The article is here.
“Among those revelations recorded in 1843 in the Doctrine and Covenants, a book of Mormon scripture, were teachings about plural marriage [link to D&C 132).”
Section 132 actually wasn’t added until 1876. Until 1876, then-section 101 (removed in 1876) actually forbade polygamy. In 1843 the “revelation” was still secret, and Smith was vehemently denying polygamy (as mentioned later in article) while busily accumulating women (even women already married to living husbands).
I am glad they give fundamentalist Anne Wilde a voice:
“If those are eternal doctrines, then how can man change them?”
Great question. Sure seems like Mormon leaders led their own people astray.
CNN also drops a bomb that the mainstream LDS Church doesn’t want public:
“In fact, even if LDS Church members don’t practice plural marriage on earth, their scripture still teaches that in heaven it is possible. Mormons also believe that families are sealed together for eternity.”
Woops. That’s embarrassing (particularly the first part, and the second part considered in conjunction with the first part).
Make no mistake, Mormons didn’t practice polygamy swimming down the stream of American culture. Joseph Smith re-introduced it in the face of a contrary culture. He rooted it in what he thought were eternal patterns, and Mormon leaders went on to further erect a theology around it. It was suspended in 1890 (with an “uhhh, we are actually serious this time” in 1904), and not only is the Mormon Church unclear over whether it could be re-introduced before the return of Jesus, it is noncommittal over the grandiose theological undergirding leaders once gave it. For now, it hangs in the air. The embarrassing past is neither renounced nor fully embraced. And the future remains open.
This theologically informed practice of Mormon polygamy (even when considered apart from all the abuses and cultural weirdness), rooted in the teachings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and John Taylor, distanced by cowards Wilford Woodruff and Joseph F. Smith, is ever-relevant to mainstream Mormonism. Even while claiming a heritage in its leaders, the LDS Church refuses to take any responsibility for splinter groups and their practice of polygamy. Like rubbing a dog’s nose in a carpet it soiled, the CNN article makes the LDS Church face a piece of its unsavory history.
You did this, Mormonism. This is your doing. You are responsible for the very existence of modern-day polygamous splinter groups. Your prophets led people astray. Yet you throw fundamentalist polygamists under the bus and disown them with a vengeance. They’re your Mormon family, but you don’t even want them to use the label “Mormon.”
“I acknowledged my sin to you, and I did not cover my iniquity; I said, ‘I will confess my transgressions to the Lord,’ and you forgave the iniquity of my sin.'” (Psalm 32:5)
Joseph Smith is nothing more than a pathetic joke when compared to Martin Luther…
For the benefit of those on this blog who would like to hear the rest of the story:
"I hold in my hand a copy of the Doctrine and Covenants published in 1869, one of the last before that article was taken out. Do not forget what I am going to tell you, that at this conference held on August 17, 1835, Joseph Smith and Frederick G. Williams, one of the counselors in the Presidency, were not present; they were in Michigan. That is a matter of recorded history. We know where they were because we have it in the documentary history of the Church.( History of the Church, vol. 3, p. 243)
"So this article on marriage and this article on laws and government in general were 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 let it go through.
"In the days of Nauvoo, the Lord gave Joseph Smith a revelation on marriage; that revelation appears under date of July 12, 1843. That is not the date that the revelation was given, but the date when the revelation was recorded.
"That revelation on marriage was not placed in the Doctrine and Covenants until 1876. In the year 1876, the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants published in the west was published by David O. Calder of the Deseret News.
"Orson Pratt, under the direction of the Presidency of the Church, had added to the body of revelations a great many others as we have them now in the Doctrine and Covenants, that were not in these earlier editions, and this section known as section 132, was among those so added. It would not have been consistent to have allowed that article on marriage to stay in when it contradicted the revelation given to the Prophet Joseph Smith, so they took it out, and very properly. That is a matter of history that we ought to be, familiar with."
(Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3 vols., edited by Bruce R. McConkie [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954-1956], 3: 196.)
Now we have some real facts to critique in this matter.
It still baffles me that Judeo-Christians can revere Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Israel), and to a lesser degree Moses and David, then criticize the 3% of the Mormons who practiced a very dignified, uplifting, voluntary form of plural marriage.
It baffles me that honest seekers of truth fail to search for the truth about the many (and there were many) women sealed to Joseph Smith in what was then known as celestial marriage. My wife has studied this far more than I have, as it bothered her a lot. She says that, after all her research (and she is an excellent genealogical researcher), she could find no could find no progeny from any of these women. It was, as a rough analogy, like the Christian tradition of baptising babies, knowing that the ordinance is required for salvation and that God could work out any details later. Most of these women were, as I understand it, married later and raised families with their husbands. Many of them were sealed to their husbands in the temples constructed in Utah decades after the Nauvoo exodus. My wife is now satisfied that everything was on the up and up, and I have to admit that I trust her judgement.
"Mormon Polygamy" was a common-sense, moral, chaste, Biblical, inspired system for protecting women and providing loving, Christian homes for raising children with their own mothers. It's what the holy fathers practiced (well, they had concubines, too, which served the same purposes, but without inheritance rights), and Jesus never critisized them for it to my knowledge. Most of the criticism has always been either mean-spirited, politically inspired, or ignorant of the facts.
The problem is as Martin said because they are 'good' guys people think that their lifestyle is worth of imitation. I believe the fact that God was proving was that these guys were not 'good' because of who they were but because of who God was and that he chose to work his will thru them. God's righteousness not David, or Solomon, or Abraham. We mess up when we don't recognize the saints of old for what they were, fallen men, chosen by God to work his glory thru them. So when we look back at their 'contribution' we should really be praising God for his work not the wisdom, or dedication of the men God chose.
In their teaching on polygamy Mormons insist they were following the example of the patriarchs and often cite Abraham, but Abraham was not a polygamist. When we read the story in Genesis 12-16 we find that God promised Abraham a son by Sarah (Gen.15:4) but Abraham obeyed his wife rather than God in having a son by Hagar(Gen.16:1-4). It was Sarah’s idea not God’s and Hagar was not his wife but his concubine, a surrogate mother whose son would become Sarah’s according to Sarah’s plan (Gen.16:2).
Abraham’s only other wife was Keturah whom he married after Sarah’s death (Gen.25:1). Abraham did not have more than one “wife” at a time. But because there are three women somewhere in the story Mormons are happy to settle for the “impression” that he was a polygamist and as such was being obedient to God. Of course there was polygamy in the Old Testament but never in express obedience to God. It is permitted but this might be better understood in light of Acts 17:30.
""Mormon Polygamy" was a common-sense, moral, chaste, Biblical, inspired system for protecting women and providing loving, Christian homes for raising children with their own mothers."
Sorry, there are no naive mormons here that buy that type of propaganda – go try somewhere else.
"Jesus never critisized them" – Joh 21:25 " And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."
You don´t really know that,,,
"Most of the criticism has always been either mean-spirited, politically inspired, or ignorant of the facts."
No, most of the criticism comes from people that have not drunk the mormon cool-aid… tell me, did Joseph convince women to marry him by saying an angel with a flaming sword would kill him if they didn´t?
"very dignified, uplifting, voluntary form of plural marriage. "
It still baffles me that the SLC church calls the fundamentalists that still practice polygamy cults, and try to distance themselves from polygamy… they are the major cult of them all.
Jonathan, There may be more to your " rest of the story ". The Church body voted to accept what was
offered at this Conference, it became binding to them .Joseph Smith was not present. Is this the first
time the president of the Church missed a conference ? He knew nothing of the action of his own
church members then, that is debatable. It is noteworthy that about 2 weeks after the Conference
he was'nt absent from church activities when he authorized the church publication, " Times and
Seasons" to publish that Conference resolution on marriage ( i.e. no polygamy ) . He made no effort
to argue it. Also, it was published or referred to several times after that with still no effort on his part
to change it. Why are you baffled that christians revere Abraham, Issac, and Jacob , yet criticize LDS
for polygamy? We do respect these O.T. men, but this is the New covenant the Church Jesus is
Head over and directs. Matt 19:1-6 therefore is our practice. You don't need a prophet to guide you
today. Jesus is able—Heb.7:25
F_melo said
cont.
Joseph Fielding Smith, who you use as an authorative source in your post, is using a red
herring to divert your attention away from what the facts really are. His argument that the
"article on marriage" should not have been placed in the D&C because it was not a
"revelation", is'nt a good answer at all. Are all "sections" in the D&C termed as " a
revelation" ? Joseph Fielding Smith says that Joseph Smith " was very much troubled "
by the insertion of this article on marriage in the D&C. I think he was more troubled at
the thought of people finding about his secret romantic behavior, especially his wife Emma !
With all do respect to your wife's research, the fac t that little evidence of children by Joseph
Smith's plural wives is really not the issue here. The issue is either he lied about his secret
marriages which were against Church law , or he did'nt. If he was not faithful about this perhaps
he can't be trusted with telling the truth about who he said God was etc. Matt.24:11,24. Thanks.
Jonathan, In checking over my first reply to you I incorrectly stated that it was 2 weeks after
the 1835 conference that the Church publication , "Times and Seasons " printed info on
what the conference had voted to accept as the Church postion on marriage. It should have
read , " the 10-1-1842 Times and Seasons ", and as I did point out this was'nt the only time
the Church's postion on marriage was printed which , being well after the 1835 conference,
still agreed with that conference vote .
Mike, you brought up some food for thought. I need to thank you for your ministry, I enjoy
your site it's very informative.
ww
. . the Lord gave Joseph Smith a revelation. Why? To benefit all of civilization. No. It benefited Joseph. In a court of law, if someone is murdered, who does it benefit? I can understand in some ancient tribes, maybe the male familial line needed power or wealth, but in this case, the power and wealth went to Joseph, and the elders. As long as your wife feels . 'its on the up and up.' Then we should trust her too? Is that your argument? See Releasing the Bonds, Steve Hassan on YouTube. Its not about intelligence. Extremely, extremely intelligent people turn to totalistic groups. Its the psychology of group think. If the LDS decided to marry younger women for the benefit of society, or because the Lord told their prophet, everyone would agree its on the up and up. The rules can't change. The Bible is the Word of God, the Word was made flesh. He is our prophet and King. It will trust in Him. Not your wife. . . . common sense, moral, chaste, Biblical inspired system for protecting women and prov. . . .Joseph's second wife was a nanny that worked in his home behind his first wife's back. How is that moral, chaste? She was not even a woman. She was a very young girl (who probably could not say 'no' if you could understand the balance of power in their relationship.) That would be called abuse in today's standards, not moral, chaste, common-sense . .
Just a thought here, LDS claim that people in the Bible had many wives and even committed polygamy, so that must mean it is ok. Well I seem to recall followers of God, Like David, Lying, Cheating and even committing murder, And Moses as well, just to name a few. Does that then mean we can do that as well? Just a thought.
The Bible says something about wolves in sheep's clothing and if an angel comes to you with another plan, let that angel be accursed. Jesus came into the city on a donkey and as our King should have come on a white horse, but he lowered himself to be like us. Joseph and Brigham elevated themselves. Joseph said I have more to boast than even Jesus because I have kept the whole church together more than any other man. Has anyone seen Brigham's home in SLC? Jesus did not accumulate anything, wives, money, homes, wealth, power. If polygamy was from God, why so many splinter groups? Because it wasn't. God doesn't change his mind.
According to Martin Luther we can. Also look at Calvin vs Severtus.
Just a thought
Ralph, I said this before and will say it again. ML said we can do……
Does that make it right? Does the Bible and God Agree with ML? If not then ML is wrong. I love how you dont answer hard questions and your silent on much stuff, but you come along and say, well ML said it was ok. Your funny.
RickB,
ML used the Bible to support his theology about salvation by faith DESPITE works so yes, the Bible and God agree with ML. Also many on this site claim to believe in this – and I have questioned thoroughly on this site about that wording and examples. I also know that you and others disagree with it in contrast to the others I have questioned that do agree. So here we have a doctrinal division among the people on this site and Traditional Christianity in general. ML also said that he couldn’t condemn polygamy because it was supported in the Bible – thus he did perform at least one polygamous marriage that we are aware of – and the Protestant churches in Europe practised polygamy for a while so Christianity also embraced the idea. He was also a drunk with a temper. But many these days follow him and his theology and believe that we are saved by faith DESPITE works.
As far as this question of yours I answered – here’s a question back – Why are you so accepting of the OT prophets making ‘mistakes’ (doctrinally, scientifically, etc) and your own early church fathers (eg ML, Calvin, etc) and still claim they are men from God, but you wont let our leaders through this same criteria? If you let them through, as we LDS do, then the only things you really have against the LDS church are – Deity doctrine (ie Trinity vs Godhead) and Biblical interpretation as all the rest we believe in follows from these two.
As far as answering questions, I have been on this site answering questions for around 4 or 5 years now. The questions always come back in a circular motion even though plausible answers have been given. Note I said plausible – you may not agree with the answers and they may not fit into your interpretation of the Bible, but they fit into our interpretation and doctrine so they are an answer. So I will only answer questions now that I think are worthy of a reply so I am not wasting my time.
rvales and Enki,
I tend towards rvales' analysis on the polygamy of some of the OT heroes, but I have to admit I don't have a fully satisfactory answer.
Yes, it's wrong to say that God commanded the Patriarchs, David, Solomon and some of the other heroes to acquire a number of wives (as Joseph Smith asserts in D&C 132). However, neither did God prevent it by some act of divine punishment, though Deuteronomy has a famous (spoken) prohibition as noted above.
My difficulty here is that the acquisition of wives by the Kings seemed necessary for the survival of the Nation (If you marry your neighbor's wife, he is less inclined to declare war on you). From this perspective, I struggle to see how YHWH would have allowed such a political expediency if He was able to save the Nation by divine fiat. This is where we cross into the human action verses divine action debate, which I am certainly not able to resolve (thought the Incarnation of Jesus offers a tantalizing glimpse of the reality, I believe).
The best I can offer is that polygamy was part of Israel's inglorious heritage, together with the other stuff like the fact they were descended from idolaters (Abraham's dad), fleeing slaves (the Redemption from Egypt) and confirmed foreigners (Ruth). My broad understanding is that Israel learned from its experiences such that by the time of the Exile it was culturally monogamous (and monotheistic) as opposed to just officially monogamous (and monotheistic). Perhaps the redaction of Deutero-Isaiah around the time of the Exile has something to tell us in this respect.
If my "learning experience" hypothesis has any merit, then the outcome is a triumph for monogamy (and monotheism) because on the return from Exile and all the way through to the NT, Israel was a card-carrying, fully signed up and whole-heartedly committed member of the one-man-one-wife and one-nation-one-God movement.
Yes, the Bible candidly records the polygamy of some of it's favorite heroes. No, it does not command us to follow their example in this issue.
Ralph, said
Now your going on about Salvation by faith. You said ML said something about we could practice polygamy, then you change the subject, I said before I believe in Faith by grace apart from works, I agree with that, I have said so many times. So I dont see your point. Now ML might have said we can practice polygamy, the OT shows people did do that, I'm not arguing against the OT exposing people for the sinners they are, I'm saying you cannot show me anyplace in the Bible where GOD COMMANDED IT.
Ralph said
I dont recall any Christians on this blog disagreeing about faith by grace alone, Only the LDS. So whats your point, your changing the subject.
Ralph said
It is not supported in the Bible, It happened and was practiced, but something happening in the Bible is not the same as it being supported, Murder happened in the Bible, does that mean it was supported? Again, show me chapter and verse where God COMMANDS IT? You cannot do it and neither could ML.
Ralph said
Sadly a lot of church now a days are embracing the Idea of Homosexuals in leadership and embracing it in general, does that make it right? The Bible condemns that practice.
Ralph said
I know many Believers that have a temper, so what, they are human and struggle with things, Does that mean he cannot follow Jesus? We see in the Bible two Disciples having a temper, Jesus nicknamed them, "Sons of thunder" Because they had tempers, Jesus did not tell them to go away.
Ralph said
First off, I do not quote the so called Church fathers, I dont follow them, I follow Jesus and read His word, Not mans word. I never called these guys Father or Church Fathers, Thats other people. As to the Prophets, God in the OT made it very clear, If anyone speaks for God and says, THUS SAITH THE LORD, and it does not happen, they are false prophets. Many LDS have said, Thus saith the Lord and it never happened. The prophets in the OT, Have said, THUS SAITH THE LORD, and it came to pass, but when they just said this or that and they were wrong, then they were wrong. They did not say, God said and thus saith the Lord and then got it wrong. If they did they are not really of God. And I know you will try and find examples, but this thread is not for that, maybe the Mods can start that topic.
Ralph said
Jonathan Sevy said
How about you being more honest and tell us even more of the story, Like JS telling his wife Emma that God would kill her if she did not accept the fact that JS was told by God he had to take more than one wife.
How come LDS cannot answer this question? Why would God care so little About Emma if she in fact was a child of God, that God would say, I know Emma wont like it but to bad, I will kill her if she does not go along with JS having more than one wife. Thats lame, Yet LDS cannot and will not answer that question.
LDS claim Men needed many wives to raise up children, We see in the Bible that God can make women fruitful with one Husband and not need to worry about our human race dying off. Also what if a women is barren, it could be from the man not being able to produce, so using LDS logic, women should be able to have another husband in case he might be more fertile, but we know Men would not go for a women having more than one husband, yet the man can have more than one women. That is retarded.