Can we now admit that the church still misleads . . .

[_Jason Bourne]

You have some facts wrong. At the time of the 1980 manifesto, the Church reached an amnesty deal with the government saying that it would cease plural marriages.

I am not sure my facts are wrong. Was the manifesto really given with and intent to end plural marriage? Was the entire FP and Q of 12 behind it? If I recall President Woodruff had it published when I believe 8 members of the 12 were out of town. Once public they were sort of stuck with it. But I recall an apologetic on polygamy on the FAIR web site that, when explaining post manifesto polygamy, the author argued that the manifesto was written to appease the federal government but it by no means was entirely binding on the Church. I can dig this up if you would like.

Pres. Smith acknowledged the deal explicitly in Senate testimony. Pres. Smith also acknowledged that Pres. Woodruff ordered an end to plural marriage in the U.S., and that Pres. Woodruff stopped living with his plural wives. But, Pres. Smith also acknowledged that other general authorities were slow to comply, including himself Pres. Smith did not take on new wives but continued to cohabit with old wives.

Can you tell me if President Woodruff followed this immediatly upon issuance of the manifesto or if this came later?

So, it wasn't really a matter of being "carefully worded" when you view it in context with the deal reached with the Justice Department. No new plural marriages. None.

Are you proposing there were no sanctioned plural marriages after 1890? I do not think that is correct. Before I spend time finding evidence for this could you clarify the comment above please?

[_Boaz & Lidia]

I don't see a problem. The whole thing was put on hold in 1890 while feelers were put out to see (in the US) if the Supreme Court would rule for us and (in Mexico and Canada) the practice could be continued there. When all avenues were exhausted, the 1890 stance was adopted. As long as they saw legal avenues, no one should be uncomfortable that the Church sought all means to continue to freely practice it's religion. The same kind of thing is done today among all groups of people for many different reasons.

Here is the problem. The manifesto was a carefully worded document designed to appease the federal government while not officaially abandoning polygamy at all. You so much as admit it above.

Polygamy did not officially cease until the early 1900's.

But the Church portrays the manifesto as a revelation that stopped polygamy in 1890. This is not the case. To state it as such obscres the truth. Most members believe the that the 1890 manifesto was the official end of polygamy. Why should they think otherwise? The Church they trust tells them it is so.

Who are you and what did you do with the church loving, doctrine defending Jason????

Oh you know me. I am the anonymous lukewarm fickle fringer NOMer that defends when necessary and criticizes when necessary as well.

You have come a long way bro.

[_solomarineris]

I don't see a problem. As long as they saw legal avenues, no one should be uncomfortable that the Church sought all means to continue to freely practice it's religion. The same kind of thing is done today among all groups of people for many different reasons.

Oh no!...
I'm not uncomfortable at all...
Just my wife is... I asked her many times that I wanted to have plural wives, she says "Over my dead my body"
But of course Emma wasn't even asked after the fact. Joseph Smith consumated celestial marriages by breaking underage cherries.
Of course, an angel threatened him with a flaming sword.

[_Boaz & Lidia]

I don't see a problem. As long as they saw legal avenues, no one should be uncomfortable that the Church sought all means to continue to freely practice it's religion. The same kind of thing is done today among all groups of people for many different reasons.

Oh no!...
I'm not uncomfortable at all...
Just my wife is... I asked her many times that I wanted to have plural wives, she says "Over my dead my body"
But of course Emma wasn't even asked after the fact. Joseph Smith consumated celestial marriages by breaking underage cherries.
Of course, an angel threatened him with a flaming sword.

I think Joe was speaking metaphorically when he spoke about that flaming sword.

With all of the sex he was having, he probably had some sort of VD.. His prayer: "Dear God, it hurts when I pee.."

[_rcrocket]

Was the manifesto really given with and intent to end plural marriage? Was the entire FP and Q of 12 behind it?

The 1890 Manifesto with really given with the intent to end the formation of new plural marriages in the United States. There was no thought given at the time to plural marriage outside of the United States, but plural marriage was illegal in Mexico and Canada. There was no thought given to whether the ending of plural marriage meant the end of cohabiting with existing wives.

If I recall President Woodruff had it published when I believe 8 members of the 12 were out of town. Once public they were sort of stuck with it. But I recall an apologetic on polygamy on the FAIR web site that, when explaining post manifesto polygamy, the author argued that the manifesto was written to appease the federal government but it by no means was entirely binding on the Church. I can dig this up if you would like.

This theory is a fundamentalist's theory. A close reading of the Reed Smoot hearings shows that the Church intended to end the formation of new plural marriages.

Can you tell me if President Woodruff followed this immediatly upon issuance of the manifesto or if this came later?

Yes, he did.

Are you proposing there were no sanctioned plural marriages after 1890? I do not think that is correct. Before I spend time finding evidence for this could you clarify the comment above please?

Yes, as to newly-formed marriages. However, several of the twelve did not agree. Those who never agreed were removed (Taylor, Cowley and later, Lyman) from the Quorum. Others came around. or died.

During the Reed Smoot hearings, the Republican Senate lawyers (basically led by an Idaho Senator) contended that the Church agreed on the one hand to discontinue polygamy but didn't. The hearings elicited several anecdotes which would suggest that the Church said one thing and did another. But, a synthesis of the hearings is that Pres. Woodruff intended his statement to be binding; he lived it; he considered it revelation.

[_degaston]

If Pres. Woodruff intended his statement to be binding, revelation and he lived it as you suggest then I have some questions.

(1) Why did he take Lydia Mountford as a plural wife?
(2) I'm aware that the whole matter of whether Woodruff married Mountford or not is controversial and disputed. What's not disputed is that he frequently talked about her in his diaries during the last couple years of his life. Is that typical for a married man to go writing ad nauseum about some woman in his diary that is not his wife, especially one who is a prophet claiming to be getting and living a binding revelation that monogamy was the way of the future? What would your wives think (to the married men here) if you did this?
(2) Why did his son Abraham O. Woodruff (a member of the Twelve) take a plural wife after the Manifesto in 1900?

http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/ ... id=1251200