DiscussMormonism.com

I've had reason to read through some of the material that Greg Smith has produced for FAIR, specifically his defense of D&C 124:16-17, wherein John C. Bennett is praised by God Himself who offered eternal rewards 'if he continue' the good work he was doing. This revelation came at the exact time that Bennet had been, and continued to be, engaged in adulterous affairs, performing abortions and plotting murder.

I was recently issued a challenge by a believing Latter-Day Saint to come up with something 'on my own', presumably because he felt that all of the criticisms I was discussing were from 'anti' sources and that I was simply 'parroting' anti-Mormon lies and giving no thought whatsoever to whether they stood up under inspection.

Well, I decided to search lds.org for the phrase 'Polygamy' and found this page, which is chapter 13 from The Truth Restored. I had high hopes that a book with the word 'Truth' in the title might be able to produce a certain amount of it... the 'truth', that is. I suppose, if pressed, I might grant that truth was offered in this book, but unfortunately, not as much as might be expected, given the title.

And [polygamy] came to an end by the same means. After earnest prayer before the Lord, President Woodruff issued on October 6, 1890, what is known in Church history as the “Manifesto.” It declared an end to the practice of entering into plural marriage. Since that time the Church has neither practiced nor sanctioned entering into such marriages. (emphasis added)

This was interesting. Perhaps my anti-mormon bias had clouded my judgement and memory, because it seemed for a moment that I was misremembering something about a 'Second Manifesto' or something or other... To resolve my confusion, of course, I logged on to fairlds.org and promptly found Polygamy, Prophets, and Prevarication by Greg Smith.

While I can without hesitation enthusiastically recommend this work for any interested reader, I will limit my excerpts to those most applicable to the topic at hand.

from page 36:

As for the Manifesto, the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve voted on 2 October 1890 to sustain President Woodruff’s action. That is, under my reading, they supported his tactic of essentially telling the government what it wanted to hear, and complying with the law insofar as their consciences would allow. Even at this meeting their intent was clear, since they debated whether the Church as a whole should sustain the Manifesto, since “some felt that the assent of the Presidency and Twelve to the matter was sufficient without committing the people by their votes to a policy which they might in the future wish to discard."

It is evident that these united quorums did not consider the Manifesto to be a revelation forbidding all plural marriage in 1890: for, why would they then contemplate the Church wanting to “disregard” it? Rather, they supported the decision to hide the full truth from their enemies because they lacked other options which would enable them to keep their higher duty to their faith. The Manifesto announced what had being going on privately already (the severe re- strictions on plural marriage) but hid the fact that Church leaders might grant exceptions.

Perhaps most convincingly, an editorial in the Church’s Deseret News responded to the government’s Utah Commission, which had argued that President Woodruff needed to “have a revelation suspending polygamy.” The editorial advised that “[w]hen President Woodruff receives anything from a Divine source for the Church over which he presides he will be sure to deliver the message.”239 This was written five days after the publication of the Manifesto. It seems inescapable that President Woodruff considered his action inspired and divinely directed; however, he and the Church did not believe that God had, by the Manifesto, told them to cease all plural marriage.

FAIR says that lying for the Lord was necessary. Indeed, on page 36, we read the following statement President Woodruff made concerning the 1890 Manifesto:

President Willford Woodruff wrote:I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write.

then from page 43:

Thus, at the time of the 1890 Manifesto the Saints had not yet done everything which they could to live the law—the one option remaining was to mislead the secular powers, and to continue to live the law by cohabiting with current wives and occasionally marrying anew. The leaders were reluctant to adopt this approach, but did so after Wilford Woodruff’s revelation produced the Manifesto. (emphasis added)

So... what am I to think?

God Himself commanded President Woodruff to issue the Manifesto for the purpose of deception. Yet, even though it was clearly God who demanded the use of lies, half-truths, deception and dishonesty in order to fulfill His grand purpose of building up the Kingdom of God on Earth, the folks at lds.org apparently didn't get the memo.

Since [1890] the Church has neither practiced nor sanctioned entering into [polygamous] marriages

The next time a TBM challenges you to provide a single example of where lds.org openly lies, point them to Chapter 13 of 'The Truth Restored'.

Thus, at the time of the 1890 Manifesto the Saints had not yet done everything which they could to live the law—the one option remaining was to mislead the secular powers, and to continue to live the law by cohabiting with current wives and occasionally marrying anew. The leaders were reluctant to adopt this approach, but did so after Wilford Woodruff’s revelation produced the Manifesto. (emphasis added)

So... what am I to think?

A conclusion by the author of a nondoctrinal work and not even backed up by any quotes or references apparently. From this work, it seems the most serious accusation would be whether or not the Manifesto included cohabitation with wives already plurally married. In other words, there was technical correctness and no lying.

The article essentially proves that sealings after the Manifesto were accomplished in direct opposition to the prophet or other apostles counselors. Couldn't tell you what Greg was thinking, but there's nothing here for an intellectually honest person to pin on the Church.

bcspace wrote:
A conclusion by the author of a nondoctrinal work and not even backed up by any quotes or references apparently. From this work, it seems the most serious accusation would be whether or not the Manifesto included cohabitation with wives already plurally married. In other words, there was technical correctness and no lying.

The article essentially proves that sealings after the Manifesto were accomplished in direct opposition to the prophet or other apostles counselors. Couldn't tell you what Greg was thinking, but there's nothing here for an intellectually honest person to pin on the Church.

bc, we all know that we could show you a video of Joseph Smith raping an entire village including the livestock and you'd be asking what the big deal was.

beefcalf wrote:I was recently issued a challenge by a believing Latter-Day Saint to come up with something 'on my own', presumably because he felt that all of the criticisms I was discussing were from 'anti' sources and that I was simply 'parroting' anti-Mormon lies and giving no thought whatsoever to whether they stood up under inspection.

So to prove your not parroting and "giving no thought whatsoever to whether they stood up under inspection." you decided to quote and article from FAIR?

beefcalf wrote:Well, I decided to search lds.org for the phrase 'Polygamy' and found this page, which is chapter 13 from The Truth Restored. I had high hopes that a book with the word 'Truth' in the title might be able to produce a certain amount of it... the 'truth', that is. I suppose, if pressed, I might grant that truth was offered in this book, but unfortunately, not as much as might be expected, given the title.

"Since that time the Church has neither practiced nor sanctioned entering into such marriages."
Maybe you can provide some documented proof from a reliable source that shows any sanctioning of entering into polygamy by church leadership?

beefcalf wrote:This was interesting. Perhaps my anti-mormon bias had clouded my judgement and memory, because it seemed for a moment that I was misremembering something about a 'Second Manifesto' or something or other... To resolve my confusion, of course, I logged on to fairlds.org and promptly found Polygamy, Prophets, and Prevarication by Greg Smith.

Again, in an endeavor to "eschew obfuscation" you went to FAIR?

beefcalf wrote:While I can without hesitation enthusiastically recommend this work for any interested reader, I will limit my excerpts to those most applicable to the topic at hand.


FAIR says that lying for the Lord was necessary. Indeed, on page 36, we read the following statement President Woodruff made concerning the 1890 Manifesto:

Why do you insist that FAIR is anything other than what they claim to be? Their mission statement at the bottom of their home page reads:

Our Mission Statement

"FAIR is dedicated to standing as a witness of Christ and His Restored Church.

Our mission is to address the charges leveled at the doctrines, practices and leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) with documented responses that are written in an easily understandable style.

FAIR will use current scholarship, scripture, Church doctrine, historical literature and sound logic in constructing faithful, well-reasoned answers."

No where does it say that they speak for the church. They express opinion.

beefcalf wrote:
So... what am I to think?

God Himself commanded President Woodruff to issue the Manifesto for the purpose of deception. Yet, even though it was clearly God who demanded the use of lies, half-truths, deception and dishonesty in order to fulfill His grand purpose of building up the Kingdom of God on Earth, the folks at lds.org apparently didn't get the memo.

How about God commanded President Woodruff the issue the Manifesto for the purpose of ending the practice of polygamy?

beefcalf wrote:The next time a TBM challenges you to provide a single example of where lds.org openly lies, point them to Chapter 13 of 'The Truth Restored'.

What is a TBM to think when pointed to this example? I think this "lie" reflects more upon you than lds.org.

GR33N,

I am aware of FAIR's status as 'unofficial'. It has been extremely convenient to defenders to have that little disclaimer available when a FAIR defense begins to crumble.

The FAIR author, Greg Smith, is responding to the observation made by people who have looked at the facts of polygamy as practiced by the Utah LDS Church and noted that there had been significant and numerous examples of deception and dishonesty.

(Of course, the very act of noticing and remarking upon this fact automatically turns such people into 'critics' and 'anti-Mormons.')

Greg Smith spends no time denying that polygamous marriages continued and that new marriages were sanctioned for 14 years after the first manifesto. The reason he does not attempt to deny the fact of polygamy continuing after the 1890 manifesto is that he knows beyond all doubt that it cannot be credibly denied. He knows its true.

There is far too much solid documentation of the dishonesty for Smith to deny it happened, so his defense is based on justifying that dishonesty, showing how the lying was exactly what the Lord wanted, and even commanded.

The bottom line is that when LDS.org states that polygamy stopped in 1890, they are posting something that is absolutely and provably false.

Was it a lie? I will grant the possibility that a member of the editorial staff at lds.org may have not known it was a lie, but that simply pushes the lie further back. Ultimately, the LDS church lied continually about polygamy from the very first, from Fanny Alger in 1831 to Joseph Smith's public denials ('accused of having seven wives when I can only find one'), to John Taylor's willful deception about polygamy at the time when he himself was married to seven women. The lying didn't start with the 1890 manifesto and it very certainly didn't end there either.

The open question in the issue of polygamy is not whether or not the LDS church continually practiced this deception. That is indisputable by anyone who chooses to look. The issue is whether or not you actually believe that God Himself was the architect who spun this web of lies.

ETA:

GR33N wrote:How about God commanded President Woodruff the issue the Manifesto for the purpose of ending the practice of polygamy?

Just a quick question, GR33N:

You seem to be suggesting that the 1890 Manifesto was a revelation commanding the Saints to discontinue the practice of polygamy. For what reason was the 2nd Manifesto issued 14 years later, in 1904?

beefcalf wrote:You seem to be suggesting that the 1890 Manifesto was a revelation commanding the Saints to discontinue the practice of polygamy. For what reason was the 2nd Manifesto issued 14 years later, in 1904?

I am suggesting exactly what the manifesto says. President Smith said he intended to submit to those laws and use his influence to have (encourage?) the members to do likewise. His advice to the Saints was to refrain from marriage forbidden by the law of the land.

It seems obvious to me the difference between the two manifestos. Just as polygamy was introduced somewhat gradually in the fact that only a few accepted it at first. Then it was taught to the generally to the membership. It was then withdrawn gradually. Notice the words that Pres. Woodruff uses; intention; influence; advice; refrain etc. Compare to the words that Pres. Smith uses; contrary; forbade; prohibited; etc. Pres. Woodruff manifesto refers to a 'line drawn in the sand' and Pres. Smith shows us exactly where that line is and what the results of crossing it are.

The Manifesto:

"To Whom It May Concern:
"Press dispatches having been sent for political purposes, from Salt Lake City, which have been widely published, to the effect that the Utah Commission, in their recent report to the Secretary of the Interior, allege that plural marriages have been contracted in Utah since last June or during the past year, also that in public discourses the leaders of the Church have taught, encouraged and urged the continuance of the practice of polygamy—
"I, therefore, as President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, do hereby, in the most solemn manner, declare that these charges are false. We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting other number of plural marriages have during that period been solemnized in our Temples or in any other place in the Territory.
"One case has been reported, in which the parties allege that the marriage was performed in the Endowment House, in Salt Lake City, in the Spring of 1889, but I have not been able to learn who performed the ceremony; whatever was done in this matter was without my knowledge. In consequence of this alleged occurrence the Endowment House was, by my instructions, taken down without delay.
"Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I heareby declare my intention to submit to those laws, to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.
"There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of my associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy; and when any Elder of the Church has used language which appeared to convey such teaching, he has been promptly reproved. And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.
"WILFORD WOODRUFF [signed]
"President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

source= wikipedia

2nd Manifesto:

"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 24, 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.

JOSEPH F. SMITH,
President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

So, are you arguing that the polygamous marriages authorized by church leadership between 1890 and 1904 were simply part of a 'winding down' process, or is it your position that they simply didn't happen?

If you are saying that the years 1890-1904 were the phasing-out period of polygamy, and that God had revealed the end of polygamy in 1890, why on Earth would the prophet of God have allowed even one more polygamous marriage during that time?

Referring to the period of time between 1890 and 1904, the prophet said:

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.

May I assume that you believe Joseph F. Smith's statement, quoted above, was entirely honest?

If it could be shown to you through trusted sources that members of the first presidency and quorum of the twelve, between 1890 and 1904, were actively permitting and performing polygamous marriages, and even entering themselves into new polygamous unions, how would you then view the specific denials made by both presidents in their respective manifestos?

As I stated before, polygamy started out gradually and ended gradually. Any marriages entered into during that time or after were very limited in number (winding down) or were not sanctioned by the prophet of the church.

If it could be shown to you through trusted sources that members of the first presidency and quorum of the twelve, between 1890 and 1904, were actively permitting and performing polygamous marriages, and even entering themselves into new polygamous unions, how would you then view the specific denials made by both presidents in their respective manifestos?

I would be interested in seeing any history from trusted sources that you can provide. The specific denials makes no difference to me.

GR33N wrote:As I stated before, polygamy started out gradually and ended gradually. Any marriages entered into during that time or after were very limited in number (winding down) or were not sanctioned by the prophet of the church.

If it could be shown to you through trusted sources that members of the first presidency and quorum of the twelve, between 1890 and 1904, were actively permitting and performing polygamous marriages, and even entering themselves into new polygamous unions, how would you then view the specific denials made by both presidents in their respective manifestos?

I would be interested in seeing any history from trusted sources that you can provide. The specific denials makes no difference to me.

GR33N,

I must say that I am somewhat baffled. You seem to be taking the position that you disagree with me, when, in my OP, I showed that the LDS church is lying when they make the claim (on lds.org) that "since [1890] the Church has neither practiced nor sanctioned entering into [polygamous] marriages", yet you seem to be agreeing with me that some polygamous marriages did happen after 1890.

My conclusion is pretty straightforward: The statement on LDS.org is not accurate. I suggest there are people at lds.org who probably know better about the history of LDS polygamy. Whether the person who posted this statement is or is not familiar with the facts in this case, it is to the detriment of the LDS church to allow these inaccurate statements to be posted.

The trusted source I refer to is former BYU professor D. Michael Quinn.

It is my understanding that Professor Quinn had access to the 1st Presidency Vault, where many of the salient letters, diaries and official documents are kept. It was through that access that Quinn was able to paint a fairly complete picture of the polygamous history of the Church. It was to Quinn that Boyd K. Packer unhappily referred when he gave his talk "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect."

Quinn decided to publish his findings unvarnished by ecclesiastical expediency. His work, 'LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages, 1890-1904' was published in 1985 and can be found here, in Dialog, A Journal of Mormon Thought.

Although excommunicated in 1993, one of the September Six, Quinn continues to hold a testimony in the truth of the LDS church, an aspect of this man that has baffled many critics, myself included.

One last note: I have not studied the material in Quinn's work directly, but have seen only synopses from others. So if you want to dig through it and show me that I'm full of crap, that option remains on the table at this point. ;-)

ETA: I've gone through just a bit of Quinn's article. On page 13 (see link to Dialogue, above) we find this reference:

In 1984, the First Presidency's secretary published the statement that as of 1904, "a comparatively large number of polygamous marriages had been performed after the Manifesto."

The reference for this information is given as "Gibbons, Joseph F. Smith, p. 221"

The book Quinn references is in print and is available at Amazon.com

Hope this helps you understand where I'm coming from, GR33N. If you think I'm still missing something on this, please let me know. It's happened before. ;-)

beefcalf wrote:GR33N,

I must say that I am somewhat baffled. You seem to be taking the position that you disagree with me, when, in my OP, I showed that the LDS church is lying when they make the claim (on lds.org) that "since [1890] the Church has neither practiced nor sanctioned entering into [polygamous] marriages", yet you seem to be agreeing with me that some polygamous marriages did happen after 1890.

My conclusion is pretty straightforward: The statement on LDS.org is not accurate. I suggest there are people at lds.org who probably know better about the history of LDS polygamy. Whether the person who posted this statement is or is not familiar with the facts in this case, it is to the detriment of the LDS church to allow these inaccurate statements to be posted.

-----------

Hope this helps you understand where I'm coming from, GR33N. If you think I'm still missing something on this, please let me know. It's happened before. ;-) [/color]

I think I understand where you're coming from. You've read the LDS Church official statement that conflicts technically to what appears really happened. I say technically because there seems to be evidence that polygamous marriages took place after the official statement of the church was that the practice had ended. In fact if you read the sentences in the paragraph in Quinn's book that you quote, he refers to marriages that took place outside US jurisdiction. I have also found statements from other sources that refer to marriages being performed without sanctioning from church leadership. Many justifying their actions for various reasons. It seems that some were reading the manifesto(s) and deciding for themselves what the Prophet (really) meant and how the manifesto(s) did or did not apply to them personally. These instances where the participants made excuses for the actions does not change the official stance of the church and their official policy concerning polygamy.

Here is a quote from LDS.org that adds a little more clarification to the quote you reference in your OP.

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. At certain times and for His specific purposes, God, through His prophets, has directed the practice of plural marriage (sometimes called polygamy), which means one man having more than one living wife at the same time. In obedience to direction from God, Latter-day Saints followed this practice for about 50 years during the 1800s but officially ceased the practice of such marriages after the Manifesto was issued by President Woodruff in 1890. Since that time, plural marriage has not been approved by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and any member adopting this practice is subject to losing his or her membership in the Church.

http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=9887ec6f164b2110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

This doesn't say that the marriages didn't take place at all anywhere. It says what their official stance is. If anything there may be some ambiguity with the term church. Sometimes it's used to refer to the leadership and their statements only and sometimes it's used to refer to the actions or statements by any member (or group of members) past or present whether they conform to the church teachings or not.

So if church members do or say something that is not in accordance with the official stance the church has it doesn't make official church statements deceptive.

In my opinion there is no "lie" here. Your attempt to take a hard line with something that is surrounded by lots of grey area comes across as disingenuous.

For example members who continued ignore the word of wisdom after it was published as doctrine of the church doesn't make the church deceptive when it says "we don't drink alcohol or smoke tobacco" when in fact some members do so.

Thank you for the link to Quinn's book. I had never run across it before or the September 6.