A little help--Why am I so bothered by the misleading

[_rcrocket]

President Wilford Woodruff, John W. Taylor, Brigham Young Jr., Mattthias Cowley, George Teasdale, Marriner W. Merrill, Abraham H. Cannon and Abraham O. Woodruff were post-Manifesto polygamists. In addition, George Q. Cannon, Joseph F. Smith, John Henry Smith, Anthon H. Lund, and Heber J Grant either approved of or performed plural marriages after 1890. For details of these marriage ceremonies, see Quinn 1985, Cannon 1983; 27-41; and Jorganson and Hardy 1980, 10-19. The Joseph Eckersley Journal , 2-6 Sept. 1903 implies that Apostle F.M. Lyman was the lone apostle who interpreted the Manifesto as banning new polygamy, and "he was not in harmony with the rest of the apostles on the subject.

Woodruff did not have living post-manifesto marriages. Pres. Woodruff's last wife was married to him in 1857. Quinn contends that Woodruff (when he was in his 90s and senile) married Lydia Mountford, a non-member lecturer who spent several weeks in Salt Lake in the 1890s. But Woodruff's biography, Waiting for World's End, published by Signature Books, cannot be read to say that any such marriage was made. Their lifetime relationship was, indeed, a little odd but there is no evidence whatsoever of a lifetime marriage. Moreover, plural marriages did not occur with non-members and Mountford never joined the church. Instead, friends of Mountford had her sealed to Woodruff many decades later when both were long gone. I know Pres. Woodruff's life pretty well; Quinn greatly overreached and exaggerated his sources on this one.

I would suggest that if you disagree with me, instead of citing to secondary sources, cite me to a primary source which establishes that Woodrull married Mountford. Just one.

I do not dispute the fact that many apostles had a hard time understanding the meaning of the manifesto, but they were brought to heel or kicked out of the quorum. John Taylor and Matthias Cowley were two who were kicked out when they wouldn't comply.

Pres. Snow resolutely refused to authorize new plural marriages. He died in 1901. In 1901 he refused permission to a Mexican stake president to change the ban for Mexico. Brigham Young Jr.'s journal records a conversation with Pres. Snow in 1901 memorializing the fact that there would be no new plural marriages.

Nonetheless, more marriages occurred, but it appears from the journals of the rebellious apostles that they performed each other's marriages without the sanction of the First Presidency. Brigham Young Jr. took an additional wife despite being told by Pres. Snow not to do so.

Again, I reiterate, my own great grandfather took on three additional wives after 1900. He was married, I think, by either Mexican Stake Pres. McDonald or Apostle Teasdale; I'm not sure. (Both had been told previously by Snow not to perform new plural marriages). But, my great-grandfather was excommunicated and out of the Church for many years despite having his marriages solemnized by high authorities. The problem was that he didn't have the sanction of the First Presidency, and that was a requirement for a plural marriage. According to what I was told by his son, he knew when he was married that he was taking a risk without First Presidency approval, and he also knew it was prohibited.

Lots depends on how you sift and evaluate the evidence. I submit that you are relying upon sources that don't mention Pres. Woodruff's and Pres. Snow's repeated instructions, private and public.

[_rcrocket]

Then, b[e] courageous and resign. I would if I believed what you believed.

To be clear, then, if you believed the church was making false statements about polygamy, you would resign your membership?

How, then, do you reconcile all of the false statements made from 1835 to the early 1840's re polygamy to both the membership, the public and government officials? should this information not be enough for you to resign your membership? is there a different standard of honesty today than there was then?

I will cosnider your encouragement to resign and really think about whether my views re the chruch's statements result in the logical conclusion that if I had "courage" I would resign. Indeed, I think that you are actually the first active member (and certainly the first Bishop) I have seen to equate "courage" with "resign[ation]". If you think people should resign over a belief that the church makes false statements re polygamy, you think a whole lot of people should resign (e.g., many view the church's distancing itself from polygamy as deceitful in that several of its apostles are currently married to more than one wife for all eternity and men are married to more than one wife regularly in temples --marriage is not for time only, is it?)

Again, I suggest, that you claim to be a "high priest" in the opening post to somehow bolster your post puts the issue into play, doesn't it?

I would never want to act in a such an inconsistent manner -- pretend to be a good member to your ward and family and post negative attacks here? The dissonance must be terrible, but the lack of character is palpable. I have respect for those on this board who have taken a stand and have left the church and act in a consistent manner both here and there, but I have no respect for people who don't. Nor would many reasonable rational thinking persons.

[_rcrocket]

If you saw nothing pertaining to post-manifesto marriages, then you didn't put much effort into reading the link, Bob. Look at items 55-62.

by the way, dismissing everything else in that link with a wave of your hand simply illustrates why so many of us have left the church. Back when I was still a believer struggling to maintain my testimony in the face of such damning facts, nobody in the church, and nobody in my 5th generation Mormon family was willing to get their hands dirty and help me address these facts head-on. Instead, I was essentially told not to worry my pretty little head over those disturbing anti-mormon lies. God help any of your own children or grandchildren, Bob, if they ever have any sincere questions. Will you be so dismissive of them? Will you simply dismiss their sincere concerns and declare victory and tell them to stop being cowards and resign?

No, I didn't put much effort into reading the link since it contained so much material totally unrelated to the opening post's comments about post-manifesto marriages. It isn't a hand wave. I would suggest that if you dispute the points I am making then cite me evidence that refutes what I say, not evidence that has nothing to do with my proofs and evidences.

If you want to start a new thread raising some new point in your long link, I'll be glad to try and respond. But, really, I don't have the time to take a very long post and refute every point in it.

I don't ever "declare victory." I don't see that as legitimate debate. But, I do remind you and others that you haven't rebutted one of my points -- like the point that it is error to claim that Woodruff had post-Manifesto marriages. There is not a single president of the Church who had a post-manifesto marriage, as Pres. Smith made clear in his testimony before the Senate.

[_Jason Bourne]

I would suggest that if you disagree with me, instead of citing to secondary sources, cite me to a primary source which establishes that Woodrull married Mountford. Just one.

You asked for sources and I provided one. It may or may not be a good one. The note I provided does refer to other resources as well. Personally I agree that it it highly unlikely President Woodruff married after 1890.

I do not dispute the fact that many apostles had a hard time understanding the meaning of the manifesto, but they were brought to heel or kicked out of the quorum. John Taylor and Matthias Cowley were two who were kicked out when they wouldn't comply.

The point made in what I cited and there are many other sources on this as well it that plural marriage continued. Pres. Woodruff may not have authorized it but it seem clear that President Cannon did and other apostles. Cowley and Taylor were not removed from the quorum until 1904 or 1905 and then they seemed more of a bone to throw to the public then anything else. From what I have read they were the fall guys so to speak.

Pres. Snow resolutely refused to authorize new plural marriages. He died in 1901. In 1901 he refused permission to a Mexican stake president to change the ban for Mexico. Brigham Young Jr.'s journal records a conversation with Pres. Snow in 1901 memorializing the fact that there would be no new plural marriages.

Nonetheless, more marriages occurred, but it appears from the journals of the rebellious apostles that they performed each other's marriages without the sanction of the First Presidency. Brigham Young Jr. took an additional wife despite being told by Pres. Snow not to do so.

The only point really is did the Church abandon plural marriage in 1890? It seems the answer is no. Leaders continued to take plural wives and to live with their plural wives. I think they should have by the way. I think it would have been wrong to abandon their families. Also, it seems pretty clear that the Manifesto really did not carry the weight we view it with today, at least not for 14 years or so.

I can understand why plural marriage took time to remove from the Church. It was such a large part of who and what LDS people were back then. It was celestial marriage and required for exaltation. The Church had fought tooth and nail to preserve it.

The issue that mms seems to struggle with is the way it is portrayed today by the Church. And it seems pretty clear the statements by the Church are not raelly accurate from a historical stand point.



Lots depends on how you sift and evaluate the evidence. I submit that you are relying upon sources that don't mention Pres. Woodruff's and Pres. Snow's repeated instructions, private and public.

[_mms]

Then, b[e] courageous and resign. I would if I believed what you believed.

To be clear, then, if you believed the church was making false statements about polygamy, you would resign your membership?

How, then, do you reconcile all of the false statements made from 1835 to the early 1840's re polygamy to both the membership, the public and government officials? should this information not be enough for you to resign your membership? is there a different standard of honesty today than there was then?

I will cosnider your encouragement to resign and really think about whether my views re the chruch's statements result in the logical conclusion that if I had "courage" I would resign. Indeed, I think that you are actually the first active member (and certainly the first Bishop) I have seen to equate "courage" with "resign[ation]". If you think people should resign over a belief that the church makes false statements re polygamy, you think a whole lot of people should resign (e.g., many view the church's distancing itself from polygamy as deceitful in that several of its apostles are currently married to more than one wife for all eternity and men are married to more than one wife regularly in temples --marriage is not for time only, is it?)

Again, I suggest, that you claim to be a "high priest" in the opening post to somehow bolster your post puts the issue into play, doesn't it?

I would never want to act in a such an inconsistent manner -- pretend to be a good member to your ward and family and post negative attacks here? The dissonance must be terrible, but the lack of character is palpable. I have respect for those on this board who have taken a stand and have left the church and act in a consistent manner both here and there, but I have no respect for people who don't. Nor would many reasonable rational thinking persons.

This is so sadly predictable--assumptions and judgments by the "righteous" against the questioner. What makes you think I pretend anything to my "ward and family"? What makes you think I have not told both the Bishopric and the Stake Presidency of my concerns? What? C'mon tell us? Oh yes, it is a result of your preconceptions about people "like me" and your constant need to feel superior to not only the rest of the world but to those of your own faith who doubt or have disagreements. "Those kind of people" as opposed to your kind of "righteous" people. Look at the judgments you cast without any knowledge of the facts whatsoever.

My family left the church decades ago (yes all except me). They would love nothing more than for me to find my way out of it, also, and would applaud your efforts to push me out the door. So, no, I don't pretend anything to my family. And as I have stated above, I have voiced the very same concerns I have voiced here to both ward and stake leaders.

But you, does your Stake President know you encourage questioners to resign their memberships on message boards? How does he feel about that? How about his regional rep? Or are you "pretend[ing]" to be a Bishop who cares about people staying in Church?

[_Jason Bourne]

.

But you, does your Stake President know you encourage questioners to resign their memberships on message boards? How does he feel about that? How about his regional rep? Or are you "pretend[ing]" to be a Bishop who cares about people staying in Church?

MMS

Live your life and your religion on your terms. Bob can be a bit of a bully about this at times. I think sometimes he is just trying to get a rise. Who knows. My guess is he is a pretty good guy in real life and probably a pretty good bishop. When he gets like this I just ignore him. I have become very comfortable with where I am personally at. I am not going to let anyone bully me out of the Church nor let those who are out persuade me to leave because they did. I will stay or leave on my terms.

[_Yoda]

.

But you, does your Stake President know you encourage questioners to resign their memberships on message boards? How does he feel about that? How about his regional rep? Or are you "pretend[ing]" to be a Bishop who cares about people staying in Church?

MMS

Live your life and your religion on your terms. Bob can be a bit of a bully about this at times. I think sometimes he is just trying to get a rise. Who knows. My guess is he is a pretty good guy in real life and probably a pretty good bishop. When he gets like this I just ignore him. I have become very comfortable with where I am personally at. I am not going to let anyone bully me out of the Church nor let those who are out persuade me to leave because they did. I will stay or leave on my terms.

AMEN! :)

Jason and I are kindred spirits. LOL

[_harmony]

What is the "Church?"

This is a good question. What exactly is the "Church"? Is it the members? Is it just the leaders? Is it the buildings?

To me, the church isn't just the president of the church. It's all the members, from the smallest child to the prophet himself. So, to the point of this thread, if anyone was living in a plural marriage situation in 1890... anyone, but especially the leaders, then plural marriage didn't end in 1890. It ended when the last plural marriage ceremony ended.

[_rcrocket]

What is the "Church?"

This is a good question. What exactly is the "Church"? Is it the members? Is it just the leaders? Is it the buildings?

To me, the church isn't just the president of the church. It's all the members, from the smallest child to the prophet himself. So, to the point of this thread, if anyone was living in a plural marriage situation in 1890... anyone, but especially the leaders, then plural marriage didn't end in 1890. It ended when the last plural marriage ceremony ended.

I think this is an important consideration for the plural marriage issue.

Let me give an appropriate analogy.

The Corporation of the President has committed to various Jewish groups not to baptize holocaust victims. Yet, people who are both members and non-members submit names for baptism; some in good faith and some maliciously. Who is the Church here? The Corporation of the President (which takes measures with submitting patrons to challenge and control the submissions) or the patrons? The temples and family history program exist for the members and patrons.

Similarly, the "Church" in 1890 could be seen as the President of the Church, trustee in trust for Church properties (today's predecessor to the Corporation of the President etc.). The President and trustee in trust stated the doctrine, adhered to it, and told others to do so. Who, then, was the Church?