Page 1 of 9
Up for mo'pologizing: 1835 edition of D&C 101:4
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:26 am
by _Boaz & Lidia
1835 edition of D&C 101:4
"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." -D&C 101:4, History of the Church, vol. 2, pg. 247
Modern D&C 132 header:
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.
Additional evidence shows Smith practicing the plurality of wives before 1835(Fanny).
Additionally, this edition was in place until 132 replaced it in 1876, when polyg was in full swing.
Did the members not question their leaders about D&C 101:4 when told to take on more wives?
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 10:03 am
by _sunstoned
Contrary to the whitewashed version of its history the church force feeds it members; many early members left the church because of Joseph Smith lies and polygamy. If you look at the numbers, the retention rate back then was worse than today. Joseph Smith even had trouble holding on to his senior management. All three witnesses bailed, and a good portion of the apostles split on him.
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 2:38 pm
by _harmony
sunstoned wrote:Contrary to the whitewashed version of its history the church force feeds it members; many early members left the church because of Joseph Smith lies and polygamy. If you look at the numbers, the retention rate back then was worse than today. Joseph Smith even had trouble holding on to his senior management. All three witnesses bailed, and a good portion of the apostles split on him.
Do you happen to have a list?
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 7:23 pm
by _The Nehor
This and the treatise on government (still in the D&C) were written while the Prophet was absent.
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 8:13 pm
by _truth dancer
The Nehor wrote:This and the treatise on government (still in the D&C) were written while the Prophet was absent.
What does this have to do with anything?
Joseph Smith knew what was in the scriptures, he approved of it, embraced it as official scripture and doctrine, claimed to abide by it, taught it, and presented it as true to members and the world. It wasn't as if he was unaware of what was going on or what was scripture.
Is every bit of scripture revelation? Nope.
Was Joseph Smith present when all other scripture was made doctrinal? Or other official writings added to scripture? Nope.
This (Joseph Smith was not there) argument makes no sense to me.
~dancer~
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 10:52 pm
by _beastie
This and the treatise on government (still in the D&C) were written while the Prophet was absent.
Moreover, it was allowed to stand during BY's time, when the leaders stopped hiding polygamy from the general members, anyway.
It's a good question - why didn't church members question leaders as to why this was in their scriptures?
Re: Up for mo'pologizing: 1835 edition of D&C 101:4
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 11:07 pm
by _Ray A
Boaz & Lidia wrote:Did the members not question their leaders about D&C 101:4 when told to take on more wives?
Several did, including William Law, David Whitmer, Sidney Rigdon, and Oliver Cowdery.
From the William Law Interview (1887):
"What do you know about the revelation on polygamy?"
"The way I heard of it was that Hyrum gave it to me to read. I was never in a High Council where it was read, all stories to the contrary notwithstanding. Hyrum gave it to me in his office, told me to take it home and read it and then be careful with it and bring it back again. I took it home, and read it and showed it to my wife. She and I were just turned upside down by it; we did not know what to do. I said to my wife, that I would take it over to Joseph and ask him about it. I did not believe that he would acknowledge it, and I said so to my wife. But she was not of my opinion. She felt perfectly sure that he would father it. When I came to Joseph and showed him the paper, he said: 'Yes, that is a genuine revelation.' I said to the prophet: 'But in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants there is a revelation just the contrary of this.' 'Oh,' said Joseph, 'that was given when the church was in its infancy, then it was all right to feed the people on milk, but now it is necessary to give them strong meat' We talked a long time about it, finally our discussion became very hot and we gave it up. From that time on the breach between us became more open and more decided every day, after having been prepared for a long time. But the revelation gave the finishing touch to my doubts and showed me clearly that he was a rascal. I took the revelation back to my wife and told her that Joseph had acknowledged it. 'That is what I fully expected.' said she. 'What shall we do?' said I. She advised me to keep still try to sell my property quietly for what I could get. But I did not follow her advice. My heart was burning. I wanted to tread upon the viper."
"You returned the revelation to Hyrum?"
"Yes, I did. I was astonished to see in your book that the revelation was such a long document. I remember DISTINCTLY that the original given me by Hyrum was MUCH SHORTER. It covered not more than two or three pages of foolscap. The contents are substantially the same, but there was not that theological introduction. The thing consisted simply in the command of doing it, and that command was restricted to the High Priesthood and to virgins and widows. But as to Joseph, himself, the Lord's chosen servant, it was restricted to virgins only, to clean vessels, from which to procure a pure seed to the Lord."
"In what manner would Joseph succeed to keep you and others from knowing what was going on behind the curtain?"
"Marks, Yves, I and some others had, for a long time, no idea of the depravity that was going on. This was simply the result of a very smart system adopted by the prophet and his intimate friends like Brigham Young, Kimball and others. They first tried a man to see whether they could make a criminal tool out of him. When they felt that he would not be the stuff to make a criminal of, they kept him outside the inner circle and used him to show him up as an example of their religion, as a good, virtuous, universally respected brother."
http://www.geocities.com/wsimister/lawint.htm
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 3:20 am
by _Mercury
beastie wrote:It's a good question - why didn't church members question leaders as to why this was in their scriptures?
because the only thing that questioning the leadership does is cause them to question your commitment to the cult.
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:42 am
by _The Nehor
beastie wrote:This and the treatise on government (still in the D&C) were written while the Prophet was absent.
Moreover, it was allowed to stand during BY's time, when the leaders stopped hiding polygamy from the general members, anyway.
It's a good question - why didn't church members question leaders as to why this was in their scriptures?
They probably asked God about it and he clarified it for them.
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 3:38 pm
by _RockHeaded
I will have to find the quote but I think it was around 90% of the members that followed BY to Utah did not believe Joseph Smith was a polygamist. Of course some say it's because it was well hidden but I do recall reading testimony in the Temple Lot case where one of the harlots claimed she was known to be his wife, but of course didn't go to his funeral as his wife.