temples, currently. Mormons believe that God the Father is a polygamist; hence, it is still the order of heaven.

Yet, to the believing Mormon, what end, objective or purpose–what relevancy or significance does it, polygamy, hold in heaven???

“But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified (DandC 132:63).”

Many wives to make a lots of spirit babies to populate the worlds when the exalted Mormon becomes a god!!!

This is the eternal doctrine of the Mormon Church and the purpose of polygamy–to make spirits to inhabit the worlds that Mormons would create in their godly state and sphere. It is in direct relation to the doctrine referred to as “the continuation of seeds,” once a Mormon becomes a god, a doctrine that was openly discussed in Mormonism without reservation or apology prior to 1982. In 1982, the movie “The God Makers,” was released and greatly embarrassed the church. Discussion about eminent god status was profoundly diminished after that–even to the extent of Gordon Hinckley denying that it was even taught in the church. (Time, August 4, 1997 page 56)

This is the official Mormon doctrine regarding becoming a god and having a “continuation of seeds.”

“And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them–Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths–then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them (DandC 132:19-20).”

Again, Mormons believe that once they become gods, possessing all power, their dominions, principalities, and kingdoms will need to be populated, therefore, requiring and necessitating many wives to produce many babies; “for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified (DandC 132:63).”

This doctrine has never been repudiated in the Mormon Church and remains a staple core of the doctrinal cannon of the faith.

Mormons are polygamists, even to this very day.

Now back to the interview with Mr. Hinckley.

Still regarding Mr. Hinckley states, “The figures I have are from -- between two percent and five percent of our people were involved in it. It was a very limited practice; carefully safeguarded. In 1890, that practice was discontinued. The president of the church, the man who occupied the position which I occupy today, went before the people, said he had, oh, prayed about it, worked on it, and had received from the Lord a revelation that it was time to stop, to discontinue it then. That's 118 years ago. It's behind us.”

Again, Mr. Hinckley is carefully trying to avoid the truth, using figures like only 2-5 percent involvement (lie), “limited practice” (who is he trying to fool, it was widely practiced and distributed) “carefully safeguarded” (I have no idea what he was trying to convey with that phraseology.)

Larry King then asks, “But when the word is mentioned, when you hear the word, you think Mormon, right?”

Hinckley responds, “You do it mistakenly. They have no connection with us whatever. They don't belong to the church. There are actually no Mormon fundamentalists.”

Again, Mr. Hinckley is banking on the ignorance of the masses, lying, as Joseph Smith was wont to do, as he unsuccessfully tries to shift polygamy away from the Mormon Church.

Of course when one thinks “Mormon” they naturally think “polygamy,” it started with them as an organization in America, and is currently practiced, and the FLDS do have a connection with the regular LDS–they’re an offshoot of the Mormon church, believing in all the same doctrines. The communities of Colorado City and Hilldale are perfect glimpses and windows into Mormon life of the 19th century.

Then the interview takes a most peculiar twist as Larry King asks of Mr. Hinckley, “You condemn it?”

Mr. Hinckley, perplexingly, if not oddly and curiously responds, “I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.” Where could this statement have come from?? Just how desperate was Gordon Hinckley that night in his interview with Larry King to so expressly use deceit and duplicity in this manner.
  1. It is still a central core piece and theme of Mormon theology and remains an non-repudiated staple of the Mormon doctrinal cannon.
  2. It is still practiced, even currently, by current administrative leaders in the church.
  3. It was always against the law, yet this bore no significance to Mormon adherence to the principle until the 20th century.
This is how Mormons are still practicing polygamy in this day and age.

Because Mormons still believe that Polygamy is practiced in heaven, and will be practiced in the millennium, as it is the order of heaven, Mormon men, recently including Mormon Apostles Russell M. Nelson and Dallin H. Oaks, are still sealed to more than one woman in the temple. Mormons believe that, in heaven, and Jackson County Missouri, they will live with their polygamous wives.

Mormons believe that God is a polygamist, that polygamy is and will continue to be practiced in heaven and the Millennium, and is being practiced right now in temples, as Mormon men are sealed to more than one woman. This is why Mr. Hinckley’s comment of “condemning it” and expressly stating “I think it is not doctrinal” were so surprisingly shocking.

Would Mr. Hinckley knowingly condemn God and his lifestyle and the order of heaven??? Declare something to not be doctrinal that his very own apostles have participated in–the sealing to more than one woman???

Dallin Oaks recently said in 2002 “When I was 66, my wife June died of cancer. Two years later--a year and a half ago--I married Kristen McMain, the eternal companion who now stands at my side (http://magazine.byu.edu/?act=viewanda=1...).” (thanks Steve)

Joseph Fielding Smith said this in regards to his experience in being sealed to more than one woman in the temple, “my wives will be mine in eternity. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 2, p.67).”

Harold B. Lee said this, in a poem, of his similar situation of his two wives that were sealed to him, My lovely Joan was sent to me; So Joan joins Fern That three might be, more fitted for eternity. "O Heavenly Father, my thanks to thee" (Deseret News 1974 Church Almanac, p.17).

Even former Utah Senator was counseled by former Mormon president Spencer Kimball to embrace the idea of polygamy. Taken from the Ensign article 'Uniting Blended Families', by Robert E. Wells, Ensign, Aug. 1997, p.24:

“Former Utah senator Jake Garn was reluctant to remarry following the death of his first wife, Hazel, in 1976, but he soon realized that he could not be both a father and a mother to his children. When he began dating Kathleen Brewerton, who would become his second wife, questions soon arose about how his first wife would feel should he become sealed to a second wife. The couple took their questions to President Spencer W. Kimball.

"He said he did not know exactly how these relationships will be worked out, but he did know that through faithfulness all will be well and we will have much joy. Brother Garn later recalled. Kathleen told him that she was afraid of offending Hazel. President Kimball's demeanor seemed to change. From being somewhat hesitant in his earlier answers, he now became sure and spoke with firmness. He looked right at Kathleen and with a tear forming in his eye, he said, 'I do know this: you have nothing to worry about. Not only will she accept you, she will put her arms around you and thank you for raising her children' (Jake Garn, Why I Believe [1992], 13).” (thanks Gerald and Sandra)

In conclusion, Mormons still practice the principle of polygamy as they believe that it is the order of heaven. They believe that they will practice polygamy in heaven as well as in the Millennium. So if you ask a Mormon if they believe in or practice polygamy and they tell you that they do not on both accounts–you can know that they are either lying or just very ignorant of their own doctrine.

Mormons are still polygamists.

Mormonism–a supposition of convenience.
topic image
Mormon Church Says Monogamy Not Good Enough
Thursday, Aug 2, 2007, at 07:11 AM
Original Author(s): Deconstructor
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
The "true" Prophets who gave us the Book of Mormon, temple endowments and garments also gave the rules for eternal marriage:

Here's what the Prophet Joseph Smith declared:

"The same God that has thus far dictated me and directed and strengthened me in this work, gave me this revelation on celestial and plural marriage, and the same God commanded me to obey it. He said to me that unless I accepted it and introduced it and practiced it, I, together with my people would be damned and cut off from this time henceforth. And they say if I do so, they will kill me and I know they will. But we have got to observe it; it is an eternal principle and was given by way of commandment and not by way of instruction." (Contributor, Vol. 5, page 255)

The Prophet Brigham Young taught:

"Now, when a man in this Church says, `I don't want but one wife; I will live my religion with one,' he will perhaps be saved in the celestial kingdom, but when he gets there, he will not find himself in possession of any wife at all. He has had a talent that he has hid up. He will come forth and say, `Here is that which thou gavest me; I have not wasted it and here is the one talent,' and he will not enjoy it, but it will be taken from him and given to those who have improved the talent they received, and he will find himself without ANY wife, and he will remain single forever and ever." Read DandC 132:53-55

"But if the woman is determined to not enter into plural marriage, that woman, when she comes forth, will have the privilege of living in single blessedness through all eternity. Now sisters, do not say, `I do not want a husband when I get up in the resurrection.' You do not know what you will want. If, in the resurrection, you really want to be single and alone and live forever and ever and be made servants, while others receive the higher order of intelligence, and are bringing worlds into existence, you can have the privilege. They who will be exalted cannot perform all the labor, they must have servants, and you can be servants to them." See DandC 132:64-65

"Few, if any, of the temple marriages have been made binding upon the Lord by the participants fulfilling their vow and covenant, 'to fulfill all the laws, rites and ordinances pertaining to this holy matrimony in the new and everlasting covenant.' This means obeying the law of Abraham and Sarah as set forth in the Holy Scriptures (DandC Sections 131 and 132, especially verse 34). Without compliance to this law upon which eternal marriage is predicated, you will get about as far as anyone married outside the temple. The Lord says, "I the Lord am bound when ye do what I say, but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise." See DandC 82:103. (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 16, p. 167)

What the Prophet John Taylor Taught:

"Thus saith the Lord, all commandments that I give must be obeyed by those calling themselves by my name, unless they are revoked by me or by my authority, and how can I revoke an everlasting covenant, for I, the Lord am everlasting, and my everlasting covenants cannot be abrogated nor done away with, but they stand forever. Have I not given my word in great plainness on this subject, yet have not great numbers of my people been negligent in the observance of my laws, and the keeping of my commandments, and yet I have borne with them these many years and this because of their weakness, because of perilous times, and furthermore, it is now pleasing to me that men should use their free agency in regard to these things."

"Nevertheless, I the Lord do not change, and my covenants and my law do not. And as I have heretofore said by my servant Joseph, All those who would enter into my glory must and shall obey my law, and have I not commanded men that if they were Abraham's seed, and would enter into my glory, they must do the works of Abraham. I have not revoked this law, nor will I, for it is everlasting, and those who enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof, even so, Amen." John Taylor (Revelation of Sept. 26 1886)

The Prophet Joseph F. Smith asserted:

"Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity or non-essential to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I wish here, to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it to be false. The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the law of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage IN PART --and is good so far as it goes--and so far as a man abides these conditions of the law, he will receive his reward therefore, and this reward, or blessing, he could not obtain on any other grounds or conditions. But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it."

"Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain a fulness of the blessings pertaining to the celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it. He cannot receive the fulness of the blessings useless he fulfills the law, any more than he can claim the gift of the Holy Ghost after he is baptized without the laying on of hands by proper authority, or the remission of sins without baptism, though he may repent in sackcloth and ashes."

"I understand the law of celestial marriage to mean that every man in the Church who has the ability to obey and practice it in righteousness and will not, shall be damned. I say I understand it to mean this and nothing less, and I testify, in the name of Jesus that it does mean that." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 20, pp. 28, 30, 31)

Mormon Apostle Heber C. Kimball insisted:

"You might as well deny Mormonism and turn away from it as to oppose plural marriage. Let the Presidency of this Church, and the Twelve Apostles and all the authorities unite and say with one voice that they would oppose that doctrine, and the whole of them would be damned. What are you opposing it for? It is a principle that God has established for the human family! He revealed it to Joseph the Prophet in this our dispensation; and that which He revealed - He designs to be carried out by His people." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 5, p. 203)

The church has rescinded the current practice of polygamy, but the eternal doctrine is still there. The requirements to be married in the Celestial Kingdom have not changed since Joseph Smith revealed the temple endowment.

Doctrinally, it boils down to a simple question. Is Heavenly Father a polygamist? Mormonism promises faithful followers that they will become like Heavenly Father - to live like He lives and have what He has. That's what DandC 132 is all about.

So what is the order of marriage in heaven - monogamy or polygamy?

"Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of heaven among men. Such a system was commenced by the founders of the Roman empire. Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged."

"Thus this monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a holy sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers."

"Why do we believe in and practice polygamy? Because the Lord introduced it to his servants in a revelation given to Joseph Smith, and the Lord's servants have always practiced it. 'And is that religion popular in heaven?' it is the only popular religion there." - The Prophet Brigham Young, The Deseret News, August 6, 1862

Celestial Marriage=Plural Marriage
topic image
No Man Can Inherit The Kingdom Of God With Only One Wife
Thursday, Aug 2, 2007, at 10:34 AM
Original Author(s): Infymus
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
Joseph Fielding Smith from the Journal Of Discourses, Volume 20 Page 29:
"Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false. There is no blesssing [blessing] promised except upon conditions, and no blessing can be obtained by mankind except by faithful compliance with the conditions, or law, upon which the same is promised. The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the law of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part-and is good so far as it goes-and so far as a man abides these conditions of the law, he will receive his reward therefor [therefore], and this reward, or blessing, he could not obtain on any other grounds or conditions. But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it. Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it." [Emphasis Added]
Of course, the LDS Corporation will tell you that Joseph Fielding Smith was "Speaking As A Man", and "That is not doctrine."
topic image
Polygamy And Utah Statehood, 1886
Saturday, Nov 3, 2007, at 06:26 AM
Original Author(s): Jw The Inquizzinator
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
Pretty good laydown of the agruments that were being forwarded and why some saw the Utah statehood and polygamy issues as necessary "bedfellows"...pun intended.

http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bi...

"The Forgotten Millions", The Century; A Popular Quarterly. Vol 32, Issue 5, Publisher: The Century Company Publication, Date: Sept 1886, New York, Page 982.

"....The American State, or commonwealth, has absolute power over the subjects of marriage and divorce. Any American State might at any time permit plural marriage within its jurisdiction, if it should so will. This fact might have kept the Mormons where they were, in the State of Illinois, with the purpose of gaining control of it and making it a polygamous State, but for the fact that the State had also the correlative power, when the danger should become visible, to crush the minority by imprisoning its leaders for violation of its marriage laws, while tolerating the lawless expression of the majority’s public opinion. A territory where the Saints could be in the majority from the start, was the only safe place to begin a polygamous State."

"But would the American Congress ever allow such a polygamous territory to become a polygamous State? Unholy as the affirmative proposition might seem, there was every chance in its favor, if patience could secure her perfect work. Given a sufficiently large number of persons in a community, the proposition that the American people should keep them forever under absolute power was unthinkable. The Mormon community only permitted polygamy. The great mass of its members must always be monogamists. Let them have patience; let them submit to the imprisonment or disfranchisement of such of their few polygamists as should be convicted; let them only remain a majority, and the time must come when Congress, in some weak, hopeless, or over-sanguine hour, should admit the State of Utah. The gift of Statehood is irrevocable; once a State, Utah could not be deprived of her absolute power over marriage and divorce by any subsequent Congress, or by any instrument with the exception of an amendment to the Constitution, giving Congress the power to regulate marriage and divorce by general laws for the entire Union, and Federal Courts the vower to punish for violation of them."

"If this is the only remedy for a hasty or thoughtless admission of Utah to the Union, why not apply it now? Is it better to go on for years as we have done, holding this wolf by the ears, knowing that the chances are that it will some day escape? If that is to be our line of action, truly it was an astute and provident policy which kept the Mormons in Utah in 1848, for they had everything to gain and nothing to lose by a territorial location. Their population has risen from 11,380 in 1850 to 47,130 in i86o, 86,786 in 1870, and 143,963 in 1880. They are now more in number than the law requires as a constituency for a Representative in Congress; and their retention as a territory is every year becoming a greater strain upon our institutions. What are we to do when the population of Utah is a million or more? Are we still to keep them under the absolute government of Congress? Or do we imagine that our patience will be the greater, and that the Mormons will then be in the minority, or converted to monogamy? Sofar from that being probable, our delay is only preparing for us new difficulties of the same kind. The neighboring territories, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, are becoming infected with the Utah disease; and the time will come when we shall have on our hands the problem of holding in four polygamous territories, instead of one, from becoming States."

"There are objections to be considered, of course. The leading objection would be that the proposed grant of power to Congress would be distinctly outside of any proper limits to a really federal system; that a national marriage and divorce law would be a long step on the road to a French, or unified, republican system. The validity of the objection cannot well be denied. The fact is with the objector. Circumstances, mainly the rise of Mormonism, have forced upon us one evil. The country must decide whether this single step toward unification is too large a price to pay for a final solution of the Mormon problem. The ratification of the amendment would for the first time stamp Mormon polygamy as forever hopeless. A State government under the proposed amendment would relieve Congress of any further necessity for governing Utah; it would remit the punishment of polygamy, including disfranchisement and exclusion from office, to the automatic action of the United States courts; and, by changing political into purely legal prosecution, its natural effect would be to break up the influences which now make the Saints a consciously peculiar people, to urge the ambitious younger men out of its jurisdiction, and to strike at the ecclesiastical, which in many respects is more important than the mere polygamous, element of the question...."
topic image
Polygamy - 10 Quotes
Friday, Dec 28, 2007, at 07:59 AM
Original Author(s): Grey Matter
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
The Cult of the Latter–day Saints continues to lie about why so many vulnerable and defenceless females were forced into polygamous marriages.

The innocent victims included children, as well as women already married to other living men.

When I was growing up in the Mormon Cult, it was said many times by wise local sheep and flock herders that polygamy was practiced by a very few, and that it was done in order to help the poor widows of the fine men who had been killed by mobsters. And when serving a mission, this was the pat answer I used to offer those who enquired.

I remember Ezra Taft Benson visiting a mission-wide meeting, and talking about one of his progenitors who was inveigled in the splendid business of ruling over a group of sex slaves. This practice was known as the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. Mr Benson’s explanation was simply spiffing. Maybe one day, in the highest of the Mormon god’s heavens, we would all become polygamists. Wonderful.

Ignorance is bliss, until curiosity comes along.

The sordid subject of multiple sexual partners of both pre-childbearing and childbearing ages mattered more to the Mormon Cult’s so-called prophets, seers and revelators and special witnesses of Jesus than anything else. They even travelled across the American continent in order to practice their degenerate behaviour undisturbed, in darkness and in secrecy.

Here are some quotes from the lips of the Mormon god’s anointed mouthpieces, the so-called special witnesses of Jesus, along with quotes from the “Ensign” of the day, i.e. the official Mormon periodicals, and some other sources:

1. “I condemn it [polygamy], yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal” – Gordon Hinckley, so-called prophet seer and revelator and special witness of Jesus. http://www.onlineutah.com/polygamyhin...

Not doctrinal? You have no problem telling barefaced lies in this interview, do you Gordon?

2. “I can’t image anything more awful than polygamy “ – Mitt Romney, would-be president of the United States of America, 60 MINUTES interview with Mike Wallace, 13 May 2007

Mitt has just said that he can’t think of anything worse than the marriage and sex habits of the Mormon god.

Mitt better hope the Mormon god doesn’t hear this, or he’s in deep trouble.

3. “The one wife system not only degenerates the human family, both physically, and intellectually, but it is entirely incompatible with philosophical notions of immorality; it is a lure to temptation, and has always proved a curse to a people.” - p. 227, Millennial Star, Vol.15.

I wonder if George Orwell’s double-speak was inspired by his readings of Mormon prophets. Who knows?

4. “Now, where a man in this church says, ‘I don’t want but one wife, I will live my religion with one,’ he will perhaps be saved in the Celestial kingdom; but when he gets there he will not find himself in possession of any wife at all… it [the talent of one wife] will be taken and given to those who have improved the talents they received, and he will find himself without any wife, and he will remain single forever and ever” - Brigham Young, so-called prophet, seer and revelator and special witness of Jesus. Source: The Deseret News, September 17, 1873.

Poor Mitt. Looks like his wife will be given to somebody else one day.

5. “Marriage is not performed in the heavens in the hereafter”. - Harold B. Lee, so-called prophet, seer and revelator and special witness of Jesus. Source: p.128, Youth and The Church.

Doesn’t this kind of conflict with number 4 above. Hmm. I wonder which Mormon prophet is telling the truth?

6. “Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shall cleave unto her and none else.” – Joseph Smith, so-called prophet seer and revelator and special witness of Jesus, p.91 Book of Commandments

Pity the rapist didn’t practice what he preached.

7. “Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy: we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife; and one woman but one husband…” - Doctrine and Covenants 101:4, 1835

Strange. Whilst proclaiming these fine words, Joe and the others were building their sex groups in darkness and in secret. Polygamy, polyandry and child rape. Par for the course among the Mormon alpha males.

8. “If plural 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 in 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 must also be true” – Orson Pratt, so-called prophet seer and revelator and special witness of Jesus, p.296, Journal of Discourses, Volume 21.

And as sure as one is false; the other must also be false. Yes, I agree that Mormonism is worthless and good for nothing.

9. “The doctrine of polygamy with the ‘Mormons’ is not one of that kind that in the religious world is classed with ‘nonessentials’. It is not an item of doctrine that can be yielded, and faith in the system remains. - Millennial Star, 26 1865.

So many, many U-turns. You get dizzy just thinking about them all, don’t you?

Before reading the next one, just remember, “Whether by the voice of my mormon prophets, or by my own mormon god voice, it is the same.” (source: Mormon so-called scripture, Doctrine and Covenants)

10. “The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.” Brigham Young, so-called prophet, seer and revelator and special witness of Jesus. Source: p. 269, Journal of Discourses, Volume 11.

Hey, Mitt, I hope you’re paying attention to this prophet of the Mormon god? Isn’t it the same as the Mormon god’s voice?
topic image
The Long Time It Took To Realize What Polygamy Really Was, And Is
Wednesday, Apr 9, 2008, at 07:15 AM
Original Author(s): Lightfingerlouie
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
I grew up in a very orthodox family, full of the usual stories about "the Prophet," his greatness, and all he did.

I learned how the Mormons had been badly persecuted, and how everyone who spoke against the church was a "liar." So many liars. So very many liars.

I was told that Joseph Smith had numerous wives. But I was told the sanitized version, with "marriages" that did not involve sex, 14 year old girls, the wives of other men, and a life of lying, cheating, and skulking around from bed to bed.

I was even taught most of the problems were Emma's fault. She was the "weaker vessel," who could not come to terms with the Lord's program. She was so weak, I was taught, she left the fold when Joseph died. Brigham Young said "Joseph will have to go into hell to get her."

Whatever.

On my mission, I was constantly asked about polygamy. I gave the standard answers. I believed them myself. I could not understand it, but it "came from the Lord."

The first sense of just how awful it all was came years after my mission, when I read "The Giant Joshua," Maurine Whipple's novel about early Mormonism and polygamy in St. George. I first learned about the way arrangements were made, and how they were enforced----"blood atonement."

It made me question. I was not taught this. It sounded awful, but it made sense. How else could the stupid and pathetic practice of polygamy be enforced? It had to involve threats.

I have since read the good books about Mormon polygamy. That includes "Under the Banner of Heaven," 'Tell it All," and "Wife No. 19." It hit me very hard. Polygamy, as practiced by Warren Jeffs, is the same kind of polygamy practiced by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. It did not change at all. The same methods used by the early church are used now. To make it work, you must remove all freedom from the women. They must become property.

Women were, and are, chattel. Girls are married off young, and assigned to the role of slacking the lust of 50 year old lechers who should be arrested and castrated. They are not patriarchs, they are child molesters. They operate under the guise of the 'holy Priesthood," which is just an excuse to pick and choose the nubile girls. Some sacred authority that is.

The whole damned thing is sick. It is beyond pathetic. But it goes on and on and on. Joseph started it, and it never would go away. It took on a life of its own, and became a huge monster that cannot be controlled. One man's desire for sexual experimentation led to hundreds of ruined lives, child molestation, and a sick, sick theology. How utterly nauseating it is.

I cannot stand to hear Mormons talk about it now. "We will practice it in the Celestial Kingdom," or "It will come back when we are worthy,"

Can't these dopes figure it out? It is not holy, pure, or moral. It is just sick. It has, at least done one thing. It has prevented the Mormon church from ever having a shot at being mainstream. They will never be accepted as a normal faith. The baggage of polygamy will hold them down forever.
topic image
Pathology Abounds. Mormons Beware.
Friday, Apr 18, 2008, at 09:43 AM
Original Author(s): Nightingale
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
Unbelievable Larry King Live (LKL) show tonight!

Larry's panel included two former FLDS women, Mike Watkiss the journalist covering this story for years and the supervisor of CPS from LA (an MD I believe).

The first shocker for me was the state's reasons given for their decision to separate the children from their mothers:

(1) The children believe that their highest calling is to bear children.

(2) The children believe they should marry when the prophet tells them to.

Newsflash - other faiths teach that too; for example, MORMONISM!!!!

The next surprise was hearing the MD saying right out loud (as diplomatically as possible) that all the mothers are "in a trance" or "hypnotized" or "something" such that they need psych evals. He said (as posters have remarked here) that the woman who showed the media around her home (in the FLDS commune) was speaking in a "child-like way" and seemed "glazed". He said, "The whole place is pathological".

Funny - that is what the nevermo posters around here say about Mormonism. Those of us who were in it, especially the BICs, sometimes have a hard time recognizing or remembering just how far outside the norm some of the cultural aspects and teachings are. We just get so used to it. Indeed, Carolyn Jessop tonight said that when she was growing up in FLDS abuse was "common" but she didn't know it was abuse. "It was just life."

I remarked earlier that I was somewhat fearful that the TX situation has played out the way it has because of the utter unfamiliarity that outsiders have with the FLDS way of life. This program confirmed that is true to some extent. First, the police officer who entered the compound the first day was shocked to see at least several young pregnant teens and that was apparently seen as evidence of child abuse (although there are plenty of places where you could find young pregnant teens outside of FLDS). Next, the therapists were alarmed by something while interviewing the children, something so apparently "abusive" that they recommended immediate separation of the kids from their mothers. This turned out to be the two points mentioned above, related to the beliefs being taught to the kids about marriage and obedience to their prophet.

To those of us who were LDS that almost doesn't raise an eyebrow as it is such familiar counsel in Mormonism. It can be hard and takes time to recalibrate our sensometers and budge over more to the midline in areas like that.

What was brought out today was that with the mothers "brainwashed" (my paraphrase) the state's concern is that they are fundamentally incapable of protecting their children. As Carolyn Jessop put it, "The Mother Bear isn't there" (i.e., a mother's extreme child protective instinct is missing). IOW, the women do what Jeffs (and other leaders) tell them to do rather than what is in the best interests of their children. Interestingly, they brought in the fathers on this too, in that Jeffs (and his chosen) have the power to order the men to do things that are not family or child friendly, such as to leave the family and families are quite often "reassigned" and none of the parents raise objections.

The MD stated that even though it's sad that the children want to go home (it is said) and that the mothers are crying for their kids, the number one issue is to protect the kids and find them "permanency" (i.e., foster care if that is what is deemed in their best interest). This is, of course, true if it is proven that abuse is occurring.

However, when part of the "evidence" is that their teachings seem bizarre or out of line to non-members, that is getting a trifle too subjective, don't you think?

I happen to think that the children in the Jesus Camp scenario are obviously very distressed and "brainwashed" in accordance with the beliefs of the adults in their sphere.

So, who decides which beliefs are OK and which ones should precipitate the state's apprehension of every child in sight?

This is in no way an endorsement of Jeffs' approach to life, of course. But when you get down to citing pieces of religious dogma as valid reason for separating families, it seems like heading into a minefield, no?

One of the reasons cited for not allowing the boys to return to "the ranch" was that they are "groomed to be perpetrators".

I hear some mixed feelings and opinions from the women who are ex-FLDS. All can agree that it is certainly a complex situation and unprecedented. It could be one of those things where the officials involved end up looking like geniuses - or not.

Here's hoping that there can be a quick resolution for the kids. They're not even going to school yet (too big to be organized yet). When I was helping refugee kids a few yrs back, one of the experts in resettlement issues emphasized that the best way to help them was to create a routine and get them back to doing normal, safe activities with school being foremost. Of course, these kids are home schooled. Recreating that is yet another complication for CPS.

Jenny was asking on another thread why this case is so intriguing. Partly, of course, it is to do with how very close it is to Mormonism after all.

It is only a matter of degrees.

The beliefs are similar, if not identical, in many areas.

With the FLDS, it is just more visible.

For some LDS and exmos, the perimeter fence, the armed guards, the isolation and the narrow views are hidden, in the mind, yet every bit as restrictive.

The FLDS woman showing the journalists around her home took them into a big area, apparently the living room, where they gather to sing, etc., she said. It looked exactly, I mean exactly, like the RS room in the chapel I attended at the stake centre. I have always believed in "living" my religion (not just attending church) and yeah, there may be a hymn book on my bookcase. But sheesh. There ain't an organ and RS decor in my home. I prefer a little less "correlation" than that.

Very sad. Very complex. Heckuva job for the judge. And likely some work for LDS PR types.

I wonder how many newbie exmos we'll hear from whose ex-testimony will consist of the fact that seeing the FLDS situation reflected their own beliefs to them in a new way. As others have posted in many essays before (Bob McCue for example) often that is the way a Mormon gets a wake-up call. It's easy to see the flaws in someone else's beliefs. Seeing yours mirrored in theirs gives you a new perspective on things.

And for the future - it will be fascinating to hear from the "rescued" children and get their perspective in the coming years.

Here's hoping they can all be helped and the boys and the (non-leader) men and the mothers too.

What a big job for Texas. And hopefully a precedent for other jurisdictions - what to do - what not to do. I hope it causes a lot of people to take stock of how they raise their children. Freedom of choice. That is the best approach but obviously it's difficult for most of us to be that objective.
topic image
LDS Doctrine And Covenants Section 132 And The Texas Drama
Monday, Apr 21, 2008, at 11:20 AM
Original Author(s): Roger Morrison
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
There are so many question begging issues to be considered here that it is truly mind boggling. Especially for those with an interest in LDSism as do most posters, and readers--the larger number--here.

I have DC:132 in front of me at the moment:

1. "...I, the Lord, justified ... Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob...Moses, David and Soloman, my servants...(re) having many wives and concubines--

3. "Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey...those who have this law revealed unto them... must obey the same.

4. "...I reveal... a new and an everlasting covenant; (that if you do not abide) then are ye damned; no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

34. "God commanded Abraham, and Sarah, gave Hagar to Abraham to wife...therefore....fulfilling...the promises.

35. "Was Abraham...under condemnation?...Nay; for I the Lord commanded it.

37. "Abraham received concubines...for righteousness...they have entered into their exaltation... (and) sit upon thrones, and are...gods.

38. "David...Soloman...and Moses my servants, also many other of my servants from the beginning of creation...received many wives and concubines ...and did not sin...(except) in things not recevied from me.

61. "...if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espose the second...he is justfied...

62. "And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law...they belong to him...

64. "...if any man teaches...(his wife) the law of my priesthood...and she does not administer unto him...she shall be destroyed...for I will desroy her...

There, in a condensed form is the foundation of FLDSism as found in the Doctrine and Covenants of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," commonly known as the "Mormon Church," attended by Mormons.

I am in the deepest of sympathy for the FLDS members on public display. I question the tactics used to take women and children from their homes. Then seperate child from parent with seemingly no regard for natural instinct of human (and animal) bonding. I question the whistle blowing and "hoax" involved...

Yet, I see many attitudes and practices, very familiar that disturb me. Particularly the conformity to dress and response standards--while in the extreme in the Compound--I think they could be closer to the wishes of LDS hiearchy than might, publicly be let out:

"Our Prophet speaks for, and with God." Body adornement, modest attire, facial hair, "just bear your testimony". The obvious subservience of women. The prominent display of Church leader's pictures through out their homes; all such are abided in Mormonism in varying degrees.

Does the end (liberation) justify the means (hoax)? It does at the core of Mormonism (murder Laban). So, why not here?

One segment of last night's news stated, "it is abuse to condition a child to self destructive behaviour." Indoctrination that attempts to "enslave"--a most strong verb, one that could be less dramic might be, unduly-influence--is not in the best interest of the psyche health of the child. The objective and consequence of "indoctrination" is to perpetuate, in this case, the abuse (evil)

One does not have to have experienced a lot of LDSism to have encountered at least a smigin of strong influence, some times bordering on intimidation, and threat. Of course the ultimate being expulsion from Heaven for the disobedient. As these women sadly demonstrate,

Would any Doctor of mental health not find such a heaven/hell suggestion well stepping beyond the bounds of responsible mentoring/parenting?

I think LDS leaders must be in serious prayer-and-fasting concerning the ramifications of these dramatic opening scenes.

I think it unfortunate, yet understandable, that the Original LDS Church takes such a self-centred defensive role in this religio-socio debacle. LDSism shows absolutely no compassion, or acknowledges their kinship with the FLDS Church.

The total concern of Salt Lake City Mormonism is: "PLEASE, do not confuse US with THEM!" Deseret News seems to be quite on top of this happening, wirh a "Comment" section following their articles that publish some very interesting opinions. Many calling SL Inc. to task.

Meanwhile SL Inc has posted GA Cook on YouTube (a site blocked from BYU :-o) making a public appeal to differentiate the two groups... A rather weak attempt that denies any relationship what-so-ever. Not a lot of honesty or integrity displayed in this nervous desparate appeal.

IMSCO, LDSism should divulge their polygamist history, what they suffered, and why in self-preservation they abandoned the practice. At the same time they should acknowledge "The Principle" is still in the book, and practiced in a modified version wherein a male can be "sealed" to as many women as he legally marries. OTOH, a women can only be "sealed" to one man. Des News is worth checking out.
topic image
Most Mormons Don't Notice The Polygamist Participants In Their Wards
Tuesday, Apr 22, 2008, at 08:02 AM
Original Author(s): Cheryl
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
Why not?

First, I'd say it's because polygamists attending normal morg wards are few and far between. But I was one of those and knew many others when I was growing up in Utah. Some of the members of my parents' fundie group were found out and exed. Others are still actively participating both in polygamous activities and the mainstream mormon program.

I also knew of many other plyg groups who lived double mormon lives, like we did.

The TR question about "apostate groups" was added to prevent this situation and the resulting church embarrassment. There would no longer be a need for that question if every member exclusively followed only the SLC mainstream prophet.

How can members identify these covert polygamists and plyg sympathizers?

They often can't.

I'd bet that EVERYONE who knew my plyg/mainstream family would assume that they've never met anyone like us in any ward they've attended.

Starting at about age six, I was coached on how to explain away the fundie services we held in our living room and the trailers in our backyard, the living quarters for some of the prophet's wives.

Polygamists are easy to spot if they look and act like the FLDS robot-type women. But others keep up with current fashion and hairsyles, though they still dress modestly, usually with less than average amounts of makeup and jewelry.

Think about Margene on Big Love. I can see her remaining a polygamist and also joining the mainstream church for the social advantages to her and her children. Others might do it for church welfare or job opportunities.

I would think this double-life practice would be most common in Utah and possibly, Arizona. I doubt it's as likely in Provo and SE Idaho areas where the mainstream leadership has the firmest hold and the most willing spies.

I do know of cases where the polygamist men participate in wards because they want to attend singles dances and activities to recruit additional brides. A polygamist was arrested and convicted in the Sacramento/Placer, California area two or three years ago. I think the charges had to do rape and sexual forms of torture. (None of these people is ever charged with bigamy/polygamy.)

My family remained in the regular morg after converting to fundie beliefs because it was an important part of having friends and being accepted in Utah culture. Also, because the church offered opportunities of possibly luring away members for the plyg prophet and provided temple access.

My formerly polygamist brother was exed, but he and his remaining first wife were rebaptized into a regular ward. This gives me some inkling of which of his adult kids are firmly polygamist, which have turned to the mainstream morg, and which are like I was growing up, being fundie at home and more mainstream at ward functions.

For the link obsessed. No, I have none to prove my firsthand experience. This, like much of what I write, is just me telling what I've lived. (Frankly, I think my record for telling the truth is better than the morg's.)
topic image
With Reference To LDS Leaders Marrying Teens
Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008, at 08:08 AM
Original Author(s): Zeezrom
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
I have been doing some research and came up with this, confirmed on http://www.familysearch.org

Some of Orson Pratts wives and the ages when they married (they seem to get younger as he got older) :

Orson PRATT - Ancestral File

Gender: M Birth/Christening: 19 Sep 1811 Hartford, Washington, New York

Sarah Marinda BATES Marriage: 4 Jul 1836 age 19 Orson Pratt aged 25

Charlatte BISHOP Marriage: 1844 age 31 Orson Pratt aged 33

Mary Ann MERRILL Marriage: 27 Mar 1845 age 26 Orson Pratt aged 34

Louisa CHANDLER Marriage: 1846 age 23 Orson Pratt aged 35

Adelia Ann BISHOP Marriage: 13 Jan 1846 age 30 Orson Pratt aged 35

Marian ROSS Marriage: 19 Feb 1852 age 23 Orson Pratt aged 41

Sarah Louisa LEWIS Marriage: 21 Jun 1853 age 22 Orson Pratt aged 42

Juliett Ann PHELPS Marriage: 14 Dec 1855 age 16 Orson Pratt aged 44

Eliza CROOKS Marriage: 24 Jul 1857 age 28 Orson Pratt aged 46

Margaret GRAHAM Marriage: 28 Dec 1868 age 16 Orson Pratt aged 57

He was conceiving with this 16 year old at once , she gave birth just 9 Months later(no surprises I guess )HE WAS 57 for goodness sake.Can you imagine the feelings of his original wife Sarah now aged 51, seeing him courting and bedding a 16 year old ?( let alone all those other young wives or any wives , I can't think of anything worse for a wife to endure ).

Children with Margaret GRAHAM

1 Sex Name M Orlon Graham PRATT (AFN:1XDL-5J) Pedigree, Born: 14 Sep 1869 Place: Salt Lake City, S-Lk, Ut, Died: 5 Oct 1932 Place: El Cerriot, Ca, Buried: Place: Sunset Veiw Cem, Berkerley, Ca

2 Sex Name F Pearl Graham PRATT, Born: 2 May 1872 Place: Salt Lake, S-Lk, Ut, Christened: Jun 1872 Place: Salt Lake City, S-Lk, Ut, Died: 5 Dec 1954 Place: Rigby, Jffrson, Id, Buried: 8 Dec 1954 Place: Salt Lake, S-Lk, Ut

3 Sex Name M Royal Graham PRATT (AFN:1XDL-6P) Pedigree, Born: 3 Jun 1874 Place: Salt Lake City, S-Lk, Ut, Died: 17 Dec 1917 Place:

This is just very brief , he had children with his many other wives too .I just haven't had time to log everything as my stomach was churning as it is.

I did a little on Orson Hyde also:

Orson Hyde Birth/Christening, 8 Jan 1805 Oxford, New Haven, Connecticut, United States

He married 16 year old Ann Eliza Vickers at aged 52 and the first child was 14 months later... He married an 18 year old at age 61 also .The reearch is not exhaustive so there could be many more wives. If anyone knows of a more comprehensive list/research for the LDS Leaders then I would be grateful for the info ....

Miranda Nancy JOHNSON 4 Sep 1834 19 years old Orson 29 years old

Ann Eliza VICKERS 12 Mar 1857 16 years old Orson 52 years old

Children with 16 year old Ann Eliza Vickers, 1 Name M Charles Albert HYDE, Born: 13 May 1858 Place: Springville, Utah, Ut, Died: 11 May 1923 Place:

2 Name M George Lyman HYDE (AFN:4LVD-CL) Pedigree, Born: 16 Mar 1860 Place: Salt Lake City, Salt Lake, Ut, Died: 1 Apr 1940 Place: Salt Lake City, Salt Lake, Ut, Buried: Place: Springville, Utah, Ut

3 Name M Joseph Smith HYDE (AFN:8BMB-LD) Pedigree, Born: 15 Jan 1863 Place: Spring City, Sanpete, Ut, Died: 27 Feb 1944 Place:

4 Name F Maria Louisa HYDE (AFN:8BMB-MK) Pedigree, Born: 1 Nov 1865 Place: Spring City, Sanpete, Ut, Died: 31 Aug 1867 Place:

5 Name M Melvin Augustus HYDE (AFN:8BMB-NQ) Pedigree, Born: 5 Sep 1868 Place: Spring City, Sanpete, Ut, Died: 8 Feb 1873 Place:

6 Name F Flora Geneva HYDE (AFN:8BMB-PW) Pedigree, Born: 2 Jan 1871 Place: Spring City, Sanpete, Ut, Died: 17 Jul 1953 Place:

Emma PRICE 9 Oct 1861 56 years old, Orson 56 years old

Sophia Margaret LYON 10 Oct 1865 18 years old Orson 61 years old

Julia REINERT 29 Aug 1863 21 years old Orson 58 years old

Mary Ann PRICE 11 years younger date of marriage not found

Martha Rebecca BROWETT 4 years younger date of marriage

I'm sure there will be a similar pattern for all of those early LDS leaders
topic image
Gordon B. Hinckley's Big Lie Re: The Percentage Of 19th Century Mormon Polygamists
Thursday, Apr 24, 2008, at 07:58 AM
Original Author(s): Randy Jordan
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
From what I've read about polygamy on this site, it sounds like a very large percentage of early church members practiced polygamy. I was always told when I was a member that only a very select group of 1 to 2% of members did this. Does anyone know how large the percentage actually was??
Many true believing Mormons often repeat the assertion that only a very small percentage of 19th-century Mormons practiced polygamy. Several years ago, I wrote a response on this subject on alt.religion.mormon to a post by a young Mormon named Chip Snow, which I copy here.

Chip wrote:
There was only about 2% of the brethren in the church who actually practiced polygamy.
I replied:

There's another shining example of LDS numbers-skewing. On my mission 25 years ago, when someone would ask us about Mormon polygamy, I was taught to respond with "The Mormons practiced polygamy because a lot of Mormon men were killed by persecutors, so other men took their widows and children into their own households. And, only about 4% of Mormons practiced polygamy, when at the same time, 7% of all Americans were, so it wasn't out of line." That response usually satisfied inquisitors. Unfortunately, there's not a shred of truth to it. It's simply another example of how Mormons are taught to "lie for the lord," and I'm personally ashamed that I repeated that lie many times throughout my LDS mission, albeit that my repetition was borne of ignorance, and blind trust in my superiors.

The Mormons didn't practice polygamy because men were murdered; Joseph Smith's first well-documented extra-marital relationship began in 1833, with a 16-year-old servant girl, Fannie Alger, who was unmarried; his second one was with Lucinda Morgan Harris, who was married to another Mormon man at the time. Not a single one of Joseph Smith's 33 known "plural wives" was the widow of a murdered Mormon man; in fact, 11 of them were currently married to other men at the time of their "sealing" to Smith. Smith sent several men on "missions," and while they were away, he "plural married" their wives without their knowledge, which when discovered, caused scandal and apostasy. Smith did not provide for any children of his "plural wives"; although some of those women did indeed live in his house, they also worked as servants or teachers. When Smith's legal wife, Emma, grew tired of her husband's blatant philandering, she ordered those "plural wives" from her home--making it obvious that the women weren't there to be "provided for," but rather to provide female company for Joseph Smith.

I have found no evidence that 19th-century Americans in general practiced any sort of "multiple wifery" to the degree of the "7%" that I was taught to repeat. If such a phenomenom had existed, it would be duly noted in our history and sociology textbooks. It's obvious that some Mormon apologist simply made up those figures to make Mormon polygamy appear to be a 19th-century norm.

As to your "2%" figure, that line was invented by LDS Apostle John A. Widtsoe nearly 100 years ago:

"Before 1890 there were no records showing the number of polygamists in the church. In 1890 it was found by careful survey that there were in the church 2,451 men with more than one wife. At that time the church membership was approximately 172,754 individuals. The men living in polygamy in 1890 were therefore 1.4 percent of the total church population....Probably, the reliable records for 1890 represent the general conditions in the years that polygamy was practiced." (Evidences and Reconciliations, p. 390.)

In his recent interview with Larry King, current LDS President Gordon B. HInckley repeated Widtsoe's lowball figure:

"The figures that I have are from, between, 2% and 5% of our people were involved in it. It was a very limited practice, carefully safeguarded."

Are those figures accurate? Let's examine the facts: In 1890, when Widtsoe's survey was allegedly taken, LDS leaders had the motivation to lowball the percentage of polygamists, to show the federal government that they were complying with their promise to end polygamy in order to qualify for statehood. Also by 1890, polygamy was on the wane; most of its first-generation practitioners had died (including Brigham Young, its chief advocate, in 1877). Polygamy had become less prevalent because of its obvious social unworkability; many older, higher-ranking Mormon men had taken many "plural wives", over four decades, often up to three dozen each, making it difficult for younger men to find wives their own age. Because of increased knowledge of Mormon polygamy and criticism from non-Mormon society, Mormon missionaries were no longer able to convert and import "plural wives" from Europe.

In addition, Mormon male polygamists had been subject to arrest and imprisonment since the Reynolds decision in 1879, making it advisable for Mormon men to deny their polygamous situations; that fact, combined with those above, renders Widtsoe's 1890 estimate useless.

Also, note Widstoe's very dishonest use of numbers: he compares the number of confessed Mormon male polygamists to the total LDS population, to attain his "1.4%." Obviously, neither adult women nor unmarried children of either sex could be numbered as a polygamist, yet Widtsoe included them to derive his distortingly low percentage. A more honest and accurate percentage would have been derived if Widtsoe had only compared the total number of claimed married men to the number of married women; the difference between the two would have produced the number of polygamous men, assuming that respondents were honest about their situations. If we assume that unmarried children comprised 2/3 of Mormon population in 1890, then obviously, Widtsoe's figure is off by at least 2/3. But to repeat, even that number could be low, because since 1879, Mormons routinely denied their polygamous relationships. And, the recent revelations of possibly hundreds of secret "underground" plural marriages performed between 1890 and 1904 further invalidates Widtsoe's 1890 estimate.

Later researchers have disputed Widtsoe's figures. For example, LDS historian Stanley Ivins commented: "Visitors to Utah in the days when polygamy was flourishing were usually told that about one-tenth of the people actually practiced it...Of more than 6,000 Mormon families, sketches of which are found in a huge volume published in 1913, between fifteen and twenty percent appear to have been polygamous. And a history of Sanpete and Emery counties contains biographical sketches of 722 men, of whom 12.6 percent married more than one woman. From information available from all sources, it appears that there may have been a time when fifteen, or possibly twenty, percent of the Mormon families were polygamous." (Western Humanities Review, "Notes on Mormon Polygamy," vol. 10, p. 230.) LDS writer T. Edgar Lyon estimated the true figure to be "six or eight times" Widtsoe's, and late Utah Senator Wallace F. Bennett, using Census figures, estimated eight to ten percent.

During the inception and height of Mormon polygamy, LDS leaders taught that the practice was "essential to salvation." Joseph Smith's "revelation on celestial marriage" stated "as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant,...he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God" (Doctrine and Covenants 132: 6.) Brigham Young repeated that mandate when he preached that "the only men who will become gods...are those who enter into polygamy." Young, Heber C. Kimball, and other leaders often rebuked men who were reluctant to enter into polygamy, "counseling" them to "do their duty." The claimed necessity of plural marriage even prompted Mormon leaders to advocate the idea that Jesus Christ himself had been a polygamist. And Joseph F. Smith, who was the LDS president until 1918, stated emphatically that a man with only one wife could not receive "an exaltation as great and glorious..as he possibly could with more than one." (JoD, vol. 20, p. 28.) Until 1890, Mormon men clamored to be "sealed" to as many wives as possible, up to a claimed "limit" of 99, on the hope that those wives would be part of their "celestial inheritance." All of this rhetoric puts the lie to Gordon B. Hinckley's recent assertion that polygamy was intended to be a "very limited practice....carefully safeguarded."

Considering Mormon leaders' teaching that polygamy was "essential to salvation," it seems remarkable that today's Mormons should attempt to downplay the number of polygamist practitioners among their pioneer forefathers, because the modern LDS Church portrays its pioneer ancestors as being faithful, obedient, and willing to sacrifice everything for their religion. The claimed "2 to 5%" figure, if accurate, demonstrates that to the contrary to that desired portrayal, 19th-century Mormon men were not terribly obedient to the prophets' "revelations."

One may question why modern Mormons seek to downplay the extent and orthodoxy of polygamy among their forbears. The answer is revealed by examining the proselyting efforts of today's LDS Church. Hinckley, who has been a major force in his church's media relations efforts for more than half a century, wants the LDS Church to attain a status of being a worldwide, mainstream religion. Hinckley is well aware that the single greatest negatively-perceived aspect of Mormonism, throughout its history, is its polygamy practice; polygamy is therefore the biggest public relations hurdle that the LDS Church must constantly clear with the "buying public". That is why, when questioned about modern Mormon fundamentalist polygamists (estimated to number about 30,000), Hinckley treated them as somewhat less than dirt, even going so far as to say that polygamy "is not doctrinal." Hinckley wants the public to believe that his church bears no responsibility for the promulgation of the polygamy practice, which embarrasses the mainstream church today with its widely-reported arrests and legal cases.

It's also why, in recent LDS-published materials, all mention of polygamy among 19th-century Mormons has been obliterated. A 1997 church lesson manual based on the teachings of Brigham Young failed to even mention polygamy; and recent articles in the church's monthly "Ensign" magazine, on the lives and ministries of both Joseph Smith and Young, also failed to even hint at their polygamy practice, even though Smith's secret polygamy was a prime factor in his 1844 murder, and controversy over polygamy dogged Young to his death. And, to further demonstrate the church's downplaying of polygamy, the sum total of information on the subject on the church's official website is the following:

"Myth: Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are polygamists. Some early leaders and members of the Church entered into plural marriages during the latter half of the nineteenth century. After receiving a revelation, Church President Wilford Woodruff declared the practice should be discontinued in 1890. That position has been reaffirmed by every President of the Church since. Members of the Church who enter into plural marriage today face Church disciplinary action, including excommunication."

Note that the website that some Mormons began entering into plural marriages "during the latter half of the nineteenth century." To the contrary, the first mention of polygamy in Mormonism came from Joseph Smith in 1831, and numerous LDS historians have affirmed that Joseph Smith's first "plural marriage" was as early as 1833. Smith eventually secretly "married" at least 33 "plural wives" until his 1844 death, while publicly denying the practice until his death.

Smith, Young, Heber C. Kimball, John Taylor, John D. Lee, and numerous other Mormon men took multiple "plural wives" before the expulsion of the Mormons from Illinois in 1846. The LDS website deceptively asserts a "latter half of the ninetenth century" beginning for polygamy because the church does not want its members and prospective converts to learn the extensiveness and orthodoxy of their early leaders' polygamy practice. Also, polygamy was illegal in the state of Illinois the entire time Smith instituted and practiced it there; if the LDS website publicly admitted that Smith practiced polygamy, it would also necessarily admit that Smith was a lawbreaker. A tenet of Mormonism is that "he that keepeth the commandments of God hath no need to break the laws of the land", and Smith's breaking of bigamy laws reveals him as contradictory and hypocritical.

The website article is also very careful to state that polygamy was ended after

Wilford Woodruff "received a revelation" to cease the practice, while neglecting to inform the public that the mandate to practice polygamy was itself an alleged "revelation from God"; the "revelation on celestial marriage", commanding the polygamy practice, is "canonized" in LDS theology, while Woodruff's alleged "revelation" calling for the cessation of the practice, is not.

The website also fails to mention that LDS leaders fought the federal government for four decades over polygamy, and that to force the church to end the practice, the government disincorporated the church and seized its assets---thus making Woodruff's claim of receiving a "revelation" to cease the practice highly suspect. The website also fails to note that LDS leaders continued to sanction secret "plural marriages" until at least 1904, skirting the law by performing such unions in Canada, Mexico, or offshore, and that those unions were embarrasingly brought to light during the 1904 Reed Smoot hearings. That information refutes the idea that Woodruff's 1890 Manifesto was a "revelation from God," or else LDS leaders knowingly acted contrary to such a "revelation." And, the website fails to mention that LDS President Joseph F. Smith himself was convicted of unlawful cohabitation in 1906.

The website declares emphatically that Mormons who enter into polgyamy today are disciplined or excommunicated; but the website fails to note that the "revelation" commanding the practice is still "canonized" in LDS "scriptures", published and distributed to millions of Mormons to this day. It should go without saying that the maintaining of such a "commandment" in "modern scriptures," while simultaneously forbidding its actual practice, is extremely contradictory and hypocritical. One would think that LDS leaders, on the basis of their claim of "continuing revelation," could simply delete all portions pertaining to the mandate of "plural marriage." If they were to do so, they could end their "lying for the lord" about polygamy, and begin to erase the stigma which infests Mormonism.

This issue of the lowball percentage of polygamy practitioners is exemplary of how myths are created and perpetuated in Mormon culture. First, Widstoe invents a figure using highly suspect raw numbers and counting methods; he publishes it in a highly popular, widely-distributed book; nearly a century later, Gordon B. Hinckley (who claims to be knowledgeable in Mormon history) repeats those same suspect numbers, because Widtsoe, being a late apostle, is a "trusted source"; and then a young Mormon like Chip Snow repeats the figure, because Hinckley has done so before him. Chip trusts Hinckley, and Hinckley trusts Widtsoe. It's a syndrome that drives much of Mormon culture----an allegedly trustworthy Mormon invents an assertion, and because Mormons trust their leaders and forbears, they continue to repeat those assertions for 100 years, without ever pausing to question whether the assertion is valid to begin with. This culture of trusting in, and repeating speculative assertions or rumors, without verifying facts for one's self, is what makes Mormonism what it is today. For a "true believing Mormon," facts place a poor second to "faith-promoting" assertions.

End original post from ARM. Another comment---contrary to Gordon B. Hinckley's assertion that polygamy was a "limited practice" which was "highly safeguarded," the actual fact is that during the heyday of 19th-century polygamy, many Mormon men were threatened with loss of status or excommunication if they declined to plural marry. Historian Michael Quinn documented numerous statements from church leaders in conference speeches instructing men to "live the principle." Church leaders preached that plural marriage was to be the norm, rather than a rare "limited practice" as Hinckley falsely alleged.
topic image
Some Women Went Insane Because Of Polygamy
Friday, May 9, 2008, at 07:38 AM
Original Author(s): Tahoe Girl
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
I'm currently reading "Tell It All" by Fanny Stenhouse (it's online and I HIGHLY recommend it). Her book covers her conversion to mormonism in England, the lies, fraud and deceit of mormon leaders which she became acquainted with while still in England, her subsequent emigration with her husband and children to Utah by boat and handcart, etc. She tells about how vile Brigham Young and other church leaders were, blood atonement, polygamy, etc., and gives us a picture of what Utah was like during the 1800's.

Her accounts concerning polygamy are heartbreaking. I had never heard about some women going insane as a result of polygamy.

This is what she said about it: "Had I been treated with the cruelty and neglect which has fallen to the lot of so many unfortunate women in Utah, I should probably have been in my grave to-day, or in that Asylum, which has been provided by the Church-situated on a lonely hill at a sufficient distance from the city, so that the cries of the unhappy, ill-treated, insane women should not be heard."

I've learned not to believe everything I read, so I did a search to find out if this had really happened. The results of my search show that, indeed, some women went insane because of polygamy. I haven't found enough information to determine the extent of this, but it is sad to imagine what mental and emotional anguish these women suffered to cause them to go insane.

Included in these women is a daughter of John Taylor who went insane as a result of her father "endeavoring to force her into polygamy".

The reporter of the following link (from the New York Times in 1882) was visiting asylums in the United States and said that "in no instance have I seen sights so horrible" as what he saw in Utah.

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-...

This article also talks about some women going insane:

http://www.biblebelievers.net/Cults/M...

In my research I also learned that there are women today who go insane in countries where polygamy is practiced.

Polygamy is a vile, despicable, disgusting practice that is degrading to women.
topic image
The FLDS Doesn't Seem That Different To Me From Early Mormon Utah
Monday, May 19, 2008, at 07:50 AM
Original Author(s): Makurosu
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
Here are some quotes from pioneer biographies that I've collected of my own ancestors. I think they are very revealing of polygamous life in Utah, and the stories I hear coming from FLDS escapees don't sound all that much different.

Here's one about my 3rd great grandmother Ellen Catherine Ottesen (Jeppesen Richards). She was essentially forced into marrying her step-father Rasmus Nielsen Jeppesen:

"[W]hen Ellen was 17 years of age, there was pressure for her to get married. There were three or four older men that were asking for her hand and she was upset and confused about it. Rasmus asked her if she would like to marry him. He had been good and kind to her and she loved him as a father, so she decided to marry him rather than someone she didn't know. They were married on 19 June 1859 in the Endowment House. They had a little girl and a boy, but Ellen couldn't be happy as the youngest wife in a polygamist family. One day she said "Goodbye" to her babies and left."

Here's another one:

"One of Mary's step-children was named Katherine Ellen [Ellen Catherine Ottesen]. When she was 17 years old, she was expected to marry. She was given the choice of another older man or her own step-father Rasmus. She finally decided to marry him, at least she knew him. Katherine had two children by Rasmus, a girl and a boy. She had so much trouble being the youngest and prettiest of the wives that she finally said goodbye to her children and left them with Dampsey, who had been good to her. Hers was the first divorce in Mantua, and everyone blamed her."

Seventeen years old, my ass. I don't know why her biographers keep lying about her age. Ellen Catherine was born 20 Oct 1842. That would have made her SIXTEEN at the latest when she was "expected to marry," as she tied the knot with Rasmus on 19 Jun 1859. How is this different from the FLDS again?

Incidentally, Ellen Catherine was blamed and gossiped about throughout her life because she escaped her polygamous marriage to Rasmus Jeppesen and because of her hostility toward the LDS Church resulting from that experience. People said that she deserved to later be married to a mean drunk, whom she also divorced. She was described later in life as a sad old woman wandering around the town picking up sticks. Her grandson Charles Emil Jeppesen, my great grandfather, sang "Let Us Oft Speak Kind Words To Each Other" at her funeral. So, I suppose it was important to early Mormons to stay in a polygamous marriage that you were forced into at age 16.

It seems also that polygamy was not a program to provide for widows after all. Here's an example of that from my great great grandmother Jane Nancy Romeril (Hammond Pierce), who married an old geezer in his 60's when she was 19:

"It was here Jane met John Hammond. He was an elderly man and in ill health. Brigham Young asked her to help take care of Mr. Hammond and thought to be proper they should marry. They were married 15 March 1857 in the Endowment House at Salt Lake City. They had one daughter, Mary Jane. John became seriously ill and died 27 December 1858. Jane was so involved with caring for her husband, she didn't realize that she was going to have another baby. Eight months after the death of her husband, her baby was born, another girl, she named Mathilda. Being the fourth polygamous wife in the family, Jane was left alone to care for her little girls. She gleaned the fields to find enough food to feed them. For three years, she struggled to care for herself and her daughters. Finally in 1860, realizing she needed help, Jane pushed her little girls in a handcart to North Ogden to live with her parents. Being proud, she still gleaned in the fields for wheat, artichokes, or any other food that was left in the fields, in orderto help support herself and her daughters."

No, it seems to me that polygamy was not a program to care for widows, but rather a program for old guys to get inside the pants of pretty young girls. Both Jane Nancy and Ellen Catherine were beautiful women by a number of accounts.

These are just the biographies I have. I'm descended from several other polygamous families that I have records of, but no biographies. I can only guess at the conditions that existed. I also have a record of a mother-daughter threesome marriage (not Ellen Catherine's) that was lied about by no less than FOUR biographies.

Guys, if it's embarrassing enough to lie about it in a biography that's written for other Mormons, then what does that say about polygamy, the early leaders, the men practicing "the principle" and the biographers who clean up after it? The whole thing is a disgusting mess, and it's no different from what is going on with the FLDS except that there is more transparency with the FLDS.
topic image
Why Don't Women In Polygamous Cults Simply Leave?
Thursday, Oct 2, 2008, at 08:01 AM
Original Author(s): Cheryl
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
Logically, it would make sense for them to run off and find freedom from an abusive system.

Answer:

They don't leave for the same reasons mainstream mormon women don't leave. It's because they are programmed to think they'll be eternally rewarded for staying true to the gospel.

Other reasons? Because change is difficult and because many mormon women don't feel they have the confidence, training, and social network to make it on their own. Besides, once they're committed to training their children in the cult, it's hard to admit it might all be a mistake.

The longer someone gives their time, talent, and allegiance to a cult, the harder it is to cut and run. It means giving up a mindset, friends, family, and hope of a reward for a huge longterm human investment.

All of these reasons apply in multiples to polygamous women. If it's difficult for normal LDS women to leave their faith and culture, it's at least five or ten times as hard for women in polygamous cults to escape. They've sacrificed more and have undergone more strenuous brainwashing.

Should we legalize polygamy in hopes it will entice women to leave? Brainwashed LDS women stay in their church which is legal. Illegality is not what keeps polygamous women emeshed in their way of life.

The LDS church is cultish but legal. It keeps secrets because that's what cults do. It's their way of feeling special and separate from the outside world.

Cults keep their lifestyles secret. The mainstream church keeps temple rites and garments secret because of shame and embarrassment. Those things are legal but mormons worry about "persecution." They like to feel special and separate from the outside world.

The same is true of polygamists, but more so. They tend to keep polygamy secret because they think it's so sacred that "the world will persecute them for it."

Polygamists don't fear arrest and prosecution for polygamy. This hasn't been done since early in the 1900s. Instead, polygamists get away with worse crimes in the name of religion. The "outside world" with its respect for religion hesitates to prosecute them for fraud, corruption, tax evasion, incest, child sexual and physical abuse, and wife beating. All of those crimes are rampant among polygamists.

Polygamist families and groups who don't indulge in them are rearing children who will likely grow up to be polygamists since it's what they know. So the next generation is very very likely to commit such crimes even if their parents are among the few who don't presently do it.

Anyone in the US is free to have multiple wives without fear of arrest as long as they are not committing the crimes I mentioned or others. If they are doing those illegal acts, they need to be prosecuted in my opinion. Religious or not, those acts are antisocial and hurtful to the rest of us.
topic image
My Review Of Nauvoo Polygamy "But We Called It Celestial Marriage"
Sunday, Dec 28, 2008, at 09:20 AM
Original Author(s): Phantomshadow
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
I’m going to call the author “GDS” so as not to confuse him with “Smith” or "Joseph." I have a fuzzy recollection of meeting, or at least seeing, GDS years ago at a Dialogue or Sunstone conference shortly after we moved to the Bay Area. I don’t know what GDS’s status is re the church, but I assume that he is exmormon. I read a blog comment (can’t remember which one) that referred to him as an early 1990s "grumper."

Nauvoo Polygamy is an excellent reference book, but I have to subtract points for readability. The writing style is plain with much repetition, but perhaps he intended it to be so. Happily, the footnotes are at the bottom of each page, saving the reader time in not having to flip back and forth to endnotes. He relies on Compton, Quinn, van Wagoner, Carmon Hardy etc. Although he covers the same time and place as Compton, Bushman, and others, GDS intended this book to be a supplement to published biographies and histories.

(I hate calling these relationships "marriages" but for the sake of the review I will.)

In chapters 2 and 3 he goes through Smith’s accumulation of wives, including when he met them, how he courted them, and whatever information can be found on the marriages. He dismisses Fanny Alger as an adulterous affair and gives some evidence that Smith was involved with another young woman, Eliza Winters. While Smith had plural marriage on the mind in the 1830s, GDS doesn’t think he began actually taking wives until after 1840.

In later chapters GDS considers the admission of other men into the secret circle that Smith was creating, an interlocking family binding relationships through the elite of Nauvoo. He has many charts and lists along the way to help the reader keep track of the marriages. (550 pages of text, lists and charts account for some of this.)

Neither Joseph nor his scribes kept a record of the marriages, but reading between the lines and looking at diaries and other sources, GDS reconstructs the record. William Clayton might have written something like: “Went to XX’s farm with Joseph in afternoon.” From a diary or letter GDS figures out what Clayton didn’t go on to say, that a plural marriage or conjugal visit took place. I’m sure apologists will pounce on this “reading between the lines”. These marriages were later “resealed” in the Nauvoo temple and the records survive.

In Chapter 7, “A Silenced Past,” GDS goes through the events that led to the death of Joseph and Hyrum Smith. He places the blame on polygamy and on Smith’s arrogance in dealing with the Nauvoo Expositor. Contrary to Dallin Oaks' analysis of the legality of the “nuisance abatement,” GDS says the destruction was contrary to constitutional and legal safeguards. Following the destruction of the press, with multiple arrest warrants being dismissed on habeas corpus in Nauvoo, JS called up the Nauvoo legion and rode around town making threats and showing off. This led to the charge of treason that ultimately led to Smith being detained in Carthage jail.

He also details the lies that JS kept repeating about polygamy. GDS also presents a sympathetic portrait of Jane and William Law, two characters that I was raised to believe were wicked and evil. Law tried to get Smith to abandon his disastrous course, but Smith wouldn’t listen and ousted Law and his wife, along with others who questioned.

I can’t believe that anyone in the English-speaking world doesn’t know that Joseph Smith was a polygamist, but because the church tried to hush it up after the Manifesto, much of the information was buried in dusty archives. I grew up in Salt Lake. My mother told us about her grandfather and his three wives. I went to Forest School and it was common knowledge among the grade school kids that a certain house across the street from the playground was a polygamist residence. Later, my missionary companion confirmed it–this was her grandfather Musser’s home. Still, people are still surprised to learn of Smith's marital adventures.

Here are a few things I didn’t know:

Smith knew many of his wives for years before marrying them. Often they were young girls who lived in the Smith home ( I did know about of the Partridge and Lawrence sisters.) He was often in the home of friends who had young daughters, at times hiding out and spending days or weeks with them. He knew two of them from ages 5 and 7–the latter was Helen Mar Kimball. Reading this made me feel queasy. The man had years to earn the confidence of these girls and their families, charm them, then let them in on a wonderful “secret.” (The guy was definitely a sexual predator–GDS doesn’t put this into words, but he doesn't have to.)

I didn’t know that those in plural marriages were entered into a Quorum of the Anointed. Also, GDS counts 14 polyandrous marriages.

Because of the denials of Emma and Joseph Smith, in 1869 Joseph F. Smith collected affidavits of women who had been sealed to his uncle Joseph, creating a record. In 1892 the RLDS and Hedrickites got into a lawsuit over the Temple Lot in Missouri. The Utah church had an interest in keeping the lot out of the hands of the RLDS, so although not a party to the lawsuit, the LDS provided evidence of plural wives based on these earlier statements, and also collected testimony from more witnesses.

After the Smoot hearings the Mormon church tried to put the practice of polygamy behind them, but in the mid-20th century researchers and historians began uncovering the facts.

Why did nubile young women, or older married women, fall under Smith’s spell? Smith carefully cultivated his little flock. “Women found a sense of elite belonging when Smith invited them to join the secret religious order he had started among the high-ranking priesthood men. This Quorum of the Anointed was the repository of the secrets of plural marriage.” (pp 390-1) Those drawn into celestial marriage sincerely believed Smith was a prophet and believed in his version of the afterlife.

The last chapter in the book is “Antecedents and Legacy.” GDS goes through the history of polygamy, spending a lot of time on Henry the 8th and the Anabaptists of Munster. I plodded through it, but the book would be much better with a condensed version. And of course, we have the legacy–the Fundamentalists.

While the Mormons were relatively safe from the nation’s disapproval in 1852 Utah, the public announcement on plural marriage had a devastating effect abroad. European Mormons “were astonished and repelled.” British membership declined 50% in the 1850s, some of this from emigration, but baptismal rates plummeted by 88% post announcement.

The short index is not complete. I found no index entry for my 2nd great grandfather, but did find him on the charts and in the text. (And I learned something new about him, that he was supposedly a friend of Joseph Smith. There is a long list of citations to this paragraph, so it will take time to run it down.) I hate bad indexes–there is no excuse for them in the computer age. The bibliography is a good starting place for a reader beginning a journey through early Mormon history.

Unlike most historical or biographical works I read, GDS doesn’t include any acknowledgements to those who read or reviewed his manuscript. The book would have been much improved with editing, attention to critical suggestions for improvement, and some cutting. I hope he issues another edition because despite its faults, it’s a valuable book. GDS has accumulated a massive amount of evidence against that charming, reckless, and totally bad husband that was Joseph Smith, Jr.
topic image
Mormon President Lorenzo Snow - 6 Of His 9 Wives Were Under 20 Years Of Age
Thursday, Feb 12, 2009, at 08:05 AM
Original Author(s): Johnny Rotten
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
"Nauvoo Polygamy" by George Smith is an awesome book.

I love this book... It really puts it all in perspective.

Here is a short list of the wives of President Lorenzo Snow...he liked them young!

I will put her age; followed by his age at marriage; followed by the number of children they had while married; followed by the year they were married; followed by the year they were sealed:

Charlotte Squires………….19…31…2…1845…1846
Mary Adeline Goddard……33…31…3…1845…1846
Sarah Ann Prichard………..18…31…5…1845…1846
Harriet Amelia Squires…….26…31…5…1846…1846
Eleanor Houtz……………..16…33…8…1848…1848
Caroline Horton…………...28…39…3…1853…1853
Mary Elizabeth Houtz…….16…42…6…1857…1857
Phoebe Amelia Woodruff…17…44…5…1859…1859
Sarah E. Minnie Jensen……15…57…5…1871…1871

Total wives…9
Total Children …42
Total wives under 20…6 of 9

It's not about time with your children it’s about the quality of time…right?

Prophet of God or old pervert? You decide.

There is some controversy about Mary Ann Williams's age.

Mary Ann WILLIAMS was born 11Sep 1844 in Springfield, Sangamon, Illinois. She was the daughter of John WILLIAMS and Marcy LUCAS. Mary died 8Feb 1882 in Panguitch, Garfield, Utah, and was buried in Panguitch, Garfield, Utah.

Mary Ann's parents must have joined the Mormon Church prior to the abandonment of the City of Nauvoo and gone west with the body of the church taking her with them. She would have been only a few years old. There seem to be no genealogical ties between Mary Ann and another of Lee's wives of the same surname, Sarah Caroline Williams.

Mary Ann was first mentioned in Lee's diaries April 4, 1858, where she was named as one of two wives who accompanied him on a trip to Cedar City. This was rather peculiar, however, for at that date, she would have been only thirteen years of age, if she was in fact, born on the date given above. The 1860 census had her born two years earlier, in 1842. Her age was listed as eighteen years, so that if the 1842 year was used as her birth, in the 1858 entry, she would have been sixteen.

In the book attributed to him, "Mormonism Unveiled," Lee stated that Mary Ann was sealed to him as his sixteenth wife in 1856. At that date, if we accepted the 1844 birth date, she would have been only twelve years old. If we accepted the date according to the 1860 census information, she would have been fourteen.

Lee made several errors in listing the names and vital statistics of his wives in the book and could very well have been mistaken on the 1856 sealing date for Mary Ann Williams. If one accepted the earliest mentioned birth date, giving her as many years as possible, she would still have been a very young woman when she was first named as one of Lee's wives.

No matter how you cut it, she was very very young. Family lore says that OF COURSE they never had sex and he was more of a guardian. Sigh. Who knows. It is true they didn't have children. After she married his son John Alma in 1859 they had seven kids. Odd, John Alma never took a second wife. She died five months after he did, adding to the family told love story. John D. was buried from their home after he was executed.

Familysearch.org is not a good source for this. Someone keeps changing information to make it look like she was never married to John D. At times it has been correct and other times she is shown with no data or tie to John D. As if the woman married to John A was a different person right down to the ID number thingies. Sigh.
topic image
Another Mormon Lie - The Average Marriage Age In The 1800's
Monday, Mar 9, 2009, at 07:40 AM
Original Author(s): Leaving
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
Mormons often defend Joseph's marriage to teenagers by claiming that it was normal for younger teenage girls to marry back then.

So I decided to do a little research. In order to not “cherry pick” I decided to choose for my sample LDS prophets and apostles who were married before the Church came to Utah. I included William Clayton to replace William E. McLellan because McLellan's wife’s age was not known. Each woman is the FIRST wife of the husband.
  • Bathsheba Bigler was 15 years old in 1841 when she married George A. Smith (24).
  • Lucy Harris was 16 years old in 1808 when she married Martin Harris (25).
  • Vilate Murray was 16 years old in 1822 when she married Heber C. Kimball (21).
  • Julia A Jolley was 16 years old in 1831 when she married David Whitmer (26).
  • Susan Armelda Poteet was 16 years old in 1832 when she married Luke S. Johnson (26).
  • Maria Louisa Tanner was 17 years old in 1835 when she married Amasa M. Lyman (22).
  • Catherine Whitmer was 18 years old in 1825 when she married Hiram Page (25).
  • Sarah Long was 18 years old in 1834 when she married Lyman E. Johnson (22).
  • Sarah Marinda Bates was 19 years old in 1836 when she married Orson Pratt (24).
  • Ruth Moon was 19 years old in 1836 when she married William Clayton (22).
  • Artemesia Beman was 19 years old in 1838 when she married Erastus Snow (20).
  • Jane Snyder was 19 years old in 1842 when she married Franklin D. Richards (21).
  • Lucy Mack was 21 years old in 1796 when she married Joseph Smith, Sr (24).
  • Elizabeth Godkin was 21 years old in 1820 when she married Thomas B. Marsh (21).
  • Jerusha Barden was 21 years old in 1826 when she married Hyrum Smith (26).
  • Phoebe Ann Babcock was 21 years old in 1828 when she married David W. Patten (29).
  • Betsey Thompson was 21 years old in 1831 when she married John E. Page (34).
  • Caroline Amanda Grant was 21 years old in 1833 when she married William Smith (21).
  • Marinda Nancy Johnson was 21 years old in 1834 when she married Orson Hyde (29).
  • Jennetta Richards was 21 years old in 1838 when she married Willard Richards (34).
  • Harriet Benton was 22 years old in 1823 when she married Lyman Wight (26).
  • Elizabeth Schott was 22 years old in 1825 when she married Jacob Whitmer (25).
  • Emma Hale was 22 years old in 1827 when she married Joseph Smith (21).
  • Elizabeth Ann Whitmer was 22 years old in 1832 when she married Oliver Cowdery (26).
  • Miriam Works was 23 years old in 1824 when she married Brigham Young (23).
  • Pamelia Andrus was 23 years old in 1832 when she married Ezra T. Benson (21).
  • Ann Schott was 24 years old in 1825 when she married Christian Whitmer (27).
  • Sarah Jackson was 24 years old in 1833 when she married John Whitmer (30).
  • Sarah DeArmon Pea was 24 years old in 1838 when she married Charles C. Rich (28).
  • Vashti Higley was 25 years old in 1832 when she married Peter Whitmer, Jr (23).
  • Mary Bailey was 26 years old in 1834 when she married Samuel H. Smith (26).
  • Thankful Halsey was 30 years old in 1827 when she married Parley P. Pratt (20).
  • Phoebe Whittemore Carter was 30 years old in 1837 when she married Wilford Woodruff (30).
  • Susannah Lowell was 32 years old in 1836 when she married John F. Boynton (24).
  • Mary Adaline Goddard was 33 years old in 1845 when she married Lorenzo Snow (31).
  • Leonora Cannon was 36 years old in 1833 when she married John Taylor (24).
Cynthia Ann (maiden name and birth date unknown) in 1829 married William E. McLellan (23).

The average age of marriage for the women in the sample is 22.1 years. The median age is 21 years.
The average age of marriage for the men in the sample is 25.0 years. The median age is 24.5 years.

Judge for yourself.
topic image
Dear Old Great Great Great Grandpa
Tuesday, Mar 31, 2009, at 08:09 AM
Original Author(s): Csd22
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
I went into Family Search the other day wanting to remember which of Lorenzo Snow's wives I am descended from. Subsequent searches of GGG grandpa Lorenzo on wikipedia yielded the following:

"Before leaving Nauvoo, Snow accepted the principle of plural marriage and took four wives: Charlotte Squires (age 20), Mary Adaline Goddard (age 32), Sarah Ann Prichard (age 18), and Harriet Amelia Squires (age 26). Snow would later take several more wives: Eleanor Houtz (age 14), Mary Elizabeth Houtz (younger sister of Eleanor), Caroline Horton (age 29), Sarah Minnie Ephamina (age 16). Snow also wed the 17-year-old Pheobe Woodruff, the daughter of Wilford Woodruff. Snow fathered the child Rhea Lucile Snow at the age of 83 while serving as president of the LDS Church."

Wow ! A new daddy at 83! While the church prophet! Rank does have its privileges. And sure enough...check out the ages of some of the wives.

The Salt Lake group is actually the splinter group... no matter how much they try to distance themselves from the FLDS.
topic image
What Exactly Is The "New And Everlasting Covenant"?
Tuesday, Jun 9, 2009, at 08:03 AM
Original Author(s): Jw The Inquizzinator
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
DandC Section 132: Section heading as found at http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/132
"THE DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, SECTION 132

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also plurality of wives. HC 5: 501–507. Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831.

1–6, Exaltation is gained through the new and everlasting covenant; 7–14, The terms and conditions of that covenant are set forth; 15–20, Celestial marriage and a continuation of the family unit enable men to become gods; 21–25, The strait and narrow way that leads to eternal lives; 26–27, Law given relative to blasphemy against the Holy Ghost; 28–39, Promises of eternal increase and exaltation made to prophets and saints in all ages; 40–47, Joseph Smith is given the power to bind and seal on earth and in heaven; 48–50, The Lord seals upon him his exaltation; 51–57, Emma Smith is counseled to be faithful and true; 58–66, Laws governing the plurality of wives are set forth. "
Verses 58-64:
"58 Now, as touching the law of the apriesthood, there are many things pertaining thereunto.

59 Verily, if a man be called of my Father, as was aAaron, by mine own voice, and by the voice of him that bsent me, and I have endowed him with the ckeys of the power of this priesthood, if he do anything in my name, and according to my law and by my word, he will not commit dsin, and I will justify him.

60 Let no one, therefore, set on my servant Joseph; for I will justify him; for he shall do the sacrifice which I require at his hands for his transgressions, saith the Lord your God.

61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood–if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse aanother, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

62 And if he have aten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.

63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to amultiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be bglorified.

64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law."
Of course getting a prophet or GA to actually define the "new and everlasting covenant" and whether plural marriage is included in the mix is about as easy/hard as grabbing a greased pig...

and I guess non-virgin women need not apply

DandC Sec 22 also contains the words "a new and an everlasting covenant" but that is talking about baptiam..and it was writtenin 1830. That little catch phrase was expanded to include eternal marriage. Polygamy is veiled in any talk of eternal marriage [go find any GA that has ever said polygamy is evil or polygamy is excluded from eternal marriage].

Nowadays the "new and everlasting covenant" is described as the "fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ" http://scriptures.lds.org/en/gs/n/19 which doesn't overtly include or preclude polygamy.

An accurate reading of the intro shows the truth. Let's see what the preamble actually says:
"Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also plurality of wives."
OK, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, INCLUDING (that is, "which includes") eternity of marriage covenant, AS ALSO (that is, "which also includes") plurality of wives.

That's what the language actually means in English.
topic image
Average Marriage Age in the 1800's - My Own Research
Friday, Aug 28, 2009, at 08:00 AM
Original Author(s): Leaving
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
One thing I have learned is that I can't trust the LDS Church to ever tell the whole story. In fact when its history is concerned, I think what is reported is really wishful thinking and not fact.

I have been told too many times that we shouldn't judge Joseph Smith by our standards (the irony of that statement is for another thread). His marriages to teenagers are often justified by citing the average marriage age back then as being 15 or 16 years old for girls.

I decided to conduct my own research to see if these claims had merit. In order to not “cherry pick” I decided to choose for my sample LDS prophets and apostles who were married before the Church came to Utah. I included William Clayton to replace William E. McLellan because his wife’s age was not known. Each woman is the first wife of the husband.

Bathsheba Bigler was 15 years old in 1841 when she married George A. Smith (24).
Lucy Harris was 16 years old in 1808 when she married Martin Harris (25).
Vilate Murray was 16 years old in 1822 when she married Heber C. Kimball (21).
Julia A Jolley was 16 years old in 1831 when she married David Whitmer (26).
Susan Armelda Poteet was 16 years old in 1832 when she married Luke S. Johnson (26).
Maria Louisa Tanner was 17 years old in 1835 when she married Amasa M. Lyman (22).
Catherine Whitmer was 18 years old in 1825 when she married Hiram Page (25).
Sarah Long was 18 years old in 1834 when she married Lyman E. Johnson (22).
Sarah Marinda Bates was 19 years old in 1836 when she married Orson Pratt (24).
Ruth Moon was 19 years old in 1836 when she married William Clayton (22).
Artemesia Beman was 19 years old in 1838 when she married Erastus Snow (20).
Jane Snyder was 19 years old in 1842 when she married Franklin D. Richards (21).
Lucy Mack was 21 years old in 1796 when she married Joseph Smith, Sr (24).
Elizabeth Godkin was 21 years old in 1820 when she married Thomas B. Marsh (21).
Jerusha Barden was 21 years old in 1826 when she married Hyrum Smith (26).
Phoebe Ann Babcock was 21 years old in 1828 when she married David W. Patten (29).
Betsey Thompson was 21 years old in 1831 when she married John E. Page (34).
Caroline Amanda Grant was 21 years old in 1833 when she married William Smith (21).
Marinda Nancy Johnson was 21 years old in 1834 when she married Orson Hyde (29).
Jennetta Richards was 21 years old in 1838 when she married Willard Richards (34).
Harriet Benton was 22 years old in 1823 when she married Lyman Wight (26).
Elizabeth Schott was 22 years old in 1825 when she married Jacob Whitmer (25).
Emma Hale was 22 years old in 1827 when she married Joseph Smith (21).
Elizabeth Ann Whitmer was 22 years old in 1832 when she married Oliver Cowdery (26).
Miriam Works was 23 years old in 1824 when she married Brigham Young (23).
Pamelia Andrus was 23 years old in 1832 when she married Ezra T. Benson (21).
Ann Schott was 24 years old in 1825 when she married Christian Whitmer (27).
Sarah Jackson was 24 years old in 1833 when she married John Whitmer (30).
Sarah DeArmon Pea was 24 years old in 1838 when she married Charles C. Rich (28).
Vashti Higley was 25 years old in 1832 when she married Peter Whitmer, Jr (23).
Mary Bailey was 26 years old in 1834 when she married Samuel H. Smith (26).
Thankful Halsey was 30 years old in 1827 when she married Parley P. Pratt (20).
Phoebe Whittemore Carter was 30 years old in 1837 when she married Wilford Woodruff (30).
Susannah Lowell was 32 years old in 1836 when she married John F. Boynton (24).
Mary Adaline Goddard was 33 years old in 1845 when she married Lorenzo Snow (31).
Leonora Cannon was 36 years old in 1833 when she married John Taylor (24).

Cynthia Ann (maiden name and birth date unknown) in 1829 married William E. McLellan (23).

The average age difference between a teenage bride and her husband was 4.9 years. The largest age difference between a teenage bride and her husband was 10 years.

The average age of marriage for the women in the sample is 22.1 years. The median age is 21 years.
The average age of marriage for the men in the sample is 25.0 years. The median age is 24.5 years.
topic image
My Mormon Genealogy Sure Is Interesting
Tuesday, Aug 3, 2010, at 07:37 AM
Original Author(s): Makurosu
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
I've been playing around on http://pilot.familysearch.org the last few days, and I've found quite a bit of information about my ancestry that I did not have before. It's all the seedy stuff, of course, that my Mormon ancestors have conveniently left out of books of remembrance. I'm starting to have a pretty good collection of stories about my Mormon ancestors, and it never gets dull. Not like my father's ancestry. My Dad joined the Mormon church in his 30s and his ancestry is pretty boring. No running around. No crazy behavior. Not even a divorce. My Mom's ancestry is 100% true blue Mormon back seven generations. Every line goes through polygamy in some way. It's one sordid tale after another. A trip through Mom's genealogy is like reading a Harlequin Romance.

Here's one. My Danish ancestor Johan Peter Ottesen married a rich jewish girl named Mette Marie Christensdatter - the same day their first born son was christened. Mette's parents weren't very thrilled about the character of Mr. Ottesen, so they gave her a cow so they wouldn't starve and cut her out of the will. Five kids later, Mette became ill. So, they hired a "strong girl" to take care of them. Before long, Johan Peter and Mette Marie were divorced, and Johan Peter was married to the "strong girl." Her name was Maren Christiana Sorensen, btw.

Naturally, Johan Peter Ottesen joined the Mormon church. However, he never made it to Utah. He and his eldest son died of some disease they picked up in New Orleans while on the trek to Utah. Enter another ancestor of mine, Rasmus Nielsen Jeppesen. Rasmus's wife Anne had died at sea on the way to Utah, so he was quite single. Rasmus became good friends with the "strong girl." Such good friends that they were married as soon as they reached Utah.

Rasmus had quite a harem. Over his lifetime, he married six women. He was pretty good at the acquisition. Rasmus used to go down to Emigration canyon when the pioneer companies came in to trawl for widows. You know, to take them in out of the cold. Rasmus was a nice guy like that.

Well, Johan Peter's and Mette Marie's daughter Ellen Katherine had been raised by her stepmother Maren, the "strong girl" who had married Rasmus. When Katherine got to be about 16, she was under a lot of pressure to marry. You know, because family values are real important to Mormons. All the old polygamists in the town were coming by to see her. So, she decided to marry her stepfather Rasmus, because at least she knew him. She endured a few years of that and had two children by him before she went screaming off into the night, abandoning her children and leaving the Church. She was the town pariah for many years for that. Katherine was remembered as a sad old woman wandering around town, picking up sticks. My great grandfather admired her and sang at her funeral. The hymn he sang was "Let Us Oft Speak Kind Words To Each Other."

Dad's non-Mormon side of the family. Hmm.. let's see. Joseph Simpson. Joe Simpson was a painter living in Stockport, Cheshire, England. He was married one time. He had 8 kids. He brought his family to America in 1904. As part of his naturalization, he signed a paper saying that he was not going to practice polygamy. Why would anyone do that? He settled in Ohio, painted houses and died at age 87. How boring.

Mom's side of the family. Severin Johansen was a Norwegian stonemason who traveled from job to job between Norway and Denmark. Severin was married three times. The first wife was Maren Jensdatter. Their first child was christened 11 days after the wedding. He had four children with Maren. The last child was christened about six months after the birth of his first child from his second wife Else. Maren lived in Vrejlev. Else lived in a different town, Taars. Both children were named "Johan." Severin's father's name was "Johan." He had three children with his second wife Else and then she died. Next, he married Bodil Marie Christensdatter. Mormon records show that Bodil was more than 40 years younger than Severin. That's just wishful Mormon thinking. Actually, she was only 29 years younger - but she was 8 years younger than Severin's eldest daughter, so Mormon pervs should be pleased about that.

Severin's youngest daughter Dora was born in the poorhouse in Taars. She was 46 years younger than Severin's eldest daughter. Dora told my grandmother a story about how when her father learned of her birth, he was at sea. He immediately started for home, but was caught in a blizzard in a forest on the way and froze to death. He never got to see his baby or even know if it was a boy or a girl. Touching. Problem is, he died in the county hospital in Hjorring when she was about a year old. Oh well. With critical thinking like that, naturally Dora joined the Mormon church and moved to Utah with her mother and cousin. The mother and cousin settled in Idaho. Dora married an Englishman named James Albert Weaver and lived in Brigham City. Her daughter Harriet married one of John Taylor's sons. (That's a big deal in my family for some reason.)

One day, Dora's mother and cousin came to visit. Or I should say, her cousin came. Dora's mother had died, and her cousin didn't know what to do, so she pulled a Clark Griswold and tied the body to her wagon and drove it to Dora's house in Utah. By then, of course, the body was beginning to decompose and had flies. Dora said "WTF! Eww!" and buried the body. She never spoke to her cousin again. One day years later, Harriet and her sister saw the cousin at Lagoon, and they hugged and cried. This is why Lagoon is so awesome.

Dad's side of the family. Michael Foit came to America from Bavaria sometime before 1846 with his wife Mary. They settled in Lawrence County, Ohio, worked for the coal company and lived out their lives. His son ran a saloon which became a local bakery in the town of Ironton. There was a knife fight outside the saloon once. Another son was drafted into the Civil War, but never saw any action. Michael died in 1904. Of boredom, clearly.

I have many, many stories of craziness like these on my Mom's Mormon side of the family. Very little on my Dad's non-Mormon side. It's not just when they became Mormon. My Mom's ancestors were crazy long before they joined the Mormon church. Like the ancestor who went to Georgia with his brothers after the Revolutionary War was over to claim land bounties. To my knowledge, they did not fight in any wars, and certainly not in Georgia. Ten years later, their lands were auctioned off by the government, but they were long gone outside the United States among the french-speaking people of the Ste. Genevieve colony in Missouri. A few years later, the Mormons rolled through into Far West, and....... that's right! They joined the Mormon church! As you can see, Mormons are among the very, very elect.

I love genealogy. :-)
topic image
FAIR Changes Their Doctrine Of Polygamy
Thursday, Sep 2, 2010, at 12:16 PM
Original Author(s): Willy Law
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
No wonder people who go to FAIR and FARMS for answers end up apostate. Below is a list FAIR put out on the accomplishments of polygamy. The list is repulsive on many levels. Below that is the new list they have put out. Notice how item 8 has completely changed. The list is a joke even with the change, item 12 proves Joseph stole wive's after sending husbands on missions.
Any such list as this is tentative. But, it reminds us plural marriage may have accomplished more than we sometimes appreciate. Some benefits which have been suggested include:

1. It was to try (prove) His people. Polygamy stood as an Abrahamic test for the saints. The willingness to obey a commandment that was inherently distasteful to the vast majority of the members of the Church allowed members to draw close to the Lord.

2. It was to "raise up" righteous seed. Specifically it allowed a relatively few righteous men to become very prolific in a time when the West was very wild and there were many unrighteous men. Children were raised in more households with a strong gospel commitment.

3. It served to "set apart" his people as a peculiar people to the world. This social isolation that gave the church space to solidify itself into an identity independent of the many denominations from which the membership was derived. Sociologists have discovered that in order for a religion to successfully grow it has to be demanding and it has to experience a moderate amount of tension with its host society. The RLDS Church rejected plural marriage, and perhaps not coincidentally are now small in number and virtually indistinguishable from Protestants.

4. Polygamy was part of the "restoration of all things," and a way for Mormons to feel connected with prophets like Abraham and Jacob. 19th century Mormons gained a greater appreciation for covenants that these forefathers made with God.

5. Numerous family ties that were created, building a network of associations that strengthened the Church.

6. Arguably polygamy affected higher natural growth rates. Ironically plural wives had fewer children than their monogamous Mormon counterparts. [2]

7. Polygamy created a system where a higher percentage of women and men got married compared to the national average at the time. [3]

8. Plural marriages increased competition in the marriage market, so the "spiritual slackers" and lower quality men had to work to improve their standing to compete. They had to clean up, try to get good jobs and treat the women with respect. It gave the women more options as to whom to marry.

9.Out on the frontier in 19th century life expectancy was low and women were not as economically independent as they are today. Therefore there were many widows (and orphans coming of age) that needed to be taken care of. Some women who joined the Church abroad immigrated without their husbands, leaving them without male financial support. Furthermore, Brigham Young instituted the most liberal divorce policy in the country so women (but not men!) could get out of unhappy marriages. Kathryn Daynes estimated that 30% of plural marriages came from married-before women. [4]

10. Church Historian Elder Jensen observed how Mormon polygamy enabled women more freedom to earn college degrees and join national women's rights organizations at the time. [5]

11. Polygamy helped integrate foreign immigrants into Mormon society. With the marriage market operating so efficiently, women were highly sought after, and so Utah men had to sometimes marry outside their preferred cultural boundaries. This provided a great way to redistribute the wealth to the immigrants families coming. [6]

12. Plural marriages provided a social support network while the husbands were off on missions.
New List:
1. It was to try (prove) His people. Polygamy stood as an Abrahamic test for the saints. The willingness to obey a commandment that was inherently distasteful to the vast majority of the members of the Church allowed members to draw close to the Lord.

2. It was to "raise up" righteous seed. Specifically it allowed a relatively few righteous men to become very prolific in a time when the West was very wild and there were many unrighteous men. Children were raised in more households with a strong gospel commitment.

3. It served to "set apart" his people as a peculiar people to the world. This social isolation that gave the church space to solidify itself into an identity independent of the many denominations from which the membership was derived. Sociologists have discovered that in order for a religion to successfully grow it has to be demanding and it has to experience a moderate amount of tension with its host society. The RLDS Church rejected plural marriage, and perhaps not coincidentally are now small in number and virtually indistinguishable from Protestants.

4. Polygamy was part of the "restoration of all things," and a way for Mormons to feel connected with prophets like Abraham and Jacob. 19th century Mormons gained a greater appreciation for covenants that these forefathers made with God.

5. Numerous family ties that were created, building a network of associations that strengthened the Church.

6. Arguably polygamy affected higher natural growth rates. Ironically plural wives had fewer children than their monogamous Mormon counterparts. [2]

7. Polygamy created a system where a higher percentage of women and men got married compared to the national average at the time. [3]

8. Katheryn Daynes makes the point that in nineteenth century Utah, more women arranged to hold temple recommends and receive their endowments. That is, female rates of temple-worthiness (or, at least, being willing to take the time and effort to get a recommend and actually go to the temple) were higher than male rates. And, these rates didn't really change much, regardless of how common plural marriage was (and, so, these higher rates cannot have been caused by plural marriage). Thus, women in Utah were in a difficult situation--more of them were willing and able to have temple sealings/eternal marriage than there were men willing and able to do so. Plural marriage changed this dynamic enormously. One temple-worthy man being married would not take that man out of the "potential married partners pool." This allowed more members to have temple marriages, sealings, and the blessings that came with these ordinances.

9. Out on the frontier in 19th century life expectancy was low and women were not as economically independent as they are today. Therefore there were many widows (and orphans coming of age) that needed to be taken care of. Some women who joined the Church abroad immigrated without their husbands, leaving them without male financial support. Furthermore, Brigham Young instituted the most liberal divorce policy in the country so women (but not men!) could get out of unhappy marriages. Kathryn Daynes estimated that 30% of plural marriages came from married-before women. [4]

10. Church Historian Elder Jensen observed how Mormon polygamy enabled women more freedom to earn college degrees and join national women's rights organizations at the time. [5]

11. Polygamy helped integrate foreign immigrants into Mormon society. With the marriage market operating so efficiently, women were highly sought after, and so Utah men had to sometimes marry outside their preferred cultural boundaries. This provided a great way to redistribute the wealth to the immigrants families coming. [6]

12. Plural marriages provided a social support network while the husbands were off on missions.
topic image
Years Ago, I Fell Into The Libertarian Trap
Wednesday, Sep 29, 2010, at 08:40 AM
Original Author(s): Troy
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
When I first got into philosophy, I thought I had a great insight. I argued that if we legalized polygamy, it would come out in the open and we could then target the "real" abuses. I had to abandon that theory rather quickly as it is loaded with inconsistency. Adding liberty to the situation does nothing to ensure justice. This is one of libertarianism's most severe failings.

Think of life, liberty and happiness as human rights (since we already do). These rights become invalid the moment someone uses one against the other. The ruling principle is justice, which preserves the balance of these rights. When someone exercises too much of one right, it throws the balance of justice out of whack.

Human rights are strictly an individual matter. We can't add our individual rights together as a group to make them more powerful. Groups don't have human rights, and human rights are supreme above all other rights.

Matters concerning one's body fall under the heading of the right to life. So nobody can claim to be exercising their right to liberty if it compromises someone's right to life. If liberty is not equal, there is no balance, or, justice. Groups do not have religious rights. Only individuals have the right to religious freedom. So a group cannot prevail when the rights of an individual are compromised.

Mormon fundamentalists are not necessarily asking for religious liberty in the case of polygamy. What they actually want is to make polygamy a moral imperative in their society, and to them this imperative has more weight than the force of any law. But we can't allow that. Nobody can use their right to religious liberty to threaten the rights of anyone else. But under a societal imperative to practice polygamy, that is exactly what is happening. While men set about collecting as many wives as possible, women are put into the position of being morally obligated to ensure the religious liberties of the men, even if they don't want to. We all know what happens next. When the number of available women diminishes, then underage girls are put under pressure to marry whether they want to or not. Under these conditions, women are constantly under duress and therefore their ability to give consent is anything but clear. So not only are the underage girls under obvious pressure to abandon part of their right to life and virtually all of their right to liberty, adult women don't escape this pressure either. It only looks less offensive because they are adults; but nobody is going to convince me that they are in a position to give proper consent. They are groomed for the position of having lesser rights than men. It is inherent and unavoidable in Mormon-based polygamy. So legalizing polygamy in the interest of religious liberty is completely contradictory and therefore unjust. Under our system of government, everyone must have equal rights and we are obligated to immediately correct any situation that compromises this equality. To do otherwise is tyrannical and contrary to the American ideal.

Plural marriage is backward and injurious to the concept of equal human rights. We can never legalize it. Case closed.
topic image
The Allreds On Living And Leaving Polygamy
Wednesday, Nov 17, 2010, at 07:35 AM
Original Author(s): Jon Adams
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-

Sunday evening, I attended a presentation at the University of Utah by one of my favorite high school history teachers, Vance Allred. He and his wife recounted their experiences of living in a polygamous cult, and explained why they brought their family out of polygamy in 1993.

Vance prefaced his life story by giving a historical overview of Mormon polygamy. He noted that Joseph Smith first addressed the issue of polygamy in the Book of Mormon, where the practice is conditionally condemned. Several years later, Joseph Smith received a revelation (Dandamp;C 132) that “celestial marriage” (polygamy) is a commandment and required for exaltation.

Polygamy was secretly practiced by Joseph Smith as early as 1833, and practiced to greater extent nearly a decade later in Nauvoo. Once in the Utah territory, free from mob violence and federal reach, the LDS Church began to openly practice polygamy.

Vance then detailed the historical events that resulted in the church’s abandonment of polygamy. There was a series of federal laws passed to outlaw polygamy. Among the first the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, signed by Abraham Lincoln. The most draconian law was the 1887 Edmunds-Tucker Act, which disincorporated the LDS Church, dissolved its assets, and resulted in the imprisonment of many prominent Mormons. These and similar laws were deemed constitutional as per Reynolds v. United States, the case in which the Supreme Court ruled polygamy was not a protected religious practice.

Under such legal and political duress, LDS Church President Wilford Woodruff issued the 1890 Manifesto–an official denunciation of polygamy. (Polygamy, though, wasn’t really discontinued until the Second Manifesto in 1904, during the Reed Smoot hearings.)

Mormon polygamists believe that the mainstream LDS Church has been in apostasy since 1890. One evidence of this that polygamists use, and which Vance’s father was fond of citing, is that Joseph Smith identified 1890/1891 as likely years for Christ’s Second Coming. But because the church abandoned polygamy in 1890, these predictions never came to fruition. Or so the argument goes.

Vance also debunked several popular myths regarding 19th-century Mormon polygamy.

Myth: “There were all these extra women who needed to be cared for.” In truth, there was always a shortage of women.

Myth: “The Church needed large numbers of children quickly.” Monogamous wives, however, actually bore more children than their polygamous counterparts–an average of 8 children compared to the polygamous wives’ 5.9.

Myth: “Polygamy was only an incidental part of Mormonism.” An analysis of 19th-century Mormon literature shows that only the topics of Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith were mentioned more than polygamy. Its importance notwithstanding, he asserted that relatively few Mormons (an estimated 7%) engaged in polygamy. This disagrees with the late historian Richard Van Wagoner’s estimate of about 25%.

So what, then, accounts for the practice of polygamy? Vance said he suspects that much of early Mormon polygamy was and most of modern day polygamy is sex-driven.

After this discussion of the origins and history of Mormon polygamy, he shared his own personal history with polygamy.

Vance Allred was raised in one of the most famous polygamist families. His father, Rulon C. Allred, was the leader/prophet of a 9,000-member strong polygamous sect, now called the Apostolic United Brethren. Rulon had 7 wives (all of whom he wooed with identical love letters), and at least 48 children. On May 10, 1977, he was assassinated on the orders of Ervil LeBaron, head of a rival sect. This made headlines nationwide.

Growing up in a polygamous family was difficult for Vance. His family was scattered across various states in order to disguise their practice of polygamy. He was also not allowed to invite childhood friends over to the house for fear of outing the family as polygamists.

At 19, his father arranged for him to marry a 16-year-old girl, Tana. Vance was initially resistant, because he was already in love with a girl he met at the University of Utah. His father reassured him that, “If you marry enough women, you’ll get all the attributes you want.”

Eventually, though, Vance feel madly in love with Tana. While a polygamist, he married a couple more women, but his love for Tana was never diminished. And when they left polygamy, they left together. Vance and Tana have been happily married for 39 years.

They moved to Montana with many others in the Allred group to establish the Kingdom of God and await the Second Coming of Christ, which they believed was imminent. There, they lived the communal Law of Consecration, whereby all possessions were shared among the church. Vance reports that those years were the happiest of his life, because there was an intoxicating sense of purpose, belonging, and community.

When he wasn’t busy building the Kingdom of God, he was busy getting a secular education. Vance studied history at the University of Montana. In 1984, he finished his senior thesis, “Mormon Polygamy and the Manifesto of 1890: A study of Hegemony and Social Conflict.” It was the first historical treatment of the 1890 Manifesto and a robust theological defense of polygamy. Mormon fundamentalists still refer to it today.

Tana Allred then spoke briefly about the struggles of being a woman in polygamy. She recalls wrestling with insecurities that were magnified by having to ‘compete’ for her husband’s love. When she lost weight due to stress and depression, she was chastised by her mother and grandmother for giving the public appearance that living polygamously was anything but “celestial.”

She mentioned, as an interesting aside, that one of Vance’s nieces is on “Sister Wives”, a new reality TV show on TLC that features a polygamist family in Lehi, Utah. And behind the happy facade displayed for the cameras, Tana claims her niece is privately unhappy. (This may well be true, but I’m uncomfortable with these kind of accusations. People sometimes say the same of atheists and homosexuals.)

In 1993, Vance discovered that a number of the apostles were guilty of incest and child molestation. He concluded that these men could not be men of god and that the church they headed was a fraud. Upon this discovery, he and his family immediately left the Allred group.

The decision to leaveandnbsp;wasn’t difficult, but the process was. The police helped them go into hiding in Salt Lake City. The transition from a polygamous cult to ‘normal’ society overwhelmed the family at times. Shortly after the move to Salt Lake, for instance, Vance was admitted to a local hospital on suicide watch.

Tana said that each family member needed a “year of healing.” Now, 17 years later, they have all successfully acclimated to their new lives. Vance and Tana are members of the mainstream LDS Church, but most of their kids are inactive or disbelieving. This isn’t a source of familial conflict for the Allreds, however. They respect their kids’ divergent paths.

“My father clipped my and my siblings’ wings,” Vance said, “I won’t do that to my kids. I’ll let them fly.”

And fly they have. Their children are leading fulfilling and successful lives, from studying medicine to playing in the NBA.

http://usu-shaft.com/2010/the-allreds...
topic image
Abuse, Incest, Coercion - Hallmarks Of Polygamy Mormon Style
Wednesday, Dec 8, 2010, at 08:59 AM
Original Author(s): Nightingale
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
Sexual and physical abuse, including incest, and other well known abuses and negative effects are facts of life for many residents of Mormon Fundamentalist polygamy communes. Now we have video testimony from former members, submitted into evidence for the B.C. Court that is currently engaged in a landmark trial to determine the constitutionality of polygamy in Canada. (The Court doesn't have the power to change the law or uphold it but is tasked with advising legislators of its opinion/rulings after a two-month hearing).

Excerpts from the video are all over the TV news tonight, prior to it even being heard in court and the video is posted on the Net (to the chagrin of at least one witness who apparently didn't realize it would be made public; she has my sympathy).

In one excerpt I saw, Mary Mackert, former plural wife, said "my husband told me we had a 'secret and special love' and then I found out he had a secret and special love for my sister too, and my other sister, and my other sister, and ... so it wasn't so secret or so special after all".

Brent Jeffs, son of Warren Jeffs, grandson of Rulon, also testified. He spoke of the violence in the polygamous communities. He also said that his grandfather had over 300 grandchildren. His only contact with his gf, he said, was a few times when he was allowed to shake his hand and say hello, but his gf "didn't know my name".

I hope there is widespread media coverage of this. As one of the lawyers for an anti-polygamy group said, there is a lot of information to come out about the harms inherent in this type of polygamy and "the public shouldn't be shielded from it".

As much as the mainstream Mormon Church wishes to remove itself from association with the FLDS, they share a founding 'prophet' and use the same scriptures and LDS past practices and current doctrine are identical to that of the FLDS. As I've stated before, former FLDS members I have spoken with self-identify as 'Mormon'.

If this type of headline news carries on, which it seems likely to, given the scheduled seven more weeks of trial to come and intense local media interest, surely it must have a huge impact on proselytizing efforts throughout B.C. Never have Mormonism and polygamy been so closely aligned in our modern era. I don't give the mishies knocking at doors in any neighbourhood much chance of finding anyone interested in joining and I would advise that they sharpen their skills at answering - or deflecting - the many questions this issue raises. Maybe, just maybe, you could explain away the practice of ageing men 'marrying' teenagers, but how can one support or excuse the systemic abuses that have been alleged for years, now being testified to by numerous people who were there and experienced and observed it firsthand? It has been historically difficult to find witnesses who would agree to testify. Maybe that has now permanently changed. It could lead to charges perhaps for some of these alleged incidents but also could encourage others to come forward to address their own experiences with abusive men and women (such as 'stepmothers', sadly). Here's hoping.

One thing I am not certain of is how much physical and sexual abuse occurred within the polygamy of JS. Is this apparently widespread and ongoing scourge of abuse a perversion in our day or is it inherently intertwined with this type of living arrangement, going all the way back to JS?

It's great that these former members have a huge platform from which to relate their experiences. I hope every single one of them receives any resources they need to recover, heal and move on to more enjoyable times. Their willingness to relate their experiences, despite pain and the sensitive nature of the material, will help the Court, others in the communes, and our society. That is quite a legacy they have to offer.

Video of some of the testimony (including one of Winston Blackmore's former wives):

http://www.globaltvbc.com/video/index...

Link to the Global TV News site, in case the other doesn't get you there (scroll down to video links, left hand side and select polygamy testimony):

http://www.globaltvbc.com/

Article on impact of polygamy on women (hint: it ain't great news for females!):

http://www.globaltvbc.com/entertainme...

Excerpt:

"[Dr. Shoshana Grossbard], a professor of economics at San Diego State University, was called as a witness by the Christian Legal Fellowship, a group opposing the legalization of polygamy.

"The professor told B.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Bauman that there were a number of unintended consequences if Canada allowed polygamy.

“Were Canada to legalize polygamy one can expect that this would negatively affect education achievement (for women) wherever polygamy is found in the urban centres,” she said.

“It would also cause all women to be under the constant threat their husbands are going to take another wife.”

"Grossbard said more competition for scarce women by men leaves many men unmarried, resulting in social problems, such as crime.

“In the cultures and societies worldwide that have embraced it, polygamy is associated with undesirable economic, societal, physical, psychological and emotional factors related to women’s wellbeing,” she said."

NG says: I hope the judge pays attention to the women and men who have lived in these communes and to the experts who actually know what they're talking about (unlike some I have heard speak).

Just as with Mormonism, to understand the depths of some of this stuff, one has to have lived it or at least seen it up close over a sustained period of time.

[OK, I think I'm done editing now. I initially posted this in a rush and then came back to revise it to add more info and to write more precise comments than I managed originally].
topic image
Doctrine And Covenants Section 132 - The Everlasting Covenant Of Plural Marriage
Monday, Mar 28, 2011, at 07:58 AM
Original Author(s): The Man In Black
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
The new and everlasting covenant of marriage is and always was, the new and everlasting covenant of PLURAL marriage. There is no room for any other interpretation of this. Go read it!

How can members not see this? How could I not see this? I'm sure many of you sharper individuals already knew this, but I only found it today. It literally says you can't go to the Celestial kingdom if you're not a polygamist. AND IT'S STILL CANNON SCRIPTURE!

Header: "Exaltation is gained through the new and everlasting covenant..."

"Abraham received concubines and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness."

"David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses..."

"Let mine handmaid, Emma Smith receive all those that have been given to Joseph."

"And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him..."

"I reveal unto you a new and everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant then ye are damned."

That's right. It says if you're not a polygamist you are damned. and it's sitting right there IN PLAIN SIGHT!

In his official manifesto on polygamy Wilford Woodruff stated, "As president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, [I] do hereby, in the most solemn manner, declare that these charges are false. We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage." (October 6 1890, General Conference).

There are only two possible conclusions. If the Church really is true then all of it's members are damned for not abiding the new and everlasting covenant of boning ten hot virgins. Or, that the Church ceased to be true in 1890. I see no other possible conclusions.

Don't show your T.B.M acquaintances anti-Mormon anything. Make them read section 132 of the DandC from start to finish and ask them to define "new and everlasting covenant."
topic image
Doctrine And Covenants 132 Assures Us That There Is No Promise Of Exaltation In The LDS Church
Monday, Aug 8, 2011, at 07:07 AM
Original Author(s): Jod3:360
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
DandC 132 assures us that there is no promise of Exaltation in the LDS church.

Today, the church teaches that all marriages must be performed in the temple in order to have exaltation. Despite the fact that today 'exaltation' is said to mean to be with God, the Doctrine and Covenants explicitly states that exaltation means to become a god with all power and dominion.

Since the abandoning of Polygamy (plurality of wives) the church has claimed that 'celestial marriage' is simply to be married and sealed in the temple. Most people believe that this is true. The church uses this to enforce its will upon the membership by claiming that they will lose their eternal family if they are disobedient or is they leave the faith.

A carefull reading of section 132 clearly states that plurality of wives is the ONLY way to secure an eternal life, exaltation and to become a god. This is why we have Fundamentalist Mormons. This is also why it is not a valid tool of coercion! Every Priesthood leader who tells you that you are losing your eternal family has already lost his unless he gets sealed to at least one additional wife during his life time.

Today the church will tell you that this is no longer in effect. The Official Declaration 1 clearly states that it is a political move to discontinue the practice and teaching of plurality of wives. It also provides excerpts of sermons that claim the Lord showed exactly the consequences if the practice was not stopped. And so it has stopped as far as the living.

HOWEVER- there was no revelation given, nor voted upon and canonized that changed the rules of Celestial Marriage and Exaltation. Therefore, if the revelation given in 132 is true, then the church is unable to provide the salvation and exaltation it promises. Its threats are empty, its teachings are moot.

Further, if the practice is suspended for the time being, then all who have lived since OD-1 was given have lost their promise.

Much is said about the church being true IF the Book of Mormon is true, but in reality the most important claims of divine authority lie within the contents of DandC 132. Were it not so, the lord would have had it ammended in scriptural form, instead of a mere suspension of the practice. The Law was never rescinded.

A few short but key verses from the Law of Exaltation and of becoming gods:

Doctrine and Covenants 132

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded 12 July 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, and also the plurality of wives (see History of the Church, 5:501–7). Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831.

1 - Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines–

2 - Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter.

3 - Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.

4 - For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an 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.

17 - For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.

19 - And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them–Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths–then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

AND THE PROMISE---

20 - Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

63 - But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.

So the next time that a Priesthood leader or family member condemns you or tries to frighten you regarding your eternal family or your living with God in the Celestial Kingdom, remind them that unless he the Priesthood holder lives longer than his wife and is sealed, he too will forfeit the promise, and the same for the women in our lives who hold these threats over our heads- unless she die before her husband and he is sealed in his lifetime, she too will lose out.

Let's review verse 17 again--For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.

If DandC 132 is true doctrine, then you must leave the LDS church and become a Fundamentalist or be damned.

If DandC is not binding as it is written, then you can walk away with a clear conscience and without fear, for the promise is false.
topic image
Opposition To Polygamy Is Not Simply Intolerance
Friday, Dec 16, 2011, at 01:28 PM
Original Author(s): Troy
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
A lot of people are quick to assume that my opposition to polygamy is due to intolerance of religion or the personal lives of others. Nothing could be further from the truth. Too often when we question the ethics of polygamy, the issue of adult liberties obscures other considerations. Rarely do we hear anyone speak of the rights of children or other society members who may be affected by such a pursuit.

It isn't about religion. I'm a cosmopolitan thinker. I welcome diversity and group solidarity. Religion is one of the most fascinating things about the human condition. But it's a mistake to avoid criticizing a behavior simply because it's an unusual cultural behavior. In ethics, particularly the cosmopolitan variety to which I ascribe, we have to look past cultural differences to identify actual human rights abuses. In anthropology, the emphasis is on observing culture without making moral judgments, but in ethics, moral judgments are the name of the game. It's all a matter of making appropriate moral judgments when the occasion arises. We can't refrain from making moral judgments. It's part of being human. But as the proverb says, judge not lest ye be judged. I interpret this to mean that there should be no hypocrisy in making judgments, but I don't think the proverb was intended to mean that we should refrain from making moral judgments altogether. I would know how to do that.

To ignore harms caused by some cultural activities is to be guilty of moral relativism. Again, we are not doing anthropology when we discuss ethics. Moral (cultural) relativism is a trap we should always avoid in ethics. When we forget this, we lose our ability to judge without hypocrisy. Some cultural practices are harmful indeed, like female genital mutilation, so appealing to culture is no excuse in moral matters. If that was not the case, we would be wrong to condemn slavery too.

When it comes to human rights and justice, morality is universal; not relative. We aren't going to turn our backs on anyone's human rights simply because they are part of a foreign culture. That's unacceptable. Cultural-bound moral ideas are part of the private moral sphere, whereas justice and human rights are public matters. So as long as someone's cultural practices don't harm anyone else's human rights, there is no problem and public morality is unaffected. The same goes for our private lives at home. As long as we aren't harming the rights of anyone else, what we do in private should remain beyond public scrutiny. But there is a line to draw. If anyone's private behavior puts someone else's human rights at risk, it is no longer a private matter. Crime is a public matter. Keeping the public and private realm differentiated is crucial when it comes to balancing everyone's rights You can do as you please as long as you harm no one else. But remember that even indirect harms bring harm to others. So we haveto prevent behaviors that even cause indirect harm, like polygamy in the case of "consenting adults only."

Polygamy causes indirect harms even in cases where everyone is a consenting adult. For one thing, nobody has the authority to engage in a practice that upsets the opportunity for everyone to have a spouse. This is what happens in polygamous societies. There will always be a limited number of women available to marry. And there will always be men who want to marry the available women. Nobody has the consent from general society to collect extra spouses from the pool. In a closed polygamous society, this causes severe shortages and men have to leave the society if they wish to marry. Nobody has consent to affect society this way. There is roughly enough for each person to have one spouse. That is equal. That is not excessive.

Certain human conditions are true everywhere, and that's why morality has to be universal. Your right to liberty and your right to be free from harm should be no more or less than that of anyone else, regardless of where you live and what is your cultural background. That's why we have to protect underage girls from being married off before they're capable of giving proper consent. When this happens, liberties are severely out of balance in favor of the adult man in the situation. Justice is impossible in such a situation. The man has taken liberties, but liberty is something the young girl will never know.

This feature of balanced liberties extends to religious liberties. My liberties in this regard end as soon as I compromise the liberties of anyone else. Steering children into a situation that forever restricts their religious liberties, so raising children to live a polygamous lifestyle according to your own religion is a threat to their own religious rights. In a just society, this should never be allowed to happen. If we didn't safeguard everyone's human rights this way, it would be pointless to claim that we have them. There are restrictions on what a person can do in the name of religion. If the law forbids it, that is the end of it. If the law is unjust, we can work with it but nobody has the right to break the law in the name of religion because the law is there to protect religious liberties in the first place. A decent society has more than just bare liberties. There are also liberties that come from having good governance. The point of justice is to ensure that everyone has an equal chance in life.And thus human rights must be universally-balanced for all.

Polygamy is a human rights concern. It deprives society of balanced liberties, which are the only liberties anyone has the right to have. When religion is the motivating force behind it, the injustices are guaranteed. Decriminalizing polygamy in the name of religious liberty is the worst reason of all, and for people who have no religious motivation behind their practice of polygamy, why is it necessary? Why should we decriminalize a dangerous practice for the few who want to go against the grain? If you have an open marriage, you have something very different from religious polygamy. Secular folks who want to call this polygamy just don't give us a good reason for decriminalizing it either. Formal, legal polygamy is just not a good move for a society and secular polygamists have not proven that it is. And religiously-motivated polygamy is a huge risk to human rights anyway

Prohibiting polygamy is not religious intolerance. There is no reason to assume that polygamy should be considered a legitimate religious practice. We have to have rules and limits when it comes to religiously-justified activities. If we didn't, we'd have no religious rights to discuss.
topic image
What's The "Official" Stance On Polygamy In Heaven?
Thursday, Jan 3, 2013, at 07:40 AM
Original Author(s): Rpackham
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
Remember that the spokesman for the church, Richard Hinckley, was asked this specific question on the BBC interview (the one in which Apostle Jeffrey Holland insisted that he was "no dodo").

Hinckley's response was "we don't know."

If you ask present apostles Dallin Oaks or Russell Nelson, both of whom are sealed to more than one woman, they will tell you (and have publicly stated) that they expect to have both wives with them as wives in the CK.

Other recent statements from the prophets:

Joseph Fielding Smith, tenth president of the church (1970-1972) married Louise E. Shurtleff in 1898. She died in 1908. In 1908 he married Ethel G. Reynolds, who died in 1937. In 1938 he married Jessie Evans, who died in 1971. He was sealed "for eternity" to each of those women. Now, paraphrasing what the Pharisees asked Jesus: Which woman will be Smith's wife in the celestial kingdom? According to Mormon doctrine, ALL THREE will be his wives. Smith confirmed "...my wives will be mine in eternity.” (Doctrines of Salvation, vol 2, pg 67.)

Harold B. Lee, the 11th president of the church, also remarried after his wife's death and anticipated his reunion with both women in poetry:

"My lovely Joan was sent to me:
So Joan joins Fern
That three might be, more fitted for eternity.
'O Heavenly Father, my thanks to thee' "
(Deseret News 1974 Church Almanac, page 17)

Additional examples include Howard W. Hunter, the 14th church president, who married Clara May Jeffs in 1931. She died in 1983. He then married Inis Bernice Egan in 1990. Both were sealed to him for time and eternity. Hunter died in 1995, having stated that he was looking forward to being reunited with his two wives in heaven.

As for polyandry, the question has come up in doing proxy sealings for the dead, where a woman was married more than once. Church policy is to seal the woman to both men, with the understanding that she will have to choose in the CK which sealing (only one) she accepts. So, no polyandry.
topic image
Marriage At Age 14 Was Not Common - Apostles Who Were Married Before The Church Came To Utah
Thursday, Jan 31, 2013, at 08:24 AM
Original Author(s): Leaving
Topic: POLYGAMY   -Link To MC Article-
14 was not normal. This list comprises the LDS prophets and apostles who were married before the Church came to Utah. I included William Clayton to replace William E. McLellan because his wife’s age was not known. Each woman is the first wife of the husband.

Bathsheba Bigler was 15 years old in 1841 when she married George A. Smith (24).
Lucy Harris was 16 years old in 1808 when she married Martin Harris (25).
Vilate Murray was 16 years old in 1822 when she married Heber C. Kimball (21).
Julia A Jolley was 16 years old in 1831 when she married David Whitmer (26).
Susan Armelda Poteet was 16 years old in 1832 when she married Luke S. Johnson (26).
Maria Louisa Tanner was 17 years old in 1835 when she married Amasa M. Lyman (22).
Catherine Whitmer was 18 years old in 1825 when she married Hiram Page (25).
Sarah Long was 18 years old in 1834 when she married Lyman E. Johnson (22).
Sarah Marinda Bates was 19 years old in 1836 when she married Orson Pratt (24).
Ruth Moon was 19 years old in 1836 when she married William Clayton (22).
Artemesia Beman was 19 years old in 1838 when she married Erastus Snow (20).
Jane Snyder was 19 years old in 1842 when she married Franklin D. Richards (21).
Lucy Mack was 21 years old in 1796 when she married Joseph Smith, Sr (24).
Elizabeth Godkin was 21 years old in 1820 when she married Thomas B. Marsh (21).
Jerusha Barden was 21 years old in 1826 when she married Hyrum Smith (26).
Phoebe Ann Babcock was 21 years old in 1828 when she married David W. Patten (29).
Betsey Thompson was 21 years old in 1831 when she married John E. Page (34).
Caroline Amanda Grant was 21 years old in 1833 when she married William Smith (21).
Marinda Nancy Johnson was 21 years old in 1834 when she married Orson Hyde (29).
Jennetta Richards was 21 years old in 1838 when she married Willard Richards (34).
Harriet Benton was 22 years old in 1823 when she married Lyman Wight (26).
Elizabeth Schott was 22 years old in 1825 when she married Jacob Whitmer (25).
Emma Hale was 22 years old in 1827 when she married Joseph Smith (21).
Elizabeth Ann Whitmer was 22 years old in 1832 when she married Oliver Cowdery (26).
Miriam Works was 23 years old in 1824 when she married Brigham Young (23).
Pamelia Andrus was 23 years old in 1832 when she married Ezra T. Benson (21).
Ann Schott was 24 years old in 1825 when she married Christian Whitmer (27).
Sarah Jackson was 24 years old in 1833 when she married John Whitmer (30).
Sarah DeArmon Pea was 24 years old in 1838 when she married Charles C. Rich (28).
Vashti Higley was 25 years old in 1832 when she married Peter Whitmer, Jr (23).
Mary Bailey was 26 years old in 1834 when she married Samuel H. Smith (26).
Thankful Halsey was 30 years old in 1827 when she married Parley P. Pratt (20).
Phoebe Whittemore Carter was 30 years old in 1837 when she married Wilford Woodruff (30).
Susannah Lowell was 32 years old in 1836 when she married John F. Boynton (24).
Mary Adaline Goddard was 33 years old in 1845 when she married Lorenzo Snow (31).
Leonora Cannon was 36 years old in 1833 when she married John Taylor (24).

Cynthia Ann (maiden name and birth date unknown) in 1829 married William E. McLellan (23).

The average age difference between a teenage bride and her husband was 4.9 years. The largest age difference between a teenage bride and her husband was 10 years.

The average age of marriage for the women in the list is 22.1 years. The median age is 21 years.

The average age of marriage for the men in the list is 25.0 years. The median age is 24.5 years.
 
mcimg
HOME
FAQ
CONTACT ME
332 TOPICS
THE EX-MORMON FORUMS
MORMON RESIGNATION
Google
Search The
Mormon Curtain





MormonCurtain

How to navigate:
  • Click the subject below to go directly to the article.
  • Click the blue arrow on the article to return to the top.
  • Right-Click and copy the "-Guid-" (the Link Location URL) for a direct link to the page and article.
Archived Blogs:
Polygamy Was Never Legal
The Polygamy Contradiction
The Mormon Temple As A Lasting Relic Of Polygamy
TBMS Making Excuses For Joseph Smith's Polygamy
Prophets And Polygamy - Church Still Hides Truth For Image
Mormon Prophets Warn Of Evils Of Monogomy
Polygamy & The Sad Story Of Faithful Early Mormon Convert, Henry Jacobs
Mormon Polygamy Was Never Legal
Mormon Doctrine Flip Flops On Polygamy And Adultery
Randy Maudsley, "Apostle" Of The True & Living Church Of Jesus Christ (a Polygamous Group In Utah) Knows His Mormon Doctrine Better Than Gordon B. Hinckley
Hypocritical Lying Mormon Church Issues Yet Another Statement About HBO's "Big Love"
Polygamy: The Black Eye That Won't (and Can't) Go Away
"Big Love" Right Out Of The Current Mormon Teachings -- The New And Everlasting Covenant. Ordinance Still Practiced! How To Become Gods!
Church News Spin: Dancing Around Henry Jacobs (first And Only Legal Husband Of Zina)
The Evil Institution Of Monongamy
Should We Put Polygamists In Jail? For Polygamy?
The Doctrine Of Polygamy Is Still In The Mormon Scriptures
Polygamy, The Morg's Achilles Heel
Ah, Think Of Life In "Zion" During The Days Of The Pioneers
Apologists Claim D&C 101:4 (1835 Version) Is Not Revelation - That It Was Written By Oliver Cowdery, Not Joseph Smith
Yes, Faithful LDS (Not FLDS) Members - You Do Believe In Polygamy
Mormon Apostles And Teenager Brides
Here Are The Facts: The Mormon Church Headquartered In Salt Lake City Still Practices The Ordinance Of Plurality Of Wives By Covenant In Their Temples
The Dirty Little Secret (And Problem) Haunting The LDS Church
Yahoo Article On Polygamy And LDS Inc.'s Related PR Headaches
Current Deception Of The Church Re: Polygamy
Banking On Heaven - A Polygamy Trailer
Of Romneys, Kimballs, Eyrings, And Polygamy
Post Manifesto Polygamy And Church Deception
Mormon Apologists: There Was Only About 2% Of The Brethren In The Church Who Actually Practiced Polygamy
Mormons Are Still Polygamists
Mormon Church Says Monogamy Not Good Enough
No Man Can Inherit The Kingdom Of God With Only One Wife
Polygamy And Utah Statehood, 1886
Polygamy - 10 Quotes
The Long Time It Took To Realize What Polygamy Really Was, And Is
Pathology Abounds. Mormons Beware.
LDS Doctrine And Covenants Section 132 And The Texas Drama
Most Mormons Don't Notice The Polygamist Participants In Their Wards
With Reference To LDS Leaders Marrying Teens
Gordon B. Hinckley's Big Lie Re: The Percentage Of 19th Century Mormon Polygamists
Some Women Went Insane Because Of Polygamy
The FLDS Doesn't Seem That Different To Me From Early Mormon Utah
Why Don't Women In Polygamous Cults Simply Leave?
My Review Of Nauvoo Polygamy "But We Called It Celestial Marriage"
Mormon President Lorenzo Snow - 6 Of His 9 Wives Were Under 20 Years Of Age
Another Mormon Lie - The Average Marriage Age In The 1800's
Dear Old Great Great Great Grandpa
What Exactly Is The "New And Everlasting Covenant"?
Average Marriage Age in the 1800's - My Own Research
My Mormon Genealogy Sure Is Interesting
FAIR Changes Their Doctrine Of Polygamy
Years Ago, I Fell Into The Libertarian Trap
The Allreds On Living And Leaving Polygamy
Abuse, Incest, Coercion - Hallmarks Of Polygamy Mormon Style
Doctrine And Covenants Section 132 - The Everlasting Covenant Of Plural Marriage
Doctrine And Covenants 132 Assures Us That There Is No Promise Of Exaltation In The LDS Church
Opposition To Polygamy Is Not Simply Intolerance
What's The "Official" Stance On Polygamy In Heaven?
Marriage At Age 14 Was Not Common - Apostles Who Were Married Before The Church Came To Utah
5,717 Articles In 332 Topics
TopicImage TOPIC INDEX (332 Topics)
TopicImage AUTHOR INDEX

  · ADAM GOD DOCTRINE (4)
  · APOLOGISTS (53)
  · ARTICLES OF FAITH (1)
  · BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD (31)
  · BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD - PEOPLE (16)
  · BLACKS AND MORMONISM (12)
  · BLACKS AND THE PRIESTHOOD (11)
  · BLOOD ATONEMENT (4)
  · BOB BENNETT (1)
  · BOB MCCUE (144)
  · BONNEVILLE COMMUNICATIONS (2)
  · BOOK OF ABRAHAM (50)
  · BOOK OF MORMON (66)
  · BOOK OF MORMON EVIDENCES (18)
  · BOOK OF MORMON GEOGRAPHY (24)
  · BOOK OF MORMON WITNESSES (5)
  · BOOK REVIEW - ROUGH STONE ROLLING (28)
  · BOOKS - AUTHORS AND DESCRIPTIONS (12)
  · BOOKS - COMMENTS AND REVIEWS (44)
  · BOY SCOUTS (22)
  · BOYD K. PACKER (33)
  · BRIAN C. HALES (1)
  · BRIGHAM YOUNG (24)
  · BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY (54)
  · BRUCE C. HAFEN (4)
  · BRUCE D. PORTER (1)
  · BRUCE R. MCCONKIE (10)
  · CALLINGS (11)
  · CATHOLIC CHURCH (5)
  · CHANGING DOCTRINE (12)
  · CHILDREN AND MORMONISM (48)
  · CHRIS BUTTARS (1)
  · CHURCH LEADERSHIP (3)
  · CHURCH PUBLISHED MAGAZINES (51)
  · CHURCH TEACHING MANUALS (10)
  · CHURCH VAULTS (4)
  · CITY CREEK CENTER (23)
  · CIVIL UNIONS (14)
  · CLEON SKOUSEN (3)
  · COGNITIVE DISSONANCE (2)
  · COMEDY (128)
  · CONCISE DICTIONARY OF MORMONISM (14)
  · D. MICHAEL QUINN (1)
  · D. TODD CHRISTOFFERSON (6)
  · DALLIN H. OAKS (101)
  · DANIEL C. PETERSON (88)
  · DANITES (4)
  · DAVID A. BEDNAR (23)
  · DAVID O. MCKAY (8)
  · DAVID R. STONE (1)
  · DAVID WHITMER (1)
  · DELBERT L. STAPLEY (1)
  · DESERET NEWS (3)
  · DIETER F. UCHTDORF (13)
  · DNA (23)
  · DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS (8)
  · DON JESSE (2)
  · ELAINE S. DALTON (5)
  · EMMA SMITH (5)
  · ENSIGN PEAK (1)
  · ERICH W. KOPISCHKE (1)
  · EX-MORMON FOUNDATION (33)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 1 (35)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 10 (24)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 11 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 12 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 13 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 14 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 15 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 16 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 17 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 18 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 19 (26)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 2 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 20 (24)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 21 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 22 (24)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 23 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 24 (28)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 3 (24)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 4 (24)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 5 (23)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 6 (24)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 7 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 8 (24)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 9 (26)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 1 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 10 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 11 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 12 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 13 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 14 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 15 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 16 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 17 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 18 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 19 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 2 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 20 (24)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 21 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 22 (24)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 23 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 24 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 25 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 26 (61)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 3 (21)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 4 (22)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 5 (24)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 6 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 7 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 8 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 9 (26)
  · EXCOMMUNICATION AND COURTS OF LOVE (19)
  · EZRA TAFT BENSON (30)
  · FACIAL HAIR (6)
  · FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS (70)
  · FAITH PROMOTING RUMORS (11)
  · FARMS (30)
  · FIRST VISION (23)
  · FOOD STORAGE (3)
  · FUNDAMENTALIST LDS (17)
  · GENERAL AUTHORITIES (29)
  · GENERAL CONFERENCE (14)
  · GENERAL NEWS (5)
  · GEORGE P. LEE (1)
  · GORDON B. HINCKLEY (68)
  · GRANT PALMER (8)
  · GREGORY L. SMITH (9)
  · GUNNISON MASSACRE (1)
  · H. DAVID BURTON (2)
  · HAROLD B. LEE (1)
  · HATE MAIL I RECEIVE (23)
  · HAUNS MILL (2)
  · HBO BIG LOVE (12)
  · HEBER C. KIMBALL (4)
  · HELEN RADKEY (17)
  · HELLEN MAR KIMBALL (4)
  · HENRY B. EYRING (5)
  · HOLIDAYS (13)
  · HOME AND VISITING TEACHING (9)
  · HOWARD W. HUNTER (1)
  · HUGH NIBLEY (13)
  · HYMNS (7)
  · INTERVIEWS IN MORMONISM (18)
  · J REUBEN CLARK (1)
  · JAMES E. FAUST (7)
  · JEFF LINDSAY (6)
  · JEFFREY MELDRUM (1)
  · JEFFREY R. HOLLAND (32)
  · JEFFREY S. NIELSEN (11)
  · JOHN GEE (3)
  · JOHN L. LUND (3)
  · JOHN L. SORENSON (4)
  · JOHN TAYLOR (1)
  · JOSEPH B. WIRTHLIN (1)
  · JOSEPH F. SMITH (1)
  · JOSEPH FIELDING SMITH (8)
  · JOSEPH SITATI (1)
  · JOSEPH SMITH (101)
  · JOSEPH SMITH - POLYGAMY (43)
  · JOSEPH SMITH - PROPHECY (8)
  · JOSEPH SMITH - SEER STONES (7)
  · JOSEPH SMITH - WORSHIP (13)
  · JUDAISM (3)
  · JULIE B. BECK (6)
  · KEITH B. MCMULLIN (1)
  · KERRY MUHLESTEIN (9)
  · KERRY SHIRTS (6)
  · KINDERHOOK PLATES (6)
  · KIRTLAND BANK (6)
  · KIRTLAND EGYPTIAN PAPERS (17)
  · L. TOM PERRY (5)
  · LAMANITE PLACEMENT PROGRAM (3)
  · LAMANITES (36)
  · LANCE B. WICKMAN (1)
  · LARRY ECHO HAWK (1)
  · LDS CHURCH (19)
  · LDS CHURCH OFFICE BUILDING (9)
  · LDS OFFICIAL ESSAYS (22)
  · LDS SOCIAL SERVICES (3)
  · LGBT - AND MORMONISM (44)
  · LORENZO SNOW (1)
  · LOUIS C. MIDGLEY (6)
  · LYNN A. MICKELSEN (2)
  · LYNN G. ROBBINS (1)
  · M. RUSSELL BALLARD (13)
  · MARK E. PETERSON (7)
  · MARK HOFFMAN (12)
  · MARLIN K. JENSEN (3)
  · MARRIOTT (2)
  · MARTIN HARRIS (5)
  · MASONS (16)
  · MELCHIZEDEK/AARONIC PRIESTHOOD (9)
  · MERRILL J. BATEMAN (3)
  · MICHAEL D. WILLIAMS (1)
  · MICHAEL OTTERSON (1)
  · MICHAEL R. ASH (26)
  · MITT ROMNEY (71)
  · MORE GOOD FOUNDATION (4)
  · MORMON CELEBRITIES (14)
  · MORMON CHURCH HISTORY (8)
  · MORMON CHURCH PR (13)
  · MORMON CHURCH PROPAGANDA (5)
  · MORMON CLASSES (1)
  · MORMON DOCTRINE (35)
  · MORMON FUNERALS (12)
  · MORMON GARMENTS (20)
  · MORMON HANDCARTS (12)
  · MORMON INTERPRETER (4)
  · MORMON MARRIAGE EXCLUSIONS (1)
  · MORMON MEMBERSHIP (38)
  · MORMON MISSIONARIES (142)
  · MORMON MONEY (73)
  · MORMON NEWSROOM (5)
  · MORMON POLITICAL ISSUES (5)
  · MORMON RACISM (18)
  · MORMON TEMPLE CEREMONIES (38)
  · MORMON TEMPLE CHANGES (15)
  · MORMON TEMPLES (116)
  · MORMON VISITOR CENTERS (10)
  · MORMON WARDS AND STAKE CENTERS (1)
  · MORMONTHINK (13)
  · MOUNTAIN MEADOWS MASSACRE (21)
  · MURPHY TRANSCRIPT (1)
  · NATALIE R. COLLINS (11)
  · NAUVOO (3)
  · NAUVOO EXPOSITOR (2)
  · NEAL A. MAXWELL (1)
  · NEAL A. MAXWELL INSTITUTE (1)
  · NEIL L. ANDERSEN - SECTION 1 (3)
  · NEW ORDER MORMON (8)
  · OBEDIENCE - PAY, PRAY, OBEY (15)
  · OBJECT LESSONS (15)
  · OLIVER COWDREY (6)
  · ORRIN HATCH (10)
  · PARLEY P. PRATT (11)
  · PATRIARCHAL BLESSING (5)
  · PAUL H. DUNN (5)
  · PBS DOCUMENTARY THE MORMONS (20)
  · PERSECUTION (9)
  · PIONEER DAY (3)
  · PLAN OF SALVATION (5)
  · POLYGAMY (60)
  · PRIESTHOOD BLESSINGS (1)
  · PRIESTHOOD EXECUTIVE MEETING (0)
  · PRIMARY (1)
  · PROCLAMATIONS (1)
  · PROPOSITION 8 (21)
  · PROPOSITION 8 COMMENTS (11)
  · QUENTIN L. COOK (11)
  · RELIEF SOCIETY (14)
  · RESIGNATION PROCESS (31)
  · RICHARD E. TURLEY, JR. (6)
  · RICHARD G. HINCKLEY (2)
  · RICHARD G. SCOTT (7)
  · RICHARD LYMAN BUSHMAN (11)
  · ROBERT D. HALES (5)
  · ROBERT L. MILLET (7)
  · RODNEY L. MELDRUM (15)
  · ROYAL SKOUSEN (2)
  · RUNTU'S RINCON (78)
  · RUSSELL M. NELSON (14)
  · SACRAMENT MEETING (11)
  · SALT LAKE TRIBUNE (1)
  · SCOTT D. WHITING (1)
  · SCOTT GORDON (5)
  · SEMINARY (5)
  · SERVICE AND CHARITY (24)
  · SHERI L. DEW (3)
  · SHIELDS RESEARCH - MORMON APOLOGETICS (4)
  · SIDNEY RIGDON (7)
  · SIMON SOUTHERTON (34)
  · SPAULDING MANUSCRIPT (8)
  · SPENCER W. KIMBALL (12)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 1 (18)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 10 (17)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 11 (15)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 12 (19)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 13 (21)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 14 (17)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 15 (12)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 2 (21)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 3 (18)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 4 (25)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 5 (22)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 6 (19)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 7 (15)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 8 (13)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 9 (19)
  · STORIES (1)
  · SUNSTONE FOUNDATION (2)
  · SURVEILLANCE (SCMC) (12)
  · TAD R. CALLISTER (3)
  · TAL BACHMAN - SECTION 1 (25)
  · TAL BACHMAN - SECTION 2 (25)
  · TAL BACHMAN - SECTION 3 (25)
  · TAL BACHMAN - SECTION 4 (25)
  · TAL BACHMAN - SECTION 5 (25)
  · TAL BACHMAN - SECTION 6 (25)
  · TAL BACHMAN - SECTION 7 (9)
  · TALKS - SECTION 1 (1)
  · TEMPLE WEDDINGS (6)
  · TEMPLES - NAMES (1)
  · TERRYL GIVENS (1)
  · THE PEARL OF GREAT PRICE (1)
  · THE SINGLE WARDS (5)
  · THE WORLD TABLE (3)
  · THOMAS PHILLIPS (18)
  · THOMAS S. MONSON (33)
  · TIME (4)
  · TITHING (63)
  · UGO PEREGO (5)
  · UK COURTS (7)
  · UNNANOUNCED, UNINVITED AND UNWELCOME (36)
  · UTAH LIGHTHOUSE MINISTRY (3)
  · VALERIE HUDSON (3)
  · VAN HALE (16)
  · VAUGHN J. FEATHERSTONE (1)
  · VIDEOS (30)
  · WARD CLEANING (4)
  · WARREN SNOW (1)
  · WELFARE (0)
  · WENDY L. WATSON (7)
  · WHITE AND DELIGHTSOME (11)
  · WILFORD WOODRUFF (6)
  · WILLIAM HAMBLIN (11)
  · WILLIAM LAW (1)
  · WILLIAM SCHRYVER (5)
  · WILLIAM WINES PHELPS (3)
  · WOMEN AND MORMONISM (86)
  · WORD OF WISDOM (7)
  · WORLD CONGRESS OF FAMILIES (1)
Donate to help keep the MormonCurtain and Mormon Resignation websites up and running!

Note: Dontations are done via my AvoBase, LLC. PayPal Business Account.
Copyright And Info
Articles posted here are © by their respective owners when designated.

Website © 2005-2016

Compiled With: Caligra 1.119

HOSTED BY