THE MORMON CURTAIN
Containing 5,709 Articles Spanning 365 Topics  
Ex-Mormon News, Stories And Recovery  
Archives From 2005 thru 2014  
PLEASE NOTE: If you have reached this page from an outside source such as an Internet Search or forum referral, please note that this page (the one you just landed on) is an archive containing articles on "POLYGAMY - SECTION 2". This website, The Mormon Curtain - is a website that blogs the Ex-Mormon world. You can read The Mormon Curtain FAQ to understand the purpose of this website.
⇒  CLICK HERE to visit the main page of The Mormon Curtain.
  POLYGAMY - SECTION 2
Total Articles: 23
The Mormon Church stopped the practice of Polygamy "officially" in 1890, but practiced it in secret for several decades afterwards. Today, Mormons practice "Spiritual Polygamy" wherein their Doctrine And Covenants section 132 states that Polygamy is "The New And Everlasting Covenant". Two living Mormon Apostles are currently married to more than one woman.
Here Are The Facts: The Mormon Church Headquartered In Salt Lake City Still Practices The Ordinance Of Plurality Of Wives By Covenant In Their Temples
Monday, Sep 11, 2006, at 07:45 AM
Original Author(s): Susieq#1
Topic: POLYGAMY - SECTION 2   -Link To MC Article-
The marriage, sealing covenant/ordinance performed in all the temples is exactly the same for everyone.

It is the "Holy Order of Matrimony, the New and Everlasting Covenant" as explained in DandC 132.

This is the ordinance made by covenant with the promised blessings.

Only one short sentence fulfills the local US legal requirements.

Full disclosure for informed consent is not made available to members going to the temple for the first time.

This is the wording of the marriage/sealing ordinance.

"• • • The Current LDS Marriage Ritual• • • Performed in their temples -- Marriage for time and eternity...

As with other LDS rituals, this ceremony may be performed for either the living or the dead. When performed by proxy, it is used to "seal" deceased married members of the LDS Church to each other for time and eternity, while for the living it serves as the current marriage ceremony.

This ceremony is performed in a "Sealing Room." The room has an altar in its center with kneeling cushions on each side. At the head of the altar are two seats for the "Witnesses." Their signatures will appear on the temple’s marriage certificate.

Others attending the ceremony stand about the room on either side of the altar. The Officiator who performs the sealing stands at the head of the altar.

If performed for the living the Officiator welcomes the group and usually makes a few remarks on the importance of marriage as an institution of God, stating that only those who marry in the temple can become Gods themselves.

He counsels the couple to be kind to and understanding of each other throughout their lives, remembering that they seek a common goal, which can only be achieved by mutual cooperation.

When sealings are performed for and in behalf of the dead only the proxies, Officator and two Witnesses are present in the room. No speech is given, and the couple remains kneeling at the altar. They briefly release the token after each sealing, rejoining it again when instructed.

Officiator: Will the Witnesses please take their seats at the head of the altar.

Witnesses: Take their seats as requested.

Officiator: Brother ______, [naming groom] and Sister ______, [naming bride] will you please take your places and kneel opposite each other at the altar.

Marriage Couple: Kneels opposites each other as requested.

Officiator: Brother ______, [naming groom] and Sister ______, [naming bride] please join hands in the Patriarchal Grip or Sure Sign of the Nail.

Marriage Couple:

Joins hands in the "Patriarchal Grip, or Sure Sign of the Nail." This token is given by clasping the right hands, interlocking the little fingers and placing the tip of the forefinger upon the center of the wrist.

No clothing should interfere with the contact of the forefinger upon the wrist.

Officiator: Brother ______, [acting as proxy for ______, who is dead,] do you take Sister ______ [acting as proxy for ______, who is dead] by the right hand and receive her unto yourself to be your lawful and wedded wife for time and all eternity, with a covenant and promise that you will observe and keep all the laws, rites, and ordinances pertaining to this Holy Order of Matrimony in the New and Everlasting Covenant, and this you do in the presence of God, angels, and these witnesses of your own free will and choice?

Groom: Yes.

Officiator: Sister ______ [acting as proxy for ______, who is dead,] do you take brother ______ [acting as proxy for ______, who is dead,] by the right hand and give yourself to him to be his lawful and wedded wife, and for him to be your lawful and wedded husband, for time and all eternity, with a covenant and promise that you will observe and keep all the laws, rites and ordinances pertaining to this Holy Order of Matrimony in the New and Everlasting Covenant, and this you do in the presence of God, angels, and these witnesses of your own free will and choice?

Bride: Yes.

Officiator: By virtue of the Holy Priesthood and the authority vested in me, I pronounce you ______, and ______, legally and lawfully husband and wife for time and all eternity, and I seal upon you the blessings of the holy resurrection with power to come forth in the morning of the first resurrection clothed in glory, immortality and eternal lives, and I seal upon you the blessings of kingdoms, thrones, principalities, powers, dominions and exaltations, with all the blessings of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob [if living, he adds: and say unto you: be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth] that you may have joy and rejoicing in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. All these blessings, together with all the blessings appertaining unto the New and Everlasting Covenant, I seal upon you by virtue of the Holy Priesthood, through your faithfulness, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen."

reference: http://www.lds-mormon.com/veilworker/...

THE DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS SECTION 132 [To read the rest, see lds.org or the DandC.]

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.

1–6, Exaltation is gained through the new and everlasting covenant; 7–14, The terms and conditions of that covenant are set forth; 15–20, Celestial marriage and a continuation of the family unit enable men to become gods; 21–25, The strait and narrow way that leads to eternal lives; 26–27, Law given relative to blasphemy against the Holy Ghost; 28–39, Promises of eternal increase and exaltation made to prophets and saints in all ages; 40–47, Joseph Smith is given the power to bind and seal on earth and in heaven; 48–50, The Lord seals upon him his exaltation; 51–57, Emma Smith is counseled to be faithful and true; 58–66, Laws governing the plurality of wives are set forth.
The Dirty Little Secret (And Problem) Haunting The LDS Church
Wednesday, Sep 13, 2006, at 07:27 AM
Original Author(s): Skeptical
Topic: POLYGAMY - SECTION 2   -Link To MC Article-
Part I: Families can be together forever

Many LDS hope that their non-LDS neighbors view them as good family-oriented people. The LDS church has positioned itself as a family-oriented church even using public services to remind people: “Families, isn’t it about time?”

The bedrock of the LDS church’s family focus is the belief that a family can be together permanently in heaven if a husband and wife are sealed in an LDS temple. According to LDS belief, without the temple sealing ordinance (and enduring the end), a family has no claim on being an eternal family.

Where is the scriptural basis for this promise of an eternal family? It is ONLY found in Section 132 of the LDS Doctrine and Covenants.

Part II: Polygamy

Today’s LDS Church would desperately want the world to think it no longer believes in polygamy. Whenever possible, LDS spokespeople always state that the LDS Church no longer practices polygamy and excommunicates those within the LDS Church who practice it. It repeatedly informs the media that the LDS Church discontinued the practice of polygamy in 1890.

However, despite all the talk of the 1890 Manifesto and excommunication, the LDS Church has NEVER renounced polygamy. Far from it, the LDS Church today continues to permit men to marry subsequent wives in LDS temples. Many of these subsequent marriages are sealings – intended to endure throughout eternity. Although the LDS Church does not permit cohabitation of a man with more than one wife, the LDS Church teaches that men sealed in LDS temples to more than one woman today will practice polygamy throughout eternity.

Where is the scriptural basis for polygamy? It is ONLY found in Section 132 of the LDS Doctrine and Covenants.

Part III: Evolution of polygamy into temple marriages

When Nauvoo and pre-manifesto LDS church members and leaders spoke of eternal marriage or celestial marriage, they were speaking exclusively of polygamous marriages. The two terms were interchangeable for them (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestia...). There are many quotes from pre-manifesto LDS prophets and apostles which indicate that eternal or celestial marriage was polygamous marriage.

However, after the 1890 Manifesto, and more particularly after the Sen. Smoot debacle at which time an LDS President was forced to commit perjury before the US Senate, the LDS Church has discontinued permitting cohabitation of those who are sealed to more than one spouse.

Today’s LDS Church members now believe the celestial marriage means the sealing of monogamous marriages for eternities. Some understand that a man can be married to more the one women in the temple following a civil divorce and First Presidency permission to be sealed to the subsequent wife; or after the first wife passes away.

Part IV: The Dilemma facing the LDS Church today

Many critics of the LDS Church rightfully reject the church’s pleas of innocence as to polygamy. Many such critics call on the LDS Church to renounce polygamy by renouncing the doctrine has a heavenly revealed teaching and by removing DandC 132 from official church canon.

Of course, the LDS Church cannot easily remove Section 132 from its canon for two simple reasons: First, by so doing, it would be removing any scriptural basis for temple marriages. The LDS Church would destroy the bedrock of its unique doctrine and cause members to stop wanting temple marriages. Second, it would be acknowledging that Joseph Smith, Jr. spoke deceptively as a prophet to further his personal agenda. This would probably cause LDS Church members to call into question the authenticity of other of Smith’s claims, such as the 1838 First Vision story. The result of removing Section 132 would likely cause significant membership problems within the LDS Church.

There are some options available to the LDS Church. First, it can attempt to find other doctrinal support for temple marriages outside of Section 132. It appears that the LDS Church is already on this path. In the current LDS hymnal, the church prints scriptural references for each hymn at the bottom of the hymn. At the conclusion of Hymn 300, “Families Can Be Together Forever” the LDS Church has not referenced Section 132, but DandC 138:47-48 (Joseph F. Smith’s alleged vision of the spirit world). (http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dl...)

Second, the LDS Church could stop authorizing and permitting subsequent temple sealings. Of course, this would be very difficult for those who are divorced after a temple marriage, remain active in the LDS Church, remarry but would be prohibited from forming an “eternal family” with their new wife and children. Such a prohibition might also be disappointing to those longtime single LDS women who marry a widower in an LDS temple. Gone would be their hope of securing an eternal mate.

Part V: Conclusion

If the LDS Church could find alternative support for temple marriages outside of Section 132 and prohibit subsequent temple marriages, it could take the focus away from Section 132 and its other child – polygamy. In a few generations, Section 132 could probably be quietly removed from the canon of LDS Scripture.

However, I do not personally believe the LDS Church wants to stop all subsequent LDS temple sealings. Just recently, Russell Nelson was married in the temple to the previously single Wendy Watson, just more than one year from the death of Nelson’s first wife, Dantzel Nelson. (http://www.lds.org/newsroom/showrelease/0,15503,3881-1-23192,00.html).

It seems to me that polygamy may be the one issue which causes the LDS Church to decline. If it were ever to deal with polygamy and its origins it would have to renounce Joseph Smith, Jr. by implication. If the LDS Church ever “collapses” or melts into greater obscurity, it will be as a direct result of the polygamy issue.
Yahoo Article On Polygamy And LDS Inc.'s Related PR Headaches
Monday, Oct 2, 2006, at 06:41 AM
Original Author(s): Timmy Teaboy
Topic: POLYGAMY - SECTION 2   -Link To MC Article-
The article seems mostly balanced, but lets the LDS PR office get away with some shameless spin.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060930/a...

From the article:
"Mormon officials, however, say a few shared traits don't put the fundamentalists in the same category as members of the Salt Lake City-based church. "Warren Jeffs is Not a Mormon," the church's Web site declares.

"Catholics, Protestants, Methodists, Jehovah Witnesses, Lutherans, evangelicals and a host of other faiths believe in Jesus and claim the Bible as their own, yet all consider themselves separate and distinct faiths," said Kim Farah, a Mormon church spokeswoman."
My comments:

Uhmm, that may be the case. However, they all have some commonalities that allow them to be lumped together under terms such as "Bible believers" or "Christians". Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans, etc., can all be referred to as "Protestants".

In the case of the Polygamist Mormons, the connections are much closer. The Polygamist Mormons are simply following the "revealed will of god" made known to them by the MORMON Prophets Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff. All of these prophets are revered today by the Church led by Gordon B. Hinckley (namely, LDS, Inc.).

LDS Inc's efforts to pretend that the fundamentalist Mormon polygamists are from a completely different faith tradition and that they cannot even be referred to as real "Mormons" is dishonest.

From the article:
"Mormons believe in continuing revelations, meaning church doctrine can change. Woodruff's manifesto, Farah notes, came long after original doctrine was written."
My comment:

The notion that continuing revelation can CHANGE doctrines seems to call the whole enterprise of "living prophets" and doctrines into question. Maybe clarifying doctrine or revealing new truths...but changing already revealed doctrine? Sounds like someone is pulling a fast one. In any case, the Manifesto did not change doctrine. The doctrine of plural marriage remains firmly in place as memorialized in the Doctrine and Covenants.

The fundamentalist Mormon polygamists have as much claim to being called Mormons as anyone in Gordon B. Hinckley's church. In fact, if you were to ask Brigham Young, John Taylor, Heber C. Kimball or even Joe Smith who the real Mormons are, they would probably point to the fundamentalist polygamists and disown Hinckley's group. (Then again, Hinckley's group has more money and power--so who knows?)
Current Deception Of The Church Re: Polygamy
Thursday, Oct 26, 2006, at 07:48 AM
Original Author(s): Darthbillgr
Topic: POLYGAMY - SECTION 2   -Link To MC Article-
Okay, I just ran across this today. It is my view that the church is trying to make Joseph Smith out to be someone who did not practice polygamy (Which is a lie). I point to the church's own website on Joseph Smith as proof of that.

www.josephsmith.net/portal/site/Josep...

No where on this site is there mention that Joseph practiced polygamy.

For more proof of the deception I point to an article in the church news where the following can be found.

www.lds.org/newsroom/issues/answer/0,...
"PUBLIC AFFAIRS: The emphasis that has been placed in this conversation on traditional marriage between a man and a woman has been consistent throughout. Do you see any irony in the fact that the Church is so publicly outspoken on this issue, when in the minds of so many people in the United States and around the world the Church is known for once supporting a very untraditional marriage arrangement that is, polygamy?

ELDER OAKS: I see irony in that if one views it without the belief that we affirm in divine revelation. The 19th century Mormons, including some of my ancestors, were not eager to practice plural marriage. They followed the example of Brigham Young, who expressed his profound negative feelings when he first had this principle revealed to him. The Mormons of the 19th century who practiced plural marriage, male and female, did so because they felt it was a duty put upon them by God.

When that duty was lifted, they were directed to conform to the law of the land, which forbad polygamy and which had been held constitutional. When they were told to refrain from plural marriage, there were probably some who were unhappy, but I think the majority were greatly relieved and glad to get back into the mainstream of western civilization, which had been marriage between a man and a woman. In short, if you start with the assumption of continuing revelation, on which this Church is founded, then you can understand that there is no irony in this. But if you don t start with that assumption, you see a profound irony."
Elder Oaks would have us believe that Brigham Young introduced the practice of polygamy and not Joseph. "The 19th century Mormons, including some of my ancestors, were not eager to practice plural marriage. They followed the example of Brigham Young, who expressed his profound negative feelings when he first had this principle revealed to him."

Do we actually believe that Elder Oaks doesn't know that Joseph Smith was the first one to practice polygamy? Notice that he does not mention who revealed polygamy to Brigham. It is natural for a active Mormon who believes that Brigham Young was a prophet of God, to think that it was God who revealed polygamy to him when in fact it was Joseph, if that Mormon doesn't know the true history of the church.

The church, even today, continues to mislead and distort the truth for it's own purposes. That is my opinion and I leave it up to the reader to decide if I am wrong. If I am right, then I ask you, how can The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints be the true church?
Banking On Heaven - A Polygamy Trailer
Monday, Nov 20, 2006, at 07:36 AM
Original Author(s): Pencil105
Topic: POLYGAMY - SECTION 2   -Link To MC Article-
BANKING ON HEAVEN is an unflinching look at a cult of Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints (FLDS). The polygamist communities of Colorado City, Arizona and Hildale, Utah are home to a culture that routinely practices child rape, welfare fraud and systematic mind-control. Director Dot Reidelbach and writer/producer Laurie Allen (an escapee from the FLDS) have constructed a documentary out of secret camera footage (outsiders are looked upon as agents of Satan and systematically shunned), interviews with polygamist escapees, 'lost boys' (young men and children cast out of the community for such infractions as not rolling their sleeves down), and government officials. An unholy trinity of sex, power and wealth are at the dark heart of this deeply troubling story.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gI6pBf... Banking On Heaven: http://www.bankingonheaven.com/
Of Romneys, Kimballs, Eyrings, And Polygamy
Wednesday, Feb 28, 2007, at 07:38 AM
Original Author(s): Randy Jordan
Topic: POLYGAMY - SECTION 2   -Link To MC Article-
In another thread, I mentioned that I had once read that Spencer W. Kimball's father-in-law had continued to live with two plural wives in Mexico into the 1950s. I found an article which gives the details at:

http://www.religious-freedoms.org/PLU...

Before reading that article, I didn't know that Camilla Eyring's father had married two Romney sisters. Here's the most relevant excerpt as concerning post-Manifesto polygamy:
"While the leaders were encouraged to qualify for their positions by living "the law," many of the most faithful and dedicated lay members of the Church also entered plural marriage of their own free will. They knew the true relationship between the manifesto and the higher law. One example of this was the father of Camilla Eyring Kimball, wife of the current Church President, Spencer W.

Kimball. On 3 November 1903 (over thirteen years after the manifesto was "unanimously" accepted by the Church) her father, Edward Christian Eyring took his wife's younger sister, Emma Romney, as a plural wife. The marriage was performed at Colonia Juarez by the Stake President, Anthony W. Ivins who had been sent to Mexico by President Wilford Woodruff to continue performing plural marriages after the manifesto, even though they knew such marriages were illegal in Mexico. (see Heber Grant Ivins, Polygamy in Mexico, Op. Cit., p. 5)

"In her biography, Sister Kimball said:

" . . . Mother told me that Aunt Emma would be coming to live with us as Father's second wife, . . . she had given her consent, believing as Father did that the only way for them to attain the highest glory in the celestial kingdom was to live faithfully by The Principle." (Caroline Eyring Miner and Edward L. Kimball, Camilla, [Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1980], p. 13)

"In spite of the manifesto, according to Sister Kimball, her parents understood that "it was still permissible, and were encouraged [by their leaders] in that understanding." (Ibid.) Not only was Edward Eyring not excommunicated for entering plural marriage after the manifesto, but the early 1950's found him and his plural wife faithfully doing temple work in the Mesa, Arizona temple (Ibid., p. 142). Hundreds of situations similar to these have existed throughout the Church."
Oh yeah, and today's church leaders assert that the mainstream Mormon church has nothing whatsoever to do with fundamentalist polygamists. There's no contradiction in the fact that a sitting apostle in the 1950s had a polygamous FIL living in full fellowship in the church and was a temple worker, more than half a century after church leaders claimed to have abandoned polygamy. Nope, no relationship between the mainstream church and today's polygamists anywhere.
Post Manifesto Polygamy And Church Deception
Friday, May 25, 2007, at 09:57 AM
Original Author(s): John Larsen
Topic: POLYGAMY - SECTION 2   -Link To MC Article-
Under strong political pressure, in 1890 Wilford Woodruff issued the “manifesto” supposedly ending the practice of polygamy. The actual response of the Church was to openly continue with polygamous marriages in Canada, Mexico or aboard sea vessels and to perform some clandestine marriages in the Utah territory. Married men would often take an unmarried woman with them to either Canada or Mexico, become married to the new polygamous spouse, and head back to Utah.

Utah was granted statehood in 1896 largely due to the abolition of polygamy. As time went on, the federal government got wind of what was really going on in Utah. All of this came to a head when Reed Smoot, an apostle, was elected to the senate. Confirmation hearings were commenced and the government fired a warning shot across the bow. The church knew they had to do something for real this time or suffer serious consequences.

Fortunately, by this time, polygamy had fallen out of favor with most of the membership. Only a few die-hards still continued the practice. Unfortunately, some of these strong supporters were apostles and some of the strong-power, broker Mormon families. The brethren knew they couldn’t deny that the practice was happening since this was easily disproved, and furthermore most general authorities still believed it was a divine principle–only on hiatus.

There had to be a public action that would accomplish three things: 1. Satisfy the federal government. 2. Allow for the eventual return of polygamy when the time was right (i.e. do not deny the doctrinal basis of polygamy). 3. Satisfy those Apostles who still strongly believed in polygamy.

They could not do all three, so a crafty plan was concocted. We now flash back to the spring general conference 1904, the last session on Wednesday afternoon. President Joseph F. Smith takes the stand. In a time when the talks were almost always given extemporaneously, President Smith makes an apology for reading a statement: “I have taken the liberty of having written down what I wish to present, in order that I may say to you the exact words which I would like to have conveyed to your ears, that I may not be misunderstood or misquoted.” Obviously what was about to be said had been careful construed so as not to be misunderstood. The statement was read:

“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 26, 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.”

Notice the slight-of-hand: no marriages had been solemnized with the “knowledge” of the Church, not “the knowledge of the brethren”. They knew full well what was happening. “The Church” was unaware because there was an order following the first manifesto to stop recording these marriages in the record books. Notice that although excommunication was mentioned, the real consequence was to be “liable to be dealt with” which was merely a threat of possible action not a fixed penalty and easily avoided. The brethren wanted the practice to stop, but they did not want to suffer the schism that would occur if they aggressively went after those who had continued in the post manifesto practice.

At this point in the conference another 2 resolutions were read affirming the end of polygamy and a general vote was taken. The vote was, of course unanimous. President Anthon Lund confirmed the vote:

“…the Church, by its vote in solemn assembly, has ratified this resolution, and the Saints know just where the Church stands on this question. If any come to you with such, rumors, you know that the Church is true to that which it accepted thirteen years and six months ago, and which it has again ratified here in this Conference.”

This crafty message fulfilled the purpose of laundering the rumors. Notice that Lund does not deny the practice occurred; it just refers membership to the “Church’s” stand on the practice. It also demonstrates a pattern that will be used many times after: issuing an insufficient statement of proof, declaring the issue closed and then referring all future questions to the statement. Ignorant members would be satisfied that the Church had ended the practice in 1890. Members with knowledge of post manifesto practice would know how to respond. Everyone would know to not believe the rumors–even if they were true.

But the real craftiness and deception by the Church had occurred a few minutes prior to the reading of the statement. The brethren were not able to reach a consensus on the manifesto. John Taylor had taught that polygamy would never be removed and a few of the brethren would not budge. The last hold outs were John W. Taylor (son of the former president) and Matthias Cowley. These two individuals did not attend this session of conference. Everyone else agreed to vote for the resolution. Thus the church could publish that the voting was unanimous–deceptively giving the impression that all of the church leadership was on board.

The ruse did not work. The federal government kept pressure on. The church had to respond more seriously and in 1905 Cowley and Taylor were removed from the quorum of the 12 for their continued practice of sealing polygamous marriages. Cowley eventually reconciled with the church and the later appointment of his son, Matthew Cowley, to the 12 is seen by many as a compensation for his father’s act as a sacrificial lamb. Taylor remained loyal to his father and polygamy to the end and was eventually excommunicated in 1911.

Here we see an early example of the church practice of differentiating between the individuals and the church where politically expedient. The brethren consistently refer to the Church without really defining what that is or what it means. Any statement, made by any church authority can, at any time, be regarded as the words of a man and not synonymous with the church. In this case, the Church becomes a blanket under which they hid and helps to perpetuate an insidious deception. However, like always, the members do not have the same privilege of distinguishing between the two.
Mormon Apologists: There Was Only About 2% Of The Brethren In The Church Who Actually Practiced Polygamy
Tuesday, Jun 5, 2007, at 06:58 AM
Original Author(s): Randy Jordan
Topic: POLYGAMY - SECTION 2   -Link To MC Article-
There's another shining example of LDS numbers-skewing. On my mission 25 years ago, when someone would ask us about Mormon polygamy, I was taught to respond with "The Mormons practiced polygamy because a lot of Mormon men were killed by persecutors, so other men took their widows and children into their own households. And, only about 4% of Mormons practiced polygamy, when at the same time, 7% of all Americans were, so it wasn't out of line." That response usually satisfied inquisitors. Unfortunately, there's not a shred of truth to it. It's simply another example of how Mormons are taught to "lie for the lord," and I'm personally ashamed that I repeated that lie many times throughout my LDS mission, albeit that my repetition was borne of ignorance, and blind trust in my superiors.

The Mormons didn't practice polygamy because men were murdered; Joseph Smith's first well-documented extra-marital relationship began in 1833, with a 16-year-old servant girl, Fannie Alger, who was unmarried; his second one was with Lucinda Morgan Harris, who was married to another Mormon man at the time. Not a single one of Joseph Smith's 33 known "plural wives" was the widow of a murdered Mormon man; in fact, 11 of them were currently married to other men at the time of their "sealing" to Smith. Smith sent several men on "missions," and while they were away, he "plural married" their wives without their knowledge, which when discovered, caused scandal and apostasy. Smith did not provide for any children of his "plural wives"; although some of those women did indeed live in his house, they also worked as servants or teachers. When Smith's legal wife, Emma, grew tired of her husband's blatant philandering, she ordered those "plural wives" from her home--making it obvious that the women weren't there to be "provided for," but rather to provide female company for Joseph Smith.

I have found no evidence that 19th-century Americans in general practiced any sort of "multiple wifery" to the degree of the "7%" that I was taught to repeat. If such a phenomenom had existed, it would be duly noted in our history and sociology textbooks. It's obvious that some Mormon apologist simply made up those figures to make Mormon polygamy appear to be a 19th-century norm.

As to your "2%" figure, that line was invented by LDS Apostle John A. Widtsoe nearly 100 years ago:

"Before 1890 there were no records showing the number of polygamists in the church. In 1890 it was found by careful survey that there were in the church 2,451 men with more than one wife. At that time the church membership was approximately 172,754 individuals. The men living in polygamy in 1890 were therefore 1.4 percent of the total church population....Probably, the reliable records for 1890 represent the general conditions in the years that polygamy was practiced." (Evidences and Reconciliations, p. 390.)

In his recent interview with Larry King, current LDS President Gordon B. HInckley repeated Widtsoe's lowball figure:

"The figures that I have are from, between, 2% and 5% of our people were involved in it. It was a very limited practice, carefully safeguarded."

Are those figures accurate? Let's examine the facts: In 1890, when Widtsoe's survey was allegedly taken, LDS leaders had the motivation to lowball the percentage of polygamists, to show the federal government that they were complying with their promise to end polygamy in order to qualify for statehood. Also by 1890, polygamy was on the wane; most of its first-generation practitioners had died (including Brigham Young, its chief advocate, in 1877). Polygamy had become less prevalent because of its obvious social unworkability; many older, higher-ranking Mormon men had taken many "plural wives", over four decades, often up to three dozen each, making it difficult for younger men to find wives their own age. Because of increased knowledge of Mormon polygamy and criticism from non-Mormon society, Mormon missionaries were no longer able to convert and import "plural wives" from Europe. In addition, Mormon male polygamists had been subject to arrest and imprisonment since the Reynolds decision in 1879, making it advisable for Mormon men to deny their polygamous situations; that fact, combined with those above, renders Widtsoe's 1890 estimate useless.

Also, note Widstoe's very dishonest use of numbers: he compares the number of confessed Mormon male polygamists to the total LDS population, to attain his "1.4%." Obviously, neither adult women nor unmarried children of either sex could be numbered as a polygamist, yet Widtsoe included them to derive his distortingly low percentage. A more honest and accurate percentage would have been derived if Widtsoe had only compared the total number of claimed married men to the number of married women; the difference between the two would have produced the number of polygamous men, assuming that respondents were honest about their situations. If we assume that unmarried children comprised 2/3 of Mormon population in 1890, then obviously, Widtsoe's figure is off by at least 2/3. But to repeat, even that number could be low, because since 1879, Mormons routinely denied their polygamous relationships. And, the recent revelations of possibly hundreds of secret "underground" plural marriages performed between 1890 and 1904 further invalidates Widtsoe's 1890 estimate.

Later researchers have disputed Widtsoe's figures. For example, LDS historian Stanley Ivins commented: "Visitors to Utah in the days when polygamy was flourishing were usually told that about one-tenth of the people actually practiced it...Of more than 6,000 Mormon families, sketches of which are found in a huge volume published in 1913, between fifteen and twenty percent appear to have been polygamous. And a history of Sanpete and Emery counties contains biographical sketches of 722 men, of whom 12.6 percent married more than one woman. From information available from all sources, it appears that there may have been a time when fifteen, or possibly twenty, percent of the Mormon families were polygamous." (Western Humanities Review, "Notes on Mormon Polygamy," vol. 10, p. 230.) LDS writer T. Edgar Lyon estimated the true figure to be "six or eight times" Widtsoe's, and late Utah Senator Wallace F. Bennett, using Census figures, estimated eight to ten percent.

During the inception and height of Mormon polygamy, LDS leaders taught that the practice was "essential to salvation." Joseph Smith's "revelation on celestial marriage" stated "as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant,...he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God" (Doctrine and Covenants 132: 6.) Brigham Young repeated that mandate when he preached that "the only men who will become gods...are those who enter into polygamy." Young, Heber C. Kimball, and other leaders often rebuked men who were reluctant to enter into polygamy, "counseling" them to "do their duty." The claimed necessity of plural marriage even prompted Mormon leaders to advocate the idea that Jesus Christ himself had been a polygamist. And Joseph F. Smith, who was the LDS president until 1918, stated emphatically that a man with only one wife could not receive "an exaltation as great and glorious..as he possibly could with more than one." (JoD, vol. 20, p. 28.) Until 1890, Mormon men clamored to be "sealed" to as many wives as possible, up to a stated "limit" of 99, on the hope that those wives would be part of their "celestial inheritance." All of these statements put the lie to Gordon B. Hinckley's recent assertion that polygamy was intended to be a "very limited practice....carefully safeguarded."

Considering Mormon leaders' teaching that polygamy was "essential to salvation," it seems remarkable that today's Mormons should attempt to downplay the number of polygamist practitioners among their pioneer forefathers, because the modern LDS Church portrays its pioneer ancestors as being faithful, obedient, and willing to sacrifice everything for their religion. The claimed "2 to 5%" figure, if accurate, demonstrates that to the contrary to that desired portrayal, 19th-century Mormon men were not terribly obedient to the prophets' "revelations."

One may question why modern Mormons seek to downplay the extent and orthodoxy of polygamy among their forbears. The answer is revealed by considering the proselyting efforts of today's LDS Church. Hinckley, who has been a major force in his church's media relations efforts for more than half a century, wants the LDS Church to attain a status of being a worldwide, mainstream religion. Hinckley is well aware that the single greatest negatively-perceived aspect of Mormonism, throughout its history, is its polygamy practice; polygamy is therefore the biggest public relations hurdle that the LDS Church must constantly clear with the "buying public". That is why, when questioned about modern Mormon fundamentalist polygamists (estimated to number about 30,000), Hinckley treated them as somewhat less than dirt, even going so far as to say that polygamy "is not doctrinal" and "we have nothing to do with them." Hinckley wants the public to believe that his church bears no responsibility for the promulgation of the polygamy practice, which embarrasses the mainstream church today with its widely-reported arrests and legal cases.

It's also why, in recent LDS-published materials, all mention of polygamy among 19th-century Mormons has been obliterated. A 1997 church lesson manual based on the teachings of Brigham Young failed to even mention polygamy; and recent articles in the church's monthly "Ensign" magazine, on the lives and ministries of both Joseph Smith and Young, also failed to even hint at their polygamy practice, even though Smith's secret polygamy was a prime factor in his 1844 murder, and controversy over polygamy dogged Young to his death. And, to further demonstrate the church's downplaying of polygamy, the sum total of information on the subject on the church's official website is the following:

"Myth: Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are polygamists. Some early leaders and members of the Church entered into plural marriages during the latter half of the nineteenth century. After receiving a revelation, Church President Wilford Woodruff declared the practice should be discontinued in 1890. That position has been reaffirmed by every President of the Church since. Members of the Church who enter into plural marriage today face Church disciplinary action, including excommunication."

Note that the website states that some Mormons began entering into plural marriages "during the latter half of the nineteenth century." To the contrary, the first mention of polygamy in Mormonism came from Joseph Smith in 1831, and numerous LDS historians have affirmed that Joseph Smith's first "plural marriage" was as early as 1833. Smith eventually secretly "married" at least 33 "plural wives" until his 1844 death, while publicly denying the practice until his death.

Smith, Young, Heber C. Kimball, John Taylor, John D. Lee, and numerous other Mormon men took multiple "plural wives" before the expulsion of the Mormons from Illinois in 1846. The LDS website deceptively asserts a "latter half of the ninetenth century" beginning for polygamy because the church does not want its members and prospective converts to learn the extensiveness and orthodoxy of their early leaders' polygamy practice' they want the public to think that it was "highly restricted." Also, polygamy was illegal in the state of Illinois the entire time Smith instituted and practiced it there; if the LDS website publicly admitted that Smith practiced polygamy, it would also by default admit that Smith was a lawbreaker. A tenet of Mormonism is that "he that keepeth the commandments of God hath no need to break the laws of the land", and Smith's breaking of bigamy laws reveals him as contradictory and hypocritical.

The website article is also very careful to state that polygamy was ended after Wilford Woodruff "received a revelation" to cease the practice, while neglecting to inform the public that the mandate to practice polygamy was itself an alleged "revelation from God";and the "revelation on celestial marriage", instituting the polygamy practice, is "canonized" in LDS theology, while Woodruff's alleged "revelation" calling for the cessation of the practice, has never been published or canonized.

The website also fails to mention that LDS leaders fought the federal government for four decades over polygamy, and that to force the church to end the practice, the government disincorporated the church and seized its assets---thus making Woodruff's claim of receiving a "revelation" to cease the practice highly suspect. The website also fails to note that LDS leaders continued to sanction secret "plural marriages" until at least 1904, skirting the law by performing such unions in Canada, Mexico, or offshore, and that those unions were embarrasingly brought to light during the 1904 Reed Smoot hearings. That information refutes the idea that Woodruff's 1890 Manifesto was a "revelation from God," or else LDS leaders knowingly acted contrary to such a "revelation." And, the website fails to mention that LDS President Joseph F. Smith himself was convicted of unlawful cohabitation in 1906.

The website declares emphatically that Mormons who enter into polgyamy today are disciplined or excommunicated; but the website fails to note that the "revelation" commanding the practice is still "canonized" in LDS "scriptures", published and distributed to millions of Mormons to this day. It should go without saying that the maintaining of such a "commandment" in "modern scriptures," while simultaneously forbidding its actual practice, is extremely contradictory and hypocritical. One would think that LDS leaders, on the basis of their claim of "continuing revelation," could simply delete all portions pertaining to the mandate of "plural marriage." If they were to do so, they could end their "lying for the lord" about polygamy, and begin to erase the stigma which infests Mormonism.

This issue of the lowball percentage of polygamy practitioners is exemplary of how myths are created and perpetuated in Mormon culture. First, Widstoe invents a figure using highly suspect raw numbers and counting methods; he publishes it in a highly popular, widely-distributed book; nearly a century later, Gordon B. Hinckley (who claims to be knowledgeable in Mormon history) repeats those same suspect numbers, because Widtsoe, being a late apostle, is a "trusted source"; and then a young Mormon like Chip Snow repeats the figure, because Hinckley has done so before him. Chip trusts Hinckley, and Hinckley trusts Widtsoe. It's a syndrome that drives much of Mormon culture----an allegedly trustworthy Mormon invents an assertion, and because Mormons trust their leaders and forbears, they continue to repeat those assertions for 100 years, without ever pausing to question whether the assertion is valid to begin with. This culture of trusting in, and repeating speculative assertions or rumors, without verifying facts for one's self, is what makes Mormonism what it is today. For a "true believing Mormon," facts place a poor second to "faith-promoting" assertions.
Mormons Are Still Polygamists
Thursday, Jul 19, 2007, at 07:48 AM
Original Author(s): Shaman Channel
Topic: POLYGAMY - SECTION 2   -Link To MC Article-
Confront any Mormon regarding the subject of polygamy and the latest status of their belief and you’ll generally receive the response of, “we don’t believe that anymore” or “we don’t practice that anymore.”

To the individual unfamiliar and unacquainted with Mormon history, practice and theology–this reaction usually suffices. However, the truth is, is that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints still practices and believes, completely, in the doctrine of polygamy.

Indeed; they are still polygamists.

This is not just in principle; Mormons actually still practice the doctrine of polygamy, as will be illustrated further.

The true question that must be confronted by Mormons, is whether or not, they believe polygamy to be true principle or a false principle. If they believe it to be a true principle, it is therefore of natural sequence that they believe in polygamy–unequivocal conclusion; Mormons are very much still polygamists and practice the doctrine this very day.

Because polygamy has been deemed, as socially, most irreprehensible and morally unacceptable, to say that one is a polygamist is tantamount or akin to declaring oneself a terrorist. Consequently, Mormons will always resist such a banner of acceptance of the practice or they will certainly appear hesitate to proclaim their spiritual alignment with such practice and activity.

As a distinct result, accordingly, the subject and treatment of polygamy will, in Mormonism, always be approached most reservedly apprehensive with a whisper of nervous, uneasy deception; always being careful not to divulge any more information than is absolutely necessary to satisfy inquires, questions, or concerns; careful not to be perceived or construed as expressly lying.

I truly believe that Mormon Apostle Dallin Oaks said it most delicately, although perfectly, when he stated “The whole experience with polygamy was a fertile field for deception. It is not difficult for historians to quote LDS leaders and members in statements justifying, denying, or deploring deception in furtherance of this religious practice (“Gospel Teachings About Lying.” Fireside address given to faculty, students, and alumni of BYU on September 12, 1993. http://www.ldsmormon.com/oakslying.sh...).”

Polygamy is also a tremendous source of embarrassment to the church, yet inescapable from them due to their eternal belief of the truth of it. For this reason, giving full disclosure and extent of their embracement of the true principle of polygamy, by the Mormon Church, will always be an issue of hesitation, cautious and shrewd selection of one’s words and reluctance.

This type of approach is also spoken of, and candidly justified, by Mr. Oaks, “Here we see that although a man is not justified in lying to detect a liar, he is justified (indeed, Joseph Smith was commanded!) to withhold things from the world in order to preserve himself and safeguard the work in which he is involved. In other words, we must not lie, but we are free to tell less than we know when we have no duty to disclose (“Gospel Teachings About Lying.” Fireside address given to faculty, students, and alumni of BYU on September 12, 1993. http://www.ldsmormon.com/oakslying.sh...).”

An exact case in point illustration of this would be Mormon President Gordon Hinckley’s interview with Larry King aired on September 8th 1998. In this interview Larry King asks Mr. Hinckley in regards to polygamy. Although, in his responses respecting the subject of polygamy, Mr. Hinckley is guilty of either unbelievable ignorance or deliberately lying so as to not place the Mormon church in any more of a controversial spectacle than it already has to be.

You be the judge.

Larry King asks, “First tell me about the church and polygamy. When it started it allowed it?

(Side note by author of this post: Now, to me, the honest answer and reasonable approach would have to been to simply state, “Well, Larry, The Lord commanded the Church to practice the principle of plural marriage or polygamy in the early 1830’s and it, the church, did so until the Lord commanded them to discontinue the practice in the 1890’s.)

Yet this is not what you get with Mr. Hinckley. Instead you get something that is shifty, hesitant and suspicious, opening the door to greater controversies.

Mr. Hinckley states, “When our people came west they permitted it on a restricted scale.”

To anyone with remote familiarity with the historical subject matter, there are 3 obvious lies in this statement alone.
  1. “When our people came out west.” Polygamy had already been being practiced for approximately 15-16 years before the church “came our west.” Mr. Hinckley is fully aware of this. It is obvious though, why he has chosen to lie and he is banking on the ignorance of the masses.
  2. “they permitted it.” He is attempting to make it sound as though there was a renegade splinter faction in the church that was tolerated or “put up with” in their observance of this principle. Again, it is obvious why Mr. Hinckley has chosen to lie. The fact is, is that polygamy was a commandment.
  3. “on a restricted scale.” Polygamy was essential and requisite with the order of heaven, as deemed by Mormons, and participation was mandatory, obligatory for entrance onto heaven. It was not on a restricted scale–all were commanded to indulge the calling or be damned. Polygamous practice was rampant and commanded.
Regarding plural marriage, polygamy or, “the new and everlasting covenant,” Joseph Smith wrote, “ For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory. For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world. And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God (DandC 132:4-6).”

As well as DandC 131, which states this regarding polygamy and its relationship with being saved in the Celestial Kingdom:

“IN the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; And if he does not, he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase (DandC 131:1-4)

Polygamy was the order of heaven and according to official Mormon sources, instituted from the foundations of the universe, and mandatory for entrance into heaven. This was undisputed.

“I am the Lord thy God, and will give unto thee the law of my Holy Priesthood, as was ordained by me and my Father before the world was (DandC 132:28).”

In Mormonism, polygamy remains in effect as the order of heaven, as Mormons believe that God acknowledges all of the sealed polygamous relationships prior to 1920 and the ones that are still going on in the temples, currently. Mormons believe that God the Father is a polygamist; hence, it is still the order of heaven.

Yet, to the believing Mormon, what end, objective or purpose–what relevancy or significance does it, polygamy, hold in heaven???

“But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified (DandC 132:63).”

Many wives to make a lots of spirit babies to populate the worlds when the exalted Mormon becomes a god!!!

This is the eternal doctrine of the Mormon Church and the purpose of polygamy–to make spirits to inhabit the worlds that Mormons would create in their godly state and sphere. It is in direct relation to the doctrine referred to as “the continuation of seeds,” once a Mormon becomes a god, a doctrine that was openly discussed in Mormonism without reservation or apology prior to 1982. In 1982, the movie “The God Makers,” was released and greatly embarrassed the church. Discussion about eminent god status was profoundly diminished after that–even to the extent of Gordon Hinckley denying that it was even taught in the church. (Time, August 4, 1997 page 56)

This is the official Mormon doctrine regarding becoming a god and having a “continuation of seeds.”

“And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them–Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths–then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them (DandC 132:19-20).”

Again, Mormons believe that once they become gods, possessing all power, their dominions, principalities, and kingdoms will need to be populated, therefore, requiring and necessitating many wives to produce many babies; “for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified (DandC 132:63).”

This doctrine has never been repudiated in the Mormon Church and remains a staple core of the doctrinal cannon of the faith.

Mormons are polygamists, even to this very day.

Now back to the interview with Mr. Hinckley.

Still regarding Mr. Hinckley states, “The figures I have are from -- between two percent and five percent of our people were involved in it. It was a very limited practice; carefully safeguarded. In 1890, that practice was discontinued. The president of the church, the man who occupied the position which I occupy today, went before the people, said he had, oh, prayed about it, worked on it, and had received from the Lord a revelation that it was time to stop, to discontinue it then. That's 118 years ago. It's behind us.”

Again, Mr. Hinckley is carefully trying to avoid the truth, using figures like only 2-5 percent involvement (lie), “limited practice” (who is he trying to fool, it was widely practiced and distributed) “carefully safeguarded” (I have no idea what he was trying to convey with that phraseology.)

Larry King then asks, “But when the word is mentioned, when you hear the word, you think Mormon, right?”

Hinckley responds, “You do it mistakenly. They have no connection with us whatever. They don't belong to the church. There are actually no Mormon fundamentalists.”

Again, Mr. Hinckley is banking on the ignorance of the masses, lying, as Joseph Smith was wont to do, as he unsuccessfully tries to shift polygamy away from the Mormon Church.

Of course when one thinks “Mormon” they naturally think “polygamy,” it started with them as an organization in America, and is currently practiced, and the FLDS do have a connection with the regular LDS–they’re an offshoot of the Mormon church, believing in all the same doctrines. The communities of Colorado City and Hilldale are perfect glimpses and windows into Mormon life of the 19th century.

Then the interview takes a most peculiar twist as Larry King asks of Mr. Hinckley, “You condemn it?”

Mr. Hinckley, perplexingly, if not oddly and curiously responds, “I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.” Where could this statement have come from?? Just how desperate was Gordon Hinckley that night in his interview with Larry King to so expressly use deceit and duplicity in this manner.
  1. It is still a central core piece and theme of Mormon theology and remains an non-repudiated staple of the Mormon doctrinal cannon.
  2. It is still practiced, even currently, by current administrative leaders in the church.
  3. It was always against the law, yet this bore no significance to Mormon adherence to the principle until the 20th century.
This is how Mormons are still practicing polygamy in this day and age.

Because Mormons still believe that Polygamy is practiced in heaven, and will be practiced in the millennium, as it is the order of heaven, Mormon men, recently including Mormon Apostles Russell M. Nelson and Dallin H. Oaks, are still sealed to more than one woman in the temple. Mormons believe that, in heaven, and Jackson County Missouri, they will live with their polygamous wives.

Mormons believe that God is a polygamist, that polygamy is and will continue to be practiced in heaven and the Millennium, and is being practiced right now in temples, as Mormon men are sealed to more than one woman. This is why Mr. Hinckley’s comment of “condemning it” and expressly stating “I think it is not doctrinal” were so surprisingly shocking.

Would Mr. Hinckley knowingly condemn God and his lifestyle and the order of heaven??? Declare something to not be doctrinal that his very own apostles have participated in–the sealing to more than one woman???

Dallin Oaks recently said in 2002 “When I was 66, my wife June died of cancer. Two years later--a year and a half ago--I married Kristen McMain, the eternal companion who now stands at my side (http://magazine.byu.edu/?act=viewanda=1...).” (thanks Steve)

Joseph Fielding Smith said this in regards to his experience in being sealed to more than one woman in the temple, “my wives will be mine in eternity. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 2, p.67).”

Harold B. Lee said this, in a poem, of his similar situation of his two wives that were sealed to him, My lovely Joan was sent to me; So Joan joins Fern That three might be, more fitted for eternity. "O Heavenly Father, my thanks to thee" (Deseret News 1974 Church Almanac, p.17).

Even former Utah Senator was counseled by former Mormon president Spencer Kimball to embrace the idea of polygamy. Taken from the Ensign article 'Uniting Blended Families', by Robert E. Wells, Ensign, Aug. 1997, p.24:

“Former Utah senator Jake Garn was reluctant to remarry following the death of his first wife, Hazel, in 1976, but he soon realized that he could not be both a father and a mother to his children. When he began dating Kathleen Brewerton, who would become his second wife, questions soon arose about how his first wife would feel should he become sealed to a second wife. The couple took their questions to President Spencer W. Kimball.

"He said he did not know exactly how these relationships will be worked out, but he did know that through faithfulness all will be well and we will have much joy. Brother Garn later recalled. Kathleen told him that she was afraid of offending Hazel. President Kimball's demeanor seemed to change. From being somewhat hesitant in his earlier answers, he now became sure and spoke with firmness. He looked right at Kathleen and with a tear forming in his eye, he said, 'I do know this: you have nothing to worry about. Not only will she accept you, she will put her arms around you and thank you for raising her children' (Jake Garn, Why I Believe [1992], 13).” (thanks Gerald and Sandra)

In conclusion, Mormons still practice the principle of polygamy as they believe that it is the order of heaven. They believe that they will practice polygamy in heaven as well as in the Millennium. So if you ask a Mormon if they believe in or practice polygamy and they tell you that they do not on both accounts–you can know that they are either lying or just very ignorant of their own doctrine.

Mormons are still polygamists.

Mormonism–a supposition of convenience.
Mormon Church Says Monogamy Not Good Enough
Thursday, Aug 2, 2007, at 07:11 AM
Original Author(s): Deconstructor
Topic: POLYGAMY - SECTION 2   -Link To MC Article-
The "true" Prophets who gave us the Book of Mormon, temple endowments and garments also gave the rules for eternal marriage:

Here's what the Prophet Joseph Smith declared:

"The same God that has thus far dictated me and directed and strengthened me in this work, gave me this revelation on celestial and plural marriage, and the same God commanded me to obey it. He said to me that unless I accepted it and introduced it and practiced it, I, together with my people would be damned and cut off from this time henceforth. And they say if I do so, they will kill me and I know they will. But we have got to observe it; it is an eternal principle and was given by way of commandment and not by way of instruction." (Contributor, Vol. 5, page 255)

The Prophet Brigham Young taught:

"Now, when a man in this Church says, `I don't want but one wife; I will live my religion with one,' he will perhaps be saved in the celestial kingdom, but when he gets there, he will not find himself in possession of any wife at all. He has had a talent that he has hid up. He will come forth and say, `Here is that which thou gavest me; I have not wasted it and here is the one talent,' and he will not enjoy it, but it will be taken from him and given to those who have improved the talent they received, and he will find himself without ANY wife, and he will remain single forever and ever." Read DandC 132:53-55

"But if the woman is determined to not enter into plural marriage, that woman, when she comes forth, will have the privilege of living in single blessedness through all eternity. Now sisters, do not say, `I do not want a husband when I get up in the resurrection.' You do not know what you will want. If, in the resurrection, you really want to be single and alone and live forever and ever and be made servants, while others receive the higher order of intelligence, and are bringing worlds into existence, you can have the privilege. They who will be exalted cannot perform all the labor, they must have servants, and you can be servants to them." See DandC 132:64-65

"Few, if any, of the temple marriages have been made binding upon the Lord by the participants fulfilling their vow and covenant, 'to fulfill all the laws, rites and ordinances pertaining to this holy matrimony in the new and everlasting covenant.' This means obeying the law of Abraham and Sarah as set forth in the Holy Scriptures (DandC Sections 131 and 132, especially verse 34). Without compliance to this law upon which eternal marriage is predicated, you will get about as far as anyone married outside the temple. The Lord says, "I the Lord am bound when ye do what I say, but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise." See DandC 82:103. (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 16, p. 167)

What the Prophet John Taylor Taught:

"Thus saith the Lord, all commandments that I give must be obeyed by those calling themselves by my name, unless they are revoked by me or by my authority, and how can I revoke an everlasting covenant, for I, the Lord am everlasting, and my everlasting covenants cannot be abrogated nor done away with, but they stand forever. Have I not given my word in great plainness on this subject, yet have not great numbers of my people been negligent in the observance of my laws, and the keeping of my commandments, and yet I have borne with them these many years and this because of their weakness, because of perilous times, and furthermore, it is now pleasing to me that men should use their free agency in regard to these things."

"Nevertheless, I the Lord do not change, and my covenants and my law do not. And as I have heretofore said by my servant Joseph, All those who would enter into my glory must and shall obey my law, and have I not commanded men that if they were Abraham's seed, and would enter into my glory, they must do the works of Abraham. I have not revoked this law, nor will I, for it is everlasting, and those who enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof, even so, Amen." John Taylor (Revelation of Sept. 26 1886)

The Prophet Joseph F. Smith asserted:

"Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity or non-essential to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I wish here, to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it to be false. The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the law of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage IN PART --and is good so far as it goes--and so far as a man abides these conditions of the law, he will receive his reward therefore, and this reward, or blessing, he could not obtain on any other grounds or conditions. But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it."

"Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain a fulness of the blessings pertaining to the celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it. He cannot receive the fulness of the blessings useless he fulfills the law, any more than he can claim the gift of the Holy Ghost after he is baptized without the laying on of hands by proper authority, or the remission of sins without baptism, though he may repent in sackcloth and ashes."

"I understand the law of celestial marriage to mean that every man in the Church who has the ability to obey and practice it in righteousness and will not, shall be damned. I say I understand it to mean this and nothing less, and I testify, in the name of Jesus that it does mean that." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 20, pp. 28, 30, 31)

Mormon Apostle Heber C. Kimball insisted:

"You might as well deny Mormonism and turn away from it as to oppose plural marriage. Let the Presidency of this Church, and the Twelve Apostles and all the authorities unite and say with one voice that they would oppose that doctrine, and the whole of them would be damned. What are you opposing it for? It is a principle that God has established for the human family! He revealed it to Joseph the Prophet in this our dispensation; and that which He revealed - He designs to be carried out by His people." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 5, p. 203)

The church has rescinded the current practice of polygamy, but the eternal doctrine is still there. The requirements to be married in the Celestial Kingdom have not changed since Joseph Smith revealed the temple endowment.

Doctrinally, it boils down to a simple question. Is Heavenly Father a polygamist? Mormonism promises faithful followers that they will become like Heavenly Father - to live like He lives and have what He has. That's what DandC 132 is all about.

So what is the order of marriage in heaven - monogamy or polygamy?

"Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of heaven among men. Such a system was commenced by the founders of the Roman empire. Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged."

"Thus this monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a holy sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers."

"Why do we believe in and practice polygamy? Because the Lord introduced it to his servants in a revelation given to Joseph Smith, and the Lord's servants have always practiced it. 'And is that religion popular in heaven?' it is the only popular religion there." - The Prophet Brigham Young, The Deseret News, August 6, 1862

Celestial Marriage=Plural Marriage
No Man Can Inherit The Kingdom Of God With Only One Wife
Thursday, Aug 2, 2007, at 10:34 AM
Original Author(s): Infymus
Topic: POLYGAMY - SECTION 2   -Link To MC Article-
Joseph Fielding Smith from the Journal Of Discourses, Volume 20 Page 29:
"Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false. There is no blesssing [blessing] promised except upon conditions, and no blessing can be obtained by mankind except by faithful compliance with the conditions, or law, upon which the same is promised. The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the law of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part-and is good so far as it goes-and so far as a man abides these conditions of the law, he will receive his reward therefor [therefore], and this reward, or blessing, he could not obtain on any other grounds or conditions. But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it. Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it." [Emphasis Added]
Of course, the LDS Corporation will tell you that Joseph Fielding Smith was "Speaking As A Man", and "That is not doctrine."
Polygamy And Utah Statehood, 1886
Saturday, Nov 3, 2007, at 06:26 AM
Original Author(s): Jw The Inquizzinator
Topic: POLYGAMY - SECTION 2   -Link To MC Article-
Pretty good laydown of the agruments that were being forwarded and why some saw the Utah statehood and polygamy issues as necessary "bedfellows"...pun intended.

http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bi...

"The Forgotten Millions", The Century; A Popular Quarterly. Vol 32, Issue 5, Publisher: The Century Company Publication, Date: Sept 1886, New York, Page 982.

"....The American State, or commonwealth, has absolute power over the subjects of marriage and divorce. Any American State might at any time permit plural marriage within its jurisdiction, if it should so will. This fact might have kept the Mormons where they were, in the State of Illinois, with the purpose of gaining control of it and making it a polygamous State, but for the fact that the State had also the correlative power, when the danger should become visible, to crush the minority by imprisoning its leaders for violation of its marriage laws, while tolerating the lawless expression of the majority’s public opinion. A territory where the Saints could be in the majority from the start, was the only safe place to begin a polygamous State."

"But would the American Congress ever allow such a polygamous territory to become a polygamous State? Unholy as the affirmative proposition might seem, there was every chance in its favor, if patience could secure her perfect work. Given a sufficiently large number of persons in a community, the proposition that the American people should keep them forever under absolute power was unthinkable. The Mormon community only permitted polygamy. The great mass of its members must always be monogamists. Let them have patience; let them submit to the imprisonment or disfranchisement of such of their few polygamists as should be convicted; let them only remain a majority, and the time must come when Congress, in some weak, hopeless, or over-sanguine hour, should admit the State of Utah. The gift of Statehood is irrevocable; once a State, Utah could not be deprived of her absolute power over marriage and divorce by any subsequent Congress, or by any instrument with the exception of an amendment to the Constitution, giving Congress the power to regulate marriage and divorce by general laws for the entire Union, and Federal Courts the vower to punish for violation of them."

"If this is the only remedy for a hasty or thoughtless admission of Utah to the Union, why not apply it now? Is it better to go on for years as we have done, holding this wolf by the ears, knowing that the chances are that it will some day escape? If that is to be our line of action, truly it was an astute and provident policy which kept the Mormons in Utah in 1848, for they had everything to gain and nothing to lose by a territorial location. Their population has risen from 11,380 in 1850 to 47,130 in i86o, 86,786 in 1870, and 143,963 in 1880. They are now more in number than the law requires as a constituency for a Representative in Congress; and their retention as a territory is every year becoming a greater strain upon our institutions. What are we to do when the population of Utah is a million or more? Are we still to keep them under the absolute government of Congress? Or do we imagine that our patience will be the greater, and that the Mormons will then be in the minority, or converted to monogamy? Sofar from that being probable, our delay is only preparing for us new difficulties of the same kind. The neighboring territories, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, are becoming infected with the Utah disease; and the time will come when we shall have on our hands the problem of holding in four polygamous territories, instead of one, from becoming States."

"There are objections to be considered, of course. The leading objection would be that the proposed grant of power to Congress would be distinctly outside of any proper limits to a really federal system; that a national marriage and divorce law would be a long step on the road to a French, or unified, republican system. The validity of the objection cannot well be denied. The fact is with the objector. Circumstances, mainly the rise of Mormonism, have forced upon us one evil. The country must decide whether this single step toward unification is too large a price to pay for a final solution of the Mormon problem. The ratification of the amendment would for the first time stamp Mormon polygamy as forever hopeless. A State government under the proposed amendment would relieve Congress of any further necessity for governing Utah; it would remit the punishment of polygamy, including disfranchisement and exclusion from office, to the automatic action of the United States courts; and, by changing political into purely legal prosecution, its natural effect would be to break up the influences which now make the Saints a consciously peculiar people, to urge the ambitious younger men out of its jurisdiction, and to strike at the ecclesiastical, which in many respects is more important than the mere polygamous, element of the question...."
Polygamy - 10 Quotes
Friday, Dec 28, 2007, at 07:59 AM
Original Author(s): Grey Matter
Topic: POLYGAMY - SECTION 2   -Link To MC Article-
The Cult of the Latter–day Saints continues to lie about why so many vulnerable and defenceless females were forced into polygamous marriages.

The innocent victims included children, as well as women already married to other living men.

When I was growing up in the Mormon Cult, it was said many times by wise local sheep and flock herders that polygamy was practiced by a very few, and that it was done in order to help the poor widows of the fine men who had been killed by mobsters. And when serving a mission, this was the pat answer I used to offer those who enquired.

I remember Ezra Taft Benson visiting a mission-wide meeting, and talking about one of his progenitors who was inveigled in the splendid business of ruling over a group of sex slaves. This practice was known as the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. Mr Benson’s explanation was simply spiffing. Maybe one day, in the highest of the Mormon god’s heavens, we would all become polygamists. Wonderful.

Ignorance is bliss, until curiosity comes along.

The sordid subject of multiple sexual partners of both pre-childbearing and childbearing ages mattered more to the Mormon Cult’s so-called prophets, seers and revelators and special witnesses of Jesus than anything else. They even travelled across the American continent in order to practice their degenerate behaviour undisturbed, in darkness and in secrecy.

Here are some quotes from the lips of the Mormon god’s anointed mouthpieces, the so-called special witnesses of Jesus, along with quotes from the “Ensign” of the day, i.e. the official Mormon periodicals, and some other sources:

1. “I condemn it [polygamy], yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal” – Gordon Hinckley, so-called prophet seer and revelator and special witness of Jesus. http://www.onlineutah.com/polygamyhin...

Not doctrinal? You have no problem telling barefaced lies in this interview, do you Gordon?

2. “I can’t image anything more awful than polygamy “ – Mitt Romney, would-be president of the United States of America, 60 MINUTES interview with Mike Wallace, 13 May 2007

Mitt has just said that he can’t think of anything worse than the marriage and sex habits of the Mormon god.

Mitt better hope the Mormon god doesn’t hear this, or he’s in deep trouble.

3. “The one wife system not only degenerates the human family, both physically, and intellectually, but it is entirely incompatible with philosophical notions of immorality; it is a lure to temptation, and has always proved a curse to a people.” - p. 227, Millennial Star, Vol.15.

I wonder if George Orwell’s double-speak was inspired by his readings of Mormon prophets. Who knows?

4. “Now, where a man in this church says, ‘I don’t want but one wife, I will live my religion with one,’ he will perhaps be saved in the Celestial kingdom; but when he gets there he will not find himself in possession of any wife at all… it [the talent of one wife] will be taken and given to those who have improved the talents they received, and he will find himself without any wife, and he will remain single forever and ever” - Brigham Young, so-called prophet, seer and revelator and special witness of Jesus. Source: The Deseret News, September 17, 1873.

Poor Mitt. Looks like his wife will be given to somebody else one day.

5. “Marriage is not performed in the heavens in the hereafter”. - Harold B. Lee, so-called prophet, seer and revelator and special witness of Jesus. Source: p.128, Youth and The Church.

Doesn’t this kind of conflict with number 4 above. Hmm. I wonder which Mormon prophet is telling the truth?

6. “Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shall cleave unto her and none else.” – Joseph Smith, so-called prophet seer and revelator and special witness of Jesus, p.91 Book of Commandments

Pity the rapist didn’t practice what he preached.

7. “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…” - Doctrine and Covenants 101:4, 1835

Strange. Whilst proclaiming these fine words, Joe and the others were building their sex groups in darkness and in secret. Polygamy, polyandry and child rape. Par for the course among the Mormon alpha males.

8. “If plural marriage is not true or in other words, if a man has no divine right to marry two wives or more in this world, then marriage for eternity is not true, and your faith is all in vain, and all the sealing ordinances and powers, pertaining to marriages for eternity are vain, worthless, good for nothing; for as sure as one is true the other must also be true” – Orson Pratt, so-called prophet seer and revelator and special witness of Jesus, p.296, Journal of Discourses, Volume 21.

And as sure as one is false; the other must also be false. Yes, I agree that Mormonism is worthless and good for nothing.

9. “The doctrine of polygamy with the ‘Mormons’ is not one of that kind that in the religious world is classed with ‘nonessentials’. It is not an item of doctrine that can be yielded, and faith in the system remains. - Millennial Star, 26 1865.

So many, many U-turns. You get dizzy just thinking about them all, don’t you?

Before reading the next one, just remember, “Whether by the voice of my mormon prophets, or by my own mormon god voice, it is the same.” (source: Mormon so-called scripture, Doctrine and Covenants)

10. “The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.” Brigham Young, so-called prophet, seer and revelator and special witness of Jesus. Source: p. 269, Journal of Discourses, Volume 11.

Hey, Mitt, I hope you’re paying attention to this prophet of the Mormon god? Isn’t it the same as the Mormon god’s voice?
The Long Time It Took To Realize What Polygamy Really Was, And Is
Wednesday, Apr 9, 2008, at 07:15 AM
Original Author(s): Lightfingerlouie
Topic: POLYGAMY - SECTION 2   -Link To MC Article-
I grew up in a very orthodox family, full of the usual stories about "the Prophet," his greatness, and all he did.

I learned how the Mormons had been badly persecuted, and how everyone who spoke against the church was a "liar." So many liars. So very many liars.

I was told that Joseph Smith had numerous wives. But I was told the sanitized version, with "marriages" that did not involve sex, 14 year old girls, the wives of other men, and a life of lying, cheating, and skulking around from bed to bed.

I was even taught most of the problems were Emma's fault. She was the "weaker vessel," who could not come to terms with the Lord's program. She was so weak, I was taught, she left the fold when Joseph died. Brigham Young said "Joseph will have to go into hell to get her."

Whatever.

On my mission, I was constantly asked about polygamy. I gave the standard answers. I believed them myself. I could not understand it, but it "came from the Lord."

The first sense of just how awful it all was came years after my mission, when I read "The Giant Joshua," Maurine Whipple's novel about early Mormonism and polygamy in St. George. I first learned about the way arrangements were made, and how they were enforced----"blood atonement."

It made me question. I was not taught this. It sounded awful, but it made sense. How else could the stupid and pathetic practice of polygamy be enforced? It had to involve threats.

I have since read the good books about Mormon polygamy. That includes "Under the Banner of Heaven," 'Tell it All," and "Wife No. 19." It hit me very hard. Polygamy, as practiced by Warren Jeffs, is the same kind of polygamy practiced by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. It did not change at all. The same methods used by the early church are used now. To make it work, you must remove all freedom from the women. They must become property.

Women were, and are, chattel. Girls are married off young, and assigned to the role of slacking the lust of 50 year old lechers who should be arrested and castrated. They are not patriarchs, they are child molesters. They operate under the guise of the 'holy Priesthood," which is just an excuse to pick and choose the nubile girls. Some sacred authority that is.

The whole damned thing is sick. It is beyond pathetic. But it goes on and on and on. Joseph started it, and it never would go away. It took on a life of its own, and became a huge monster that cannot be controlled. One man's desire for sexual experimentation led to hundreds of ruined lives, child molestation, and a sick, sick theology. How utterly nauseating it is.

I cannot stand to hear Mormons talk about it now. "We will practice it in the Celestial Kingdom," or "It will come back when we are worthy,"

Can't these dopes figure it out? It is not holy, pure, or moral. It is just sick. It has, at least done one thing. It has prevented the Mormon church from ever having a shot at being mainstream. They will never be accepted as a normal faith. The baggage of polygamy will hold them down forever.
Pathology Abounds. Mormons Beware.
Friday, Apr 18, 2008, at 09:43 AM
Original Author(s): Nightingale
Topic: POLYGAMY - SECTION 2   -Link To MC Article-
Unbelievable Larry King Live (LKL) show tonight!

Larry's panel included two former FLDS women, Mike Watkiss the journalist covering this story for years and the supervisor of CPS from LA (an MD I believe).

The first shocker for me was the state's reasons given for their decision to separate the children from their mothers:

(1) The children believe that their highest calling is to bear children.

(2) The children believe they should marry when the prophet tells them to.

Newsflash - other faiths teach that too; for example, MORMONISM!!!!

The next surprise was hearing the MD saying right out loud (as diplomatically as possible) that all the mothers are "in a trance" or "hypnotized" or "something" such that they need psych evals. He said (as posters have remarked here) that the woman who showed the media around her home (in the FLDS commune) was speaking in a "child-like way" and seemed "glazed". He said, "The whole place is pathological".

Funny - that is what the nevermo posters around here say about Mormonism. Those of us who were in it, especially the BICs, sometimes have a hard time recognizing or remembering just how far outside the norm some of the cultural aspects and teachings are. We just get so used to it. Indeed, Carolyn Jessop tonight said that when she was growing up in FLDS abuse was "common" but she didn't know it was abuse. "It was just life."

I remarked earlier that I was somewhat fearful that the TX situation has played out the way it has because of the utter unfamiliarity that outsiders have with the FLDS way of life. This program confirmed that is true to some extent. First, the police officer who entered the compound the first day was shocked to see at least several young pregnant teens and that was apparently seen as evidence of child abuse (although there are plenty of places where you could find young pregnant teens outside of FLDS). Next, the therapists were alarmed by something while interviewing the children, something so apparently "abusive" that they recommended immediate separation of the kids from their mothers. This turned out to be the two points mentioned above, related to the beliefs being taught to the kids about marriage and obedience to their prophet.

To those of us who were LDS that almost doesn't raise an eyebrow as it is such familiar counsel in Mormonism. It can be hard and takes time to recalibrate our sensometers and budge over more to the midline in areas like that.

What was brought out today was that with the mothers "brainwashed" (my paraphrase) the state's concern is that they are fundamentally incapable of protecting their children. As Carolyn Jessop put it, "The Mother Bear isn't there" (i.e., a mother's extreme child protective instinct is missing). IOW, the women do what Jeffs (and other leaders) tell them to do rather than what is in the best interests of their children. Interestingly, they brought in the fathers on this too, in that Jeffs (and his chosen) have the power to order the men to do things that are not family or child friendly, such as to leave the family and families are quite often "reassigned" and none of the parents raise objections.

The MD stated that even though it's sad that the children want to go home (it is said) and that the mothers are crying for their kids, the number one issue is to protect the kids and find them "permanency" (i.e., foster care if that is what is deemed in their best interest). This is, of course, true if it is proven that abuse is occurring.

However, when part of the "evidence" is that their teachings seem bizarre or out of line to non-members, that is getting a trifle too subjective, don't you think?

I happen to think that the children in the Jesus Camp scenario are obviously very distressed and "brainwashed" in accordance with the beliefs of the adults in their sphere.

So, who decides which beliefs are OK and which ones should precipitate the state's apprehension of every child in sight?

This is in no way an endorsement of Jeffs' approach to life, of course. But when you get down to citing pieces of religious dogma as valid reason for separating families, it seems like heading into a minefield, no?

One of the reasons cited for not allowing the boys to return to "the ranch" was that they are "groomed to be perpetrators".

I hear some mixed feelings and opinions from the women who are ex-FLDS. All can agree that it is certainly a complex situation and unprecedented. It could be one of those things where the officials involved end up looking like geniuses - or not.

Here's hoping that there can be a quick resolution for the kids. They're not even going to school yet (too big to be organized yet). When I was helping refugee kids a few yrs back, one of the experts in resettlement issues emphasized that the best way to help them was to create a routine and get them back to doing normal, safe activities with school being foremost. Of course, these kids are home schooled. Recreating that is yet another complication for CPS.

Jenny was asking on another thread why this case is so intriguing. Partly, of course, it is to do with how very close it is to Mormonism after all.

It is only a matter of degrees.

The beliefs are similar, if not identical, in many areas.

With the FLDS, it is just more visible.

For some LDS and exmos, the perimeter fence, the armed guards, the isolation and the narrow views are hidden, in the mind, yet every bit as restrictive.

The FLDS woman showing the journalists around her home took them into a big area, apparently the living room, where they gather to sing, etc., she said. It looked exactly, I mean exactly, like the RS room in the chapel I attended at the stake centre. I have always believed in "living" my religion (not just attending church) and yeah, there may be a hymn book on my bookcase. But sheesh. There ain't an organ and RS decor in my home. I prefer a little less "correlation" than that.

Very sad. Very complex. Heckuva job for the judge. And likely some work for LDS PR types.

I wonder how many newbie exmos we'll hear from whose ex-testimony will consist of the fact that seeing the FLDS situation reflected their own beliefs to them in a new way. As others have posted in many essays before (Bob McCue for example) often that is the way a Mormon gets a wake-up call. It's easy to see the flaws in someone else's beliefs. Seeing yours mirrored in theirs gives you a new perspective on things.

And for the future - it will be fascinating to hear from the "rescued" children and get their perspective in the coming years.

Here's hoping they can all be helped and the boys and the (non-leader) men and the mothers too.

What a big job for Texas. And hopefully a precedent for other jurisdictions - what to do - what not to do. I hope it causes a lot of people to take stock of how they raise their children. Freedom of choice. That is the best approach but obviously it's difficult for most of us to be that objective.
LDS Doctrine And Covenants Section 132 And The Texas Drama
Monday, Apr 21, 2008, at 11:20 AM
Original Author(s): Roger Morrison
Topic: POLYGAMY - SECTION 2   -Link To MC Article-
There are so many question begging issues to be considered here that it is truly mind boggling. Especially for those with an interest in LDSism as do most posters, and readers--the larger number--here.

I have DC:132 in front of me at the moment:

1. "...I, the Lord, justified ... Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob...Moses, David and Soloman, my servants...(re) having many wives and concubines--

3. "Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey...those who have this law revealed unto them... must obey the same.

4. "...I reveal... a new and an everlasting covenant; (that if you do not abide) then are ye damned; no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

34. "God commanded Abraham, and Sarah, gave Hagar to Abraham to wife...therefore....fulfilling...the promises.

35. "Was Abraham...under condemnation?...Nay; for I the Lord commanded it.

37. "Abraham received concubines...for righteousness...they have entered into their exaltation... (and) sit upon thrones, and are...gods.

38. "David...Soloman...and Moses my servants, also many other of my servants from the beginning of creation...received many wives and concubines ...and did not sin...(except) in things not recevied from me.

61. "...if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espose the second...he is justfied...

62. "And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law...they belong to him...

64. "...if any man teaches...(his wife) the law of my priesthood...and she does not administer unto him...she shall be destroyed...for I will desroy her...

There, in a condensed form is the foundation of FLDSism as found in the Doctrine and Covenants of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," commonly known as the "Mormon Church," attended by Mormons.

I am in the deepest of sympathy for the FLDS members on public display. I question the tactics used to take women and children from their homes. Then seperate child from parent with seemingly no regard for natural instinct of human (and animal) bonding. I question the whistle blowing and "hoax" involved...

Yet, I see many attitudes and practices, very familiar that disturb me. Particularly the conformity to dress and response standards--while in the extreme in the Compound--I think they could be closer to the wishes of LDS hiearchy than might, publicly be let out:

"Our Prophet speaks for, and with God." Body adornement, modest attire, facial hair, "just bear your testimony". The obvious subservience of women. The prominent display of Church leader's pictures through out their homes; all such are abided in Mormonism in varying degrees.

Does the end (liberation) justify the means (hoax)? It does at the core of Mormonism (murder Laban). So, why not here?

One segment of last night's news stated, "it is abuse to condition a child to self destructive behaviour." Indoctrination that attempts to "enslave"--a most strong verb, one that could be less dramic might be, unduly-influence--is not in the best interest of the psyche health of the child. The objective and consequence of "indoctrination" is to perpetuate, in this case, the abuse (evil)

One does not have to have experienced a lot of LDSism to have encountered at least a smigin of strong influence, some times bordering on intimidation, and threat. Of course the ultimate being expulsion from Heaven for the disobedient. As these women sadly demonstrate,

Would any Doctor of mental health not find such a heaven/hell suggestion well stepping beyond the bounds of responsible mentoring/parenting?

I think LDS leaders must be in serious prayer-and-fasting concerning the ramifications of these dramatic opening scenes.

I think it unfortunate, yet understandable, that the Original LDS Church takes such a self-centred defensive role in this religio-socio debacle. LDSism shows absolutely no compassion, or acknowledges their kinship with the FLDS Church.

The total concern of Salt Lake City Mormonism is: "PLEASE, do not confuse US with THEM!" Deseret News seems to be quite on top of this happening, wirh a "Comment" section following their articles that publish some very interesting opinions. Many calling SL Inc. to task.

Meanwhile SL Inc has posted GA Cook on YouTube (a site blocked from BYU :-o) making a public appeal to differentiate the two groups... A rather weak attempt that denies any relationship what-so-ever. Not a lot of honesty or integrity displayed in this nervous desparate appeal.

IMSCO, LDSism should divulge their polygamist history, what they suffered, and why in self-preservation they abandoned the practice. At the same time they should acknowledge "The Principle" is still in the book, and practiced in a modified version wherein a male can be "sealed" to as many women as he legally marries. OTOH, a women can only be "sealed" to one man. Des News is worth checking out.
Most Mormons Don't Notice The Polygamist Participants In Their Wards
Tuesday, Apr 22, 2008, at 08:02 AM
Original Author(s): Cheryl
Topic: POLYGAMY - SECTION 2   -Link To MC Article-
Why not?

First, I'd say it's because polygamists attending normal morg wards are few and far between. But I was one of those and knew many others when I was growing up in Utah. Some of the members of my parents' fundie group were found out and exed. Others are still actively participating both in polygamous activities and the mainstream mormon program.

I also knew of many other plyg groups who lived double mormon lives, like we did.

The TR question about "apostate groups" was added to prevent this situation and the resulting church embarrassment. There would no longer be a need for that question if every member exclusively followed only the SLC mainstream prophet.

How can members identify these covert polygamists and plyg sympathizers?

They often can't.

I'd bet that EVERYONE who knew my plyg/mainstream family would assume that they've never met anyone like us in any ward they've attended.

Starting at about age six, I was coached on how to explain away the fundie services we held in our living room and the trailers in our backyard, the living quarters for some of the prophet's wives.

Polygamists are easy to spot if they look and act like the FLDS robot-type women. But others keep up with current fashion and hairsyles, though they still dress modestly, usually with less than average amounts of makeup and jewelry.

Think about Margene on Big Love. I can see her remaining a polygamist and also joining the mainstream church for the social advantages to her and her children. Others might do it for church welfare or job opportunities.

I would think this double-life practice would be most common in Utah and possibly, Arizona. I doubt it's as likely in Provo and SE Idaho areas where the mainstream leadership has the firmest hold and the most willing spies.

I do know of cases where the polygamist men participate in wards because they want to attend singles dances and activities to recruit additional brides. A polygamist was arrested and convicted in the Sacramento/Placer, California area two or three years ago. I think the charges had to do rape and sexual forms of torture. (None of these people is ever charged with bigamy/polygamy.)

My family remained in the regular morg after converting to fundie beliefs because it was an important part of having friends and being accepted in Utah culture. Also, because the church offered opportunities of possibly luring away members for the plyg prophet and provided temple access.

My formerly polygamist brother was exed, but he and his remaining first wife were rebaptized into a regular ward. This gives me some inkling of which of his adult kids are firmly polygamist, which have turned to the mainstream morg, and which are like I was growing up, being fundie at home and more mainstream at ward functions.

For the link obsessed. No, I have none to prove my firsthand experience. This, like much of what I write, is just me telling what I've lived. (Frankly, I think my record for telling the truth is better than the morg's.)
With Reference To LDS Leaders Marrying Teens
Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008, at 08:08 AM
Original Author(s): Zeezrom
Topic: POLYGAMY - SECTION 2   -Link To MC Article-
I have been doing some research and came up with this, confirmed on http://www.familysearch.org

Some of Orson Pratts wives and the ages when they married (they seem to get younger as he got older) :

Orson PRATT - Ancestral File

Gender: M Birth/Christening: 19 Sep 1811 Hartford, Washington, New York

Sarah Marinda BATES Marriage: 4 Jul 1836 age 19 Orson Pratt aged 25

Charlatte BISHOP Marriage: 1844 age 31 Orson Pratt aged 33

Mary Ann MERRILL Marriage: 27 Mar 1845 age 26 Orson Pratt aged 34

Louisa CHANDLER Marriage: 1846 age 23 Orson Pratt aged 35

Adelia Ann BISHOP Marriage: 13 Jan 1846 age 30 Orson Pratt aged 35

Marian ROSS Marriage: 19 Feb 1852 age 23 Orson Pratt aged 41

Sarah Louisa LEWIS Marriage: 21 Jun 1853 age 22 Orson Pratt aged 42

Juliett Ann PHELPS Marriage: 14 Dec 1855 age 16 Orson Pratt aged 44

Eliza CROOKS Marriage: 24 Jul 1857 age 28 Orson Pratt aged 46

Margaret GRAHAM Marriage: 28 Dec 1868 age 16 Orson Pratt aged 57

He was conceiving with this 16 year old at once , she gave birth just 9 Months later(no surprises I guess )HE WAS 57 for goodness sake.Can you imagine the feelings of his original wife Sarah now aged 51, seeing him courting and bedding a 16 year old ?( let alone all those other young wives or any wives , I can't think of anything worse for a wife to endure ).

Children with Margaret GRAHAM

1 Sex Name M Orlon Graham PRATT (AFN:1XDL-5J) Pedigree, Born: 14 Sep 1869 Place: Salt Lake City, S-Lk, Ut, Died: 5 Oct 1932 Place: El Cerriot, Ca, Buried: Place: Sunset Veiw Cem, Berkerley, Ca

2 Sex Name F Pearl Graham PRATT, Born: 2 May 1872 Place: Salt Lake, S-Lk, Ut, Christened: Jun 1872 Place: Salt Lake City, S-Lk, Ut, Died: 5 Dec 1954 Place: Rigby, Jffrson, Id, Buried: 8 Dec 1954 Place: Salt Lake, S-Lk, Ut

3 Sex Name M Royal Graham PRATT (AFN:1XDL-6P) Pedigree, Born: 3 Jun 1874 Place: Salt Lake City, S-Lk, Ut, Died: 17 Dec 1917 Place:

This is just very brief , he had children with his many other wives too .I just haven't had time to log everything as my stomach was churning as it is.

I did a little on Orson Hyde also:

Orson Hyde Birth/Christening, 8 Jan 1805 Oxford, New Haven, Connecticut, United States

He married 16 year old Ann Eliza Vickers at aged 52 and the first child was 14 months later... He married an 18 year old at age 61 also .The reearch is not exhaustive so there could be many more wives. If anyone knows of a more comprehensive list/research for the LDS Leaders then I would be grateful for the info ....

Miranda Nancy JOHNSON 4 Sep 1834 19 years old Orson 29 years old

Ann Eliza VICKERS 12 Mar 1857 16 years old Orson 52 years old

Children with 16 year old Ann Eliza Vickers, 1 Name M Charles Albert HYDE, Born: 13 May 1858 Place: Springville, Utah, Ut, Died: 11 May 1923 Place:

2 Name M George Lyman HYDE (AFN:4LVD-CL) Pedigree, Born: 16 Mar 1860 Place: Salt Lake City, Salt Lake, Ut, Died: 1 Apr 1940 Place: Salt Lake City, Salt Lake, Ut, Buried: Place: Springville, Utah, Ut

3 Name M Joseph Smith HYDE (AFN:8BMB-LD) Pedigree, Born: 15 Jan 1863 Place: Spring City, Sanpete, Ut, Died: 27 Feb 1944 Place:

4 Name F Maria Louisa HYDE (AFN:8BMB-MK) Pedigree, Born: 1 Nov 1865 Place: Spring City, Sanpete, Ut, Died: 31 Aug 1867 Place:

5 Name M Melvin Augustus HYDE (AFN:8BMB-NQ) Pedigree, Born: 5 Sep 1868 Place: Spring City, Sanpete, Ut, Died: 8 Feb 1873 Place:

6 Name F Flora Geneva HYDE (AFN:8BMB-PW) Pedigree, Born: 2 Jan 1871 Place: Spring City, Sanpete, Ut, Died: 17 Jul 1953 Place:

Emma PRICE 9 Oct 1861 56 years old, Orson 56 years old

Sophia Margaret LYON 10 Oct 1865 18 years old Orson 61 years old

Julia REINERT 29 Aug 1863 21 years old Orson 58 years old

Mary Ann PRICE 11 years younger date of marriage not found

Martha Rebecca BROWETT 4 years younger date of marriage

I'm sure there will be a similar pattern for all of those early LDS leaders
Gordon B. Hinckley's Big Lie Re: The Percentage Of 19th Century Mormon Polygamists
Thursday, Apr 24, 2008, at 07:58 AM
Original Author(s): Randy Jordan
Topic: POLYGAMY - SECTION 2   -Link To MC Article-
From what I've read about polygamy on this site, it sounds like a very large percentage of early church members practiced polygamy. I was always told when I was a member that only a very select group of 1 to 2% of members did this. Does anyone know how large the percentage actually was??
Many true believing Mormons often repeat the assertion that only a very small percentage of 19th-century Mormons practiced polygamy. Several years ago, I wrote a response on this subject on alt.religion.mormon to a post by a young Mormon named Chip Snow, which I copy here.

Chip wrote:
There was only about 2% of the brethren in the church who actually practiced polygamy.
I replied:

There's another shining example of LDS numbers-skewing. On my mission 25 years ago, when someone would ask us about Mormon polygamy, I was taught to respond with "The Mormons practiced polygamy because a lot of Mormon men were killed by persecutors, so other men took their widows and children into their own households. And, only about 4% of Mormons practiced polygamy, when at the same time, 7% of all Americans were, so it wasn't out of line." That response usually satisfied inquisitors. Unfortunately, there's not a shred of truth to it. It's simply another example of how Mormons are taught to "lie for the lord," and I'm personally ashamed that I repeated that lie many times throughout my LDS mission, albeit that my repetition was borne of ignorance, and blind trust in my superiors.

The Mormons didn't practice polygamy because men were murdered; Joseph Smith's first well-documented extra-marital relationship began in 1833, with a 16-year-old servant girl, Fannie Alger, who was unmarried; his second one was with Lucinda Morgan Harris, who was married to another Mormon man at the time. Not a single one of Joseph Smith's 33 known "plural wives" was the widow of a murdered Mormon man; in fact, 11 of them were currently married to other men at the time of their "sealing" to Smith. Smith sent several men on "missions," and while they were away, he "plural married" their wives without their knowledge, which when discovered, caused scandal and apostasy. Smith did not provide for any children of his "plural wives"; although some of those women did indeed live in his house, they also worked as servants or teachers. When Smith's legal wife, Emma, grew tired of her husband's blatant philandering, she ordered those "plural wives" from her home--making it obvious that the women weren't there to be "provided for," but rather to provide female company for Joseph Smith.

I have found no evidence that 19th-century Americans in general practiced any sort of "multiple wifery" to the degree of the "7%" that I was taught to repeat. If such a phenomenom had existed, it would be duly noted in our history and sociology textbooks. It's obvious that some Mormon apologist simply made up those figures to make Mormon polygamy appear to be a 19th-century norm.

As to your "2%" figure, that line was invented by LDS Apostle John A. Widtsoe nearly 100 years ago:

"Before 1890 there were no records showing the number of polygamists in the church. In 1890 it was found by careful survey that there were in the church 2,451 men with more than one wife. At that time the church membership was approximately 172,754 individuals. The men living in polygamy in 1890 were therefore 1.4 percent of the total church population....Probably, the reliable records for 1890 represent the general conditions in the years that polygamy was practiced." (Evidences and Reconciliations, p. 390.)

In his recent interview with Larry King, current LDS President Gordon B. HInckley repeated Widtsoe's lowball figure:

"The figures that I have are from, between, 2% and 5% of our people were involved in it. It was a very limited practice, carefully safeguarded."

Are those figures accurate? Let's examine the facts: In 1890, when Widtsoe's survey was allegedly taken, LDS leaders had the motivation to lowball the percentage of polygamists, to show the federal government that they were complying with their promise to end polygamy in order to qualify for statehood. Also by 1890, polygamy was on the wane; most of its first-generation practitioners had died (including Brigham Young, its chief advocate, in 1877). Polygamy had become less prevalent because of its obvious social unworkability; many older, higher-ranking Mormon men had taken many "plural wives", over four decades, often up to three dozen each, making it difficult for younger men to find wives their own age. Because of increased knowledge of Mormon polygamy and criticism from non-Mormon society, Mormon missionaries were no longer able to convert and import "plural wives" from Europe.

In addition, Mormon male polygamists had been subject to arrest and imprisonment since the Reynolds decision in 1879, making it advisable for Mormon men to deny their polygamous situations; that fact, combined with those above, renders Widtsoe's 1890 estimate useless.

Also, note Widstoe's very dishonest use of numbers: he compares the number of confessed Mormon male polygamists to the total LDS population, to attain his "1.4%." Obviously, neither adult women nor unmarried children of either sex could be numbered as a polygamist, yet Widtsoe included them to derive his distortingly low percentage. A more honest and accurate percentage would have been derived if Widtsoe had only compared the total number of claimed married men to the number of married women; the difference between the two would have produced the number of polygamous men, assuming that respondents were honest about their situations. If we assume that unmarried children comprised 2/3 of Mormon population in 1890, then obviously, Widtsoe's figure is off by at least 2/3. But to repeat, even that number could be low, because since 1879, Mormons routinely denied their polygamous relationships. And, the recent revelations of possibly hundreds of secret "underground" plural marriages performed between 1890 and 1904 further invalidates Widtsoe's 1890 estimate.

Later researchers have disputed Widtsoe's figures. For example, LDS historian Stanley Ivins commented: "Visitors to Utah in the days when polygamy was flourishing were usually told that about one-tenth of the people actually practiced it...Of more than 6,000 Mormon families, sketches of which are found in a huge volume published in 1913, between fifteen and twenty percent appear to have been polygamous. And a history of Sanpete and Emery counties contains biographical sketches of 722 men, of whom 12.6 percent married more than one woman. From information available from all sources, it appears that there may have been a time when fifteen, or possibly twenty, percent of the Mormon families were polygamous." (Western Humanities Review, "Notes on Mormon Polygamy," vol. 10, p. 230.) LDS writer T. Edgar Lyon estimated the true figure to be "six or eight times" Widtsoe's, and late Utah Senator Wallace F. Bennett, using Census figures, estimated eight to ten percent.

During the inception and height of Mormon polygamy, LDS leaders taught that the practice was "essential to salvation." Joseph Smith's "revelation on celestial marriage" stated "as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant,...he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God" (Doctrine and Covenants 132: 6.) Brigham Young repeated that mandate when he preached that "the only men who will become gods...are those who enter into polygamy." Young, Heber C. Kimball, and other leaders often rebuked men who were reluctant to enter into polygamy, "counseling" them to "do their duty." The claimed necessity of plural marriage even prompted Mormon leaders to advocate the idea that Jesus Christ himself had been a polygamist. And Joseph F. Smith, who was the LDS president until 1918, stated emphatically that a man with only one wife could not receive "an exaltation as great and glorious..as he possibly could with more than one." (JoD, vol. 20, p. 28.) Until 1890, Mormon men clamored to be "sealed" to as many wives as possible, up to a claimed "limit" of 99, on the hope that those wives would be part of their "celestial inheritance." All of this rhetoric puts the lie to Gordon B. Hinckley's recent assertion that polygamy was intended to be a "very limited practice....carefully safeguarded."

Considering Mormon leaders' teaching that polygamy was "essential to salvation," it seems remarkable that today's Mormons should attempt to downplay the number of polygamist practitioners among their pioneer forefathers, because the modern LDS Church portrays its pioneer ancestors as being faithful, obedient, and willing to sacrifice everything for their religion. The claimed "2 to 5%" figure, if accurate, demonstrates that to the contrary to that desired portrayal, 19th-century Mormon men were not terribly obedient to the prophets' "revelations."

One may question why modern Mormons seek to downplay the extent and orthodoxy of polygamy among their forbears. The answer is revealed by examining the proselyting efforts of today's LDS Church. Hinckley, who has been a major force in his church's media relations efforts for more than half a century, wants the LDS Church to attain a status of being a worldwide, mainstream religion. Hinckley is well aware that the single greatest negatively-perceived aspect of Mormonism, throughout its history, is its polygamy practice; polygamy is therefore the biggest public relations hurdle that the LDS Church must constantly clear with the "buying public". That is why, when questioned about modern Mormon fundamentalist polygamists (estimated to number about 30,000), Hinckley treated them as somewhat less than dirt, even going so far as to say that polygamy "is not doctrinal." Hinckley wants the public to believe that his church bears no responsibility for the promulgation of the polygamy practice, which embarrasses the mainstream church today with its widely-reported arrests and legal cases.

It's also why, in recent LDS-published materials, all mention of polygamy among 19th-century Mormons has been obliterated. A 1997 church lesson manual based on the teachings of Brigham Young failed to even mention polygamy; and recent articles in the church's monthly "Ensign" magazine, on the lives and ministries of both Joseph Smith and Young, also failed to even hint at their polygamy practice, even though Smith's secret polygamy was a prime factor in his 1844 murder, and controversy over polygamy dogged Young to his death. And, to further demonstrate the church's downplaying of polygamy, the sum total of information on the subject on the church's official website is the following:

"Myth: Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are polygamists. Some early leaders and members of the Church entered into plural marriages during the latter half of the nineteenth century. After receiving a revelation, Church President Wilford Woodruff declared the practice should be discontinued in 1890. That position has been reaffirmed by every President of the Church since. Members of the Church who enter into plural marriage today face Church disciplinary action, including excommunication."

Note that the website that some Mormons began entering into plural marriages "during the latter half of the nineteenth century." To the contrary, the first mention of polygamy in Mormonism came from Joseph Smith in 1831, and numerous LDS historians have affirmed that Joseph Smith's first "plural marriage" was as early as 1833. Smith eventually secretly "married" at least 33 "plural wives" until his 1844 death, while publicly denying the practice until his death.

Smith, Young, Heber C. Kimball, John Taylor, John D. Lee, and numerous other Mormon men took multiple "plural wives" before the expulsion of the Mormons from Illinois in 1846. The LDS website deceptively asserts a "latter half of the ninetenth century" beginning for polygamy because the church does not want its members and prospective converts to learn the extensiveness and orthodoxy of their early leaders' polygamy practice. Also, polygamy was illegal in the state of Illinois the entire time Smith instituted and practiced it there; if the LDS website publicly admitted that Smith practiced polygamy, it would also necessarily admit that Smith was a lawbreaker. A tenet of Mormonism is that "he that keepeth the commandments of God hath no need to break the laws of the land", and Smith's breaking of bigamy laws reveals him as contradictory and hypocritical.

The website article is also very careful to state that polygamy was ended after

Wilford Woodruff "received a revelation" to cease the practice, while neglecting to inform the public that the mandate to practice polygamy was itself an alleged "revelation from God"; the "revelation on celestial marriage", commanding the polygamy practice, is "canonized" in LDS theology, while Woodruff's alleged "revelation" calling for the cessation of the practice, is not.

The website also fails to mention that LDS leaders fought the federal government for four decades over polygamy, and that to force the church to end the practice, the government disincorporated the church and seized its assets---thus making Woodruff's claim of receiving a "revelation" to cease the practice highly suspect. The website also fails to note that LDS leaders continued to sanction secret "plural marriages" until at least 1904, skirting the law by performing such unions in Canada, Mexico, or offshore, and that those unions were embarrasingly brought to light during the 1904 Reed Smoot hearings. That information refutes the idea that Woodruff's 1890 Manifesto was a "revelation from God," or else LDS leaders knowingly acted contrary to such a "revelation." And, the website fails to mention that LDS President Joseph F. Smith himself was convicted of unlawful cohabitation in 1906.

The website declares emphatically that Mormons who enter into polgyamy today are disciplined or excommunicated; but the website fails to note that the "revelation" commanding the practice is still "canonized" in LDS "scriptures", published and distributed to millions of Mormons to this day. It should go without saying that the maintaining of such a "commandment" in "modern scriptures," while simultaneously forbidding its actual practice, is extremely contradictory and hypocritical. One would think that LDS leaders, on the basis of their claim of "continuing revelation," could simply delete all portions pertaining to the mandate of "plural marriage." If they were to do so, they could end their "lying for the lord" about polygamy, and begin to erase the stigma which infests Mormonism.

This issue of the lowball percentage of polygamy practitioners is exemplary of how myths are created and perpetuated in Mormon culture. First, Widstoe invents a figure using highly suspect raw numbers and counting methods; he publishes it in a highly popular, widely-distributed book; nearly a century later, Gordon B. Hinckley (who claims to be knowledgeable in Mormon history) repeats those same suspect numbers, because Widtsoe, being a late apostle, is a "trusted source"; and then a young Mormon like Chip Snow repeats the figure, because Hinckley has done so before him. Chip trusts Hinckley, and Hinckley trusts Widtsoe. It's a syndrome that drives much of Mormon culture----an allegedly trustworthy Mormon invents an assertion, and because Mormons trust their leaders and forbears, they continue to repeat those assertions for 100 years, without ever pausing to question whether the assertion is valid to begin with. This culture of trusting in, and repeating speculative assertions or rumors, without verifying facts for one's self, is what makes Mormonism what it is today. For a "true believing Mormon," facts place a poor second to "faith-promoting" assertions.

End original post from ARM. Another comment---contrary to Gordon B. Hinckley's assertion that polygamy was a "limited practice" which was "highly safeguarded," the actual fact is that during the heyday of 19th-century polygamy, many Mormon men were threatened with loss of status or excommunication if they declined to plural marry. Historian Michael Quinn documented numerous statements from church leaders in conference speeches instructing men to "live the principle." Church leaders preached that plural marriage was to be the norm, rather than a rare "limited practice" as Hinckley falsely alleged.
Some Women Went Insane Because Of Polygamy
Friday, May 9, 2008, at 07:38 AM
Original Author(s): Tahoe Girl
Topic: POLYGAMY - SECTION 2   -Link To MC Article-
I'm currently reading "Tell It All" by Fanny Stenhouse (it's online and I HIGHLY recommend it). Her book covers her conversion to mormonism in England, the lies, fraud and deceit of mormon leaders which she became acquainted with while still in England, her subsequent emigration with her husband and children to Utah by boat and handcart, etc. She tells about how vile Brigham Young and other church leaders were, blood atonement, polygamy, etc., and gives us a picture of what Utah was like during the 1800's.

Her accounts concerning polygamy are heartbreaking. I had never heard about some women going insane as a result of polygamy.

This is what she said about it: "Had I been treated with the cruelty and neglect which has fallen to the lot of so many unfortunate women in Utah, I should probably have been in my grave to-day, or in that Asylum, which has been provided by the Church-situated on a lonely hill at a sufficient distance from the city, so that the cries of the unhappy, ill-treated, insane women should not be heard."

I've learned not to believe everything I read, so I did a search to find out if this had really happened. The results of my search show that, indeed, some women went insane because of polygamy. I haven't found enough information to determine the extent of this, but it is sad to imagine what mental and emotional anguish these women suffered to cause them to go insane.

Included in these women is a daughter of John Taylor who went insane as a result of her father "endeavoring to force her into polygamy".

The reporter of the following link (from the New York Times in 1882) was visiting asylums in the United States and said that "in no instance have I seen sights so horrible" as what he saw in Utah.

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-...

This article also talks about some women going insane:

http://www.biblebelievers.net/Cults/M...

In my research I also learned that there are women today who go insane in countries where polygamy is practiced.

Polygamy is a vile, despicable, disgusting practice that is degrading to women.
The FLDS Doesn't Seem That Different To Me From Early Mormon Utah
Monday, May 19, 2008, at 07:50 AM
Original Author(s): Makurosu
Topic: POLYGAMY - SECTION 2   -Link To MC Article-
Here are some quotes from pioneer biographies that I've collected of my own ancestors. I think they are very revealing of polygamous life in Utah, and the stories I hear coming from FLDS escapees don't sound all that much different.

Here's one about my 3rd great grandmother Ellen Catherine Ottesen (Jeppesen Richards). She was essentially forced into marrying her step-father Rasmus Nielsen Jeppesen:

"[W]hen Ellen was 17 years of age, there was pressure for her to get married. There were three or four older men that were asking for her hand and she was upset and confused about it. Rasmus asked her if she would like to marry him. He had been good and kind to her and she loved him as a father, so she decided to marry him rather than someone she didn't know. They were married on 19 June 1859 in the Endowment House. They had a little girl and a boy, but Ellen couldn't be happy as the youngest wife in a polygamist family. One day she said "Goodbye" to her babies and left."

Here's another one:

"One of Mary's step-children was named Katherine Ellen [Ellen Catherine Ottesen]. When she was 17 years old, she was expected to marry. She was given the choice of another older man or her own step-father Rasmus. She finally decided to marry him, at least she knew him. Katherine had two children by Rasmus, a girl and a boy. She had so much trouble being the youngest and prettiest of the wives that she finally said goodbye to her children and left them with Dampsey, who had been good to her. Hers was the first divorce in Mantua, and everyone blamed her."

Seventeen years old, my ass. I don't know why her biographers keep lying about her age. Ellen Catherine was born 20 Oct 1842. That would have made her SIXTEEN at the latest when she was "expected to marry," as she tied the knot with Rasmus on 19 Jun 1859. How is this different from the FLDS again?

Incidentally, Ellen Catherine was blamed and gossiped about throughout her life because she escaped her polygamous marriage to Rasmus Jeppesen and because of her hostility toward the LDS Church resulting from that experience. People said that she deserved to later be married to a mean drunk, whom she also divorced. She was described later in life as a sad old woman wandering around the town picking up sticks. Her grandson Charles Emil Jeppesen, my great grandfather, sang "Let Us Oft Speak Kind Words To Each Other" at her funeral. So, I suppose it was important to early Mormons to stay in a polygamous marriage that you were forced into at age 16.

It seems also that polygamy was not a program to provide for widows after all. Here's an example of that from my great great grandmother Jane Nancy Romeril (Hammond Pierce), who married an old geezer in his 60's when she was 19:

"It was here Jane met John Hammond. He was an elderly man and in ill health. Brigham Young asked her to help take care of Mr. Hammond and thought to be proper they should marry. They were married 15 March 1857 in the Endowment House at Salt Lake City. They had one daughter, Mary Jane. John became seriously ill and died 27 December 1858. Jane was so involved with caring for her husband, she didn't realize that she was going to have another baby. Eight months after the death of her husband, her baby was born, another girl, she named Mathilda. Being the fourth polygamous wife in the family, Jane was left alone to care for her little girls. She gleaned the fields to find enough food to feed them. For three years, she struggled to care for herself and her daughters. Finally in 1860, realizing she needed help, Jane pushed her little girls in a handcart to North Ogden to live with her parents. Being proud, she still gleaned in the fields for wheat, artichokes, or any other food that was left in the fields, in orderto help support herself and her daughters."

No, it seems to me that polygamy was not a program to care for widows, but rather a program for old guys to get inside the pants of pretty young girls. Both Jane Nancy and Ellen Catherine were beautiful women by a number of accounts.

These are just the biographies I have. I'm descended from several other polygamous families that I have records of, but no biographies. I can only guess at the conditions that existed. I also have a record of a mother-daughter threesome marriage (not Ellen Catherine's) that was lied about by no less than FOUR biographies.

Guys, if it's embarrassing enough to lie about it in a biography that's written for other Mormons, then what does that say about polygamy, the early leaders, the men practicing "the principle" and the biographers who clean up after it? The whole thing is a disgusting mess, and it's no different from what is going on with the FLDS except that there is more transparency with the FLDS.
Why Don't Women In Polygamous Cults Simply Leave?
Thursday, Oct 2, 2008, at 08:01 AM
Original Author(s): Cheryl
Topic: POLYGAMY - SECTION 2   -Link To MC Article-
Logically, it would make sense for them to run off and find freedom from an abusive system.

Answer:

They don't leave for the same reasons mainstream mormon women don't leave. It's because they are programmed to think they'll be eternally rewarded for staying true to the gospel.

Other reasons? Because change is difficult and because many mormon women don't feel they have the confidence, training, and social network to make it on their own. Besides, once they're committed to training their children in the cult, it's hard to admit it might all be a mistake.

The longer someone gives their time, talent, and allegiance to a cult, the harder it is to cut and run. It means giving up a mindset, friends, family, and hope of a reward for a huge longterm human investment.

All of these reasons apply in multiples to polygamous women. If it's difficult for normal LDS women to leave their faith and culture, it's at least five or ten times as hard for women in polygamous cults to escape. They've sacrificed more and have undergone more strenuous brainwashing.

Should we legalize polygamy in hopes it will entice women to leave? Brainwashed LDS women stay in their church which is legal. Illegality is not what keeps polygamous women emeshed in their way of life.

The LDS church is cultish but legal. It keeps secrets because that's what cults do. It's their way of feeling special and separate from the outside world.

Cults keep their lifestyles secret. The mainstream church keeps temple rites and garments secret because of shame and embarrassment. Those things are legal but mormons worry about "persecution." They like to feel special and separate from the outside world.

The same is true of polygamists, but more so. They tend to keep polygamy secret because they think it's so sacred that "the world will persecute them for it."

Polygamists don't fear arrest and prosecution for polygamy. This hasn't been done since early in the 1900s. Instead, polygamists get away with worse crimes in the name of religion. The "outside world" with its respect for religion hesitates to prosecute them for fraud, corruption, tax evasion, incest, child sexual and physical abuse, and wife beating. All of those crimes are rampant among polygamists.

Polygamist families and groups who don't indulge in them are rearing children who will likely grow up to be polygamists since it's what they know. So the next generation is very very likely to commit such crimes even if their parents are among the few who don't presently do it.

Anyone in the US is free to have multiple wives without fear of arrest as long as they are not committing the crimes I mentioned or others. If they are doing those illegal acts, they need to be prosecuted in my opinion. Religious or not, those acts are antisocial and hurtful to the rest of us.
My Review Of Nauvoo Polygamy "But We Called It Celestial Marriage"
Sunday, Dec 28, 2008, at 09:20 AM
Original Author(s): Phantomshadow
Topic: POLYGAMY - SECTION 2   -Link To MC Article-
I’m going to call the author “GDS” so as not to confuse him with “Smith” or "Joseph." I have a fuzzy recollection of meeting, or at least seeing, GDS years ago at a Dialogue or Sunstone conference shortly after we moved to the Bay Area. I don’t know what GDS’s status is re the church, but I assume that he is exmormon. I read a blog comment (can’t remember which one) that referred to him as an early 1990s "grumper."

Nauvoo Polygamy is an excellent reference book, but I have to subtract points for readability. The writing style is plain with much repetition, but perhaps he intended it to be so. Happily, the footnotes are at the bottom of each page, saving the reader time in not having to flip back and forth to endnotes. He relies on Compton, Quinn, van Wagoner, Carmon Hardy etc. Although he covers the same time and place as Compton, Bushman, and others, GDS intended this book to be a supplement to published biographies and histories.

(I hate calling these relationships "marriages" but for the sake of the review I will.)

In chapters 2 and 3 he goes through Smith’s accumulation of wives, including when he met them, how he courted them, and whatever information can be found on the marriages. He dismisses Fanny Alger as an adulterous affair and gives some evidence that Smith was involved with another young woman, Eliza Winters. While Smith had plural marriage on the mind in the 1830s, GDS doesn’t think he began actually taking wives until after 1840.

In later chapters GDS considers the admission of other men into the secret circle that Smith was creating, an interlocking family binding relationships through the elite of Nauvoo. He has many charts and lists along the way to help the reader keep track of the marriages. (550 pages of text, lists and charts account for some of this.)

Neither Joseph nor his scribes kept a record of the marriages, but reading between the lines and looking at diaries and other sources, GDS reconstructs the record. William Clayton might have written something like: “Went to XX’s farm with Joseph in afternoon.” From a diary or letter GDS figures out what Clayton didn’t go on to say, that a plural marriage or conjugal visit took place. I’m sure apologists will pounce on this “reading between the lines”. These marriages were later “resealed” in the Nauvoo temple and the records survive.

In Chapter 7, “A Silenced Past,” GDS goes through the events that led to the death of Joseph and Hyrum Smith. He places the blame on polygamy and on Smith’s arrogance in dealing with the Nauvoo Expositor. Contrary to Dallin Oaks' analysis of the legality of the “nuisance abatement,” GDS says the destruction was contrary to constitutional and legal safeguards. Following the destruction of the press, with multiple arrest warrants being dismissed on habeas corpus in Nauvoo, JS called up the Nauvoo legion and rode around town making threats and showing off. This led to the charge of treason that ultimately led to Smith being detained in Carthage jail.

He also details the lies that JS kept repeating about polygamy. GDS also presents a sympathetic portrait of Jane and William Law, two characters that I was raised to believe were wicked and evil. Law tried to get Smith to abandon his disastrous course, but Smith wouldn’t listen and ousted Law and his wife, along with others who questioned.

I can’t believe that anyone in the English-speaking world doesn’t know that Joseph Smith was a polygamist, but because the church tried to hush it up after the Manifesto, much of the information was buried in dusty archives. I grew up in Salt Lake. My mother told us about her grandfather and his three wives. I went to Forest School and it was common knowledge among the grade school kids that a certain house across the street from the playground was a polygamist residence. Later, my missionary companion confirmed it–this was her grandfather Musser’s home. Still, people are still surprised to learn of Smith's marital adventures.

Here are a few things I didn’t know:

Smith knew many of his wives for years before marrying them. Often they were young girls who lived in the Smith home ( I did know about of the Partridge and Lawrence sisters.) He was often in the home of friends who had young daughters, at times hiding out and spending days or weeks with them. He knew two of them from ages 5 and 7–the latter was Helen Mar Kimball. Reading this made me feel queasy. The man had years to earn the confidence of these girls and their families, charm them, then let them in on a wonderful “secret.” (The guy was definitely a sexual predator–GDS doesn’t put this into words, but he doesn't have to.)

I didn’t know that those in plural marriages were entered into a Quorum of the Anointed. Also, GDS counts 14 polyandrous marriages.

Because of the denials of Emma and Joseph Smith, in 1869 Joseph F. Smith collected affidavits of women who had been sealed to his uncle Joseph, creating a record. In 1892 the RLDS and Hedrickites got into a lawsuit over the Temple Lot in Missouri. The Utah church had an interest in keeping the lot out of the hands of the RLDS, so although not a party to the lawsuit, the LDS provided evidence of plural wives based on these earlier statements, and also collected testimony from more witnesses.

After the Smoot hearings the Mormon church tried to put the practice of polygamy behind them, but in the mid-20th century researchers and historians began uncovering the facts.

Why did nubile young women, or older married women, fall under Smith’s spell? Smith carefully cultivated his little flock. “Women found a sense of elite belonging when Smith invited them to join the secret religious order he had started among the high-ranking priesthood men. This Quorum of the Anointed was the repository of the secrets of plural marriage.” (pp 390-1) Those drawn into celestial marriage sincerely believed Smith was a prophet and believed in his version of the afterlife.

The last chapter in the book is “Antecedents and Legacy.” GDS goes through the history of polygamy, spending a lot of time on Henry the 8th and the Anabaptists of Munster. I plodded through it, but the book would be much better with a condensed version. And of course, we have the legacy–the Fundamentalists.

While the Mormons were relatively safe from the nation’s disapproval in 1852 Utah, the public announcement on plural marriage had a devastating effect abroad. European Mormons “were astonished and repelled.” British membership declined 50% in the 1850s, some of this from emigration, but baptismal rates plummeted by 88% post announcement.

The short index is not complete. I found no index entry for my 2nd great grandfather, but did find him on the charts and in the text. (And I learned something new about him, that he was supposedly a friend of Joseph Smith. There is a long list of citations to this paragraph, so it will take time to run it down.) I hate bad indexes–there is no excuse for them in the computer age. The bibliography is a good starting place for a reader beginning a journey through early Mormon history.

Unlike most historical or biographical works I read, GDS doesn’t include any acknowledgements to those who read or reviewed his manuscript. The book would have been much improved with editing, attention to critical suggestions for improvement, and some cutting. I hope he issues another edition because despite its faults, it’s a valuable book. GDS has accumulated a massive amount of evidence against that charming, reckless, and totally bad husband that was Joseph Smith, Jr.
 
START HERE
HOME
FAQ
CONTACT ME
365 TOPICS

How to navigate:
  • Click the subject below to go directly to the article.
  • Click the blue arrow on the article to return to the top.
  • Right-Click and copy the "-Guid-" (the Link Location URL) for a direct link to the page and article.
Archived Blogs:
Here Are The Facts: The Mormon Church Headquartered In Salt Lake City Still Practices The Ordinance Of Plurality Of Wives By Covenant In Their Temples
The Dirty Little Secret (And Problem) Haunting The LDS Church
Yahoo Article On Polygamy And LDS Inc.'s Related PR Headaches
Current Deception Of The Church Re: Polygamy
Banking On Heaven - A Polygamy Trailer
Of Romneys, Kimballs, Eyrings, And Polygamy
Post Manifesto Polygamy And Church Deception
Mormon Apologists: There Was Only About 2% Of The Brethren In The Church Who Actually Practiced Polygamy
Mormons Are Still Polygamists
Mormon Church Says Monogamy Not Good Enough
No Man Can Inherit The Kingdom Of God With Only One Wife
Polygamy And Utah Statehood, 1886
Polygamy - 10 Quotes
The Long Time It Took To Realize What Polygamy Really Was, And Is
Pathology Abounds. Mormons Beware.
LDS Doctrine And Covenants Section 132 And The Texas Drama
Most Mormons Don't Notice The Polygamist Participants In Their Wards
With Reference To LDS Leaders Marrying Teens
Gordon B. Hinckley's Big Lie Re: The Percentage Of 19th Century Mormon Polygamists
Some Women Went Insane Because Of Polygamy
The FLDS Doesn't Seem That Different To Me From Early Mormon Utah
Why Don't Women In Polygamous Cults Simply Leave?
My Review Of Nauvoo Polygamy "But We Called It Celestial Marriage"
5,709 Articles In 365 Topics
TopicImage TOPIC INDEX (365 Topics)
TopicImage AUTHOR INDEX

  · ADAM GOD DOCTRINE (4)
  · APOLOGISTS (52)
  · ARTICLES OF FAITH (1)
  · BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD (31)
  · BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD - PEOPLE (16)
  · BLACKS AND MORMONISM (12)
  · BLACKS AND THE PRIESTHOOD (11)
  · BLOOD ATONEMENT (4)
  · BOB BENNETT (1)
  · BOB MCCUE - SECTION 1 (25)
  · BOB MCCUE - SECTION 2 (25)
  · BOB MCCUE - SECTION 3 (25)
  · BOB MCCUE - SECTION 4 (25)
  · BOB MCCUE - SECTION 5 (25)
  · BOB MCCUE - SECTION 6 (19)
  · BONNEVILLE COMMUNICATIONS (2)
  · BOOK OF ABRAHAM (50)
  · BOOK OF MORMON - SECTION 1 (25)
  · BOOK OF MORMON - SECTION 2 (25)
  · BOOK OF MORMON - SECTION 3 (16)
  · BOOK OF MORMON EVIDENCES (18)
  · BOOK OF MORMON GEOGRAPHY (23)
  · BOOK OF MORMON WITNESSES (5)
  · BOOK REVIEW - ROUGH STONE ROLLING (28)
  · BOOKS - AUTHORS AND DESCRIPTIONS (12)
  · BOOKS - COMMENTS AND REVIEWS - SECTION 1 (26)
  · BOOKS - COMMENTS AND REVIEWS - SECTION 2 (18)
  · BOY SCOUTS (22)
  · BOYD K. PACKER (33)
  · BRIAN C. HALES (1)
  · BRIGHAM YOUNG (24)
  · BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY - SECTION 1 (25)
  · BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY - SECTION 2 (29)
  · BRUCE C. HAFEN (4)
  · BRUCE D. PORTER (1)
  · BRUCE R. MCCONKIE (10)
  · CALLINGS (11)
  · CATHOLIC CHURCH (5)
  · CHANGING DOCTRINE (12)
  · CHILDREN AND MORMONISM - SECTION 1 (24)
  · CHILDREN AND MORMONISM - SECTION 2 (24)
  · CHRIS BUTTARS (1)
  · CHURCH LEADERSHIP (3)
  · CHURCH PROPAGANDA - SECTION 1 (5)
  · CHURCH PUBLISHED MAGAZINES (51)
  · CHURCH TEACHING MANUALS (10)
  · CHURCH VAULTS (4)
  · CITY CREEK CENTER (23)
  · CIVIL UNIONS (14)
  · CLEON SKOUSEN (3)
  · COGNITIVE DISSONANCE (2)
  · COMEDY - SECTION 1 (24)
  · COMEDY - SECTION 2 (21)
  · COMEDY - SECTION 3 (24)
  · COMEDY - SECTION 4 (22)
  · COMEDY - SECTION 5 (37)
  · CONCISE DICTIONARY OF MORMONISM (14)
  · D. MICHAEL QUINN (1)
  · D. TODD CHRISTOFFERSON (6)
  · DALLIN H. OAKS (100)
  · DANIEL C. PETERSON (89)
  · DANITES (4)
  · DAVID A. BEDNAR (23)
  · DAVID O. MCKAY (8)
  · DAVID R. STONE (1)
  · DAVID WHITMER (1)
  · DELBERT L. STAPLEY (1)
  · DESERET NEWS (3)
  · DIETER F. UCHTDORF (12)
  · DNA (23)
  · DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS (8)
  · DON JESSE (2)
  · ELAINE S. DALTON (5)
  · EMMA SMITH (5)
  · ENSIGN PEAK (1)
  · ERICH W. KOPISCHKE (1)
  · EX-MORMON FOUNDATION (33)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 1 (35)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 10 (24)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 11 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 12 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 13 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 14 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 15 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 16 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 17 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 18 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 19 (26)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 2 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 20 (24)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 21 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 22 (24)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 23 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 24 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 3 (24)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 4 (24)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 5 (23)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 6 (24)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 7 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 8 (24)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 9 (26)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 1 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 10 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 11 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 12 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 13 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 14 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 15 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 16 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 17 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 18 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 19 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 2 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 20 (24)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 21 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 22 (24)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 23 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 24 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 25 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 26 (61)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 3 (21)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 4 (22)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 5 (24)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 6 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 7 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 8 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 9 (26)
  · EXCOMMUNICATION AND COURTS OF LOVE (19)
  · EZRA TAFT BENSON (30)
  · FACIAL HAIR (6)
  · FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 1 (25)
  · FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 2 (24)
  · FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 3 (21)
  · FAITH PROMOTING RUMORS (11)
  · FARMS (30)
  · FIRST VISION (23)
  · FOOD STORAGE (3)
  · FUNDAMENTALIST LDS (17)
  · GENERAL AUTHORITIES (29)
  · GENERAL CONFERENCE (14)
  · GENERAL NEWS (5)
  · GEORGE P. LEE (1)
  · GORDON B. HINCKLEY (68)
  · GRANT PALMER (8)
  · GREGORY L. SMITH (9)
  · GUNNISON MASSACRE (1)
  · H. DAVID BURTON (2)
  · HAROLD B. LEE (1)
  · HATE MAIL I RECEIVE (23)
  · HAUNS MILL (2)
  · HBO BIG LOVE (12)
  · HEBER C. KIMBALL (4)
  · HELEN RADKEY (17)
  · HELLEN MAR KIMBALL (5)
  · HENRY B. EYRING (5)
  · HOLIDAYS (13)
  · HOME AND VISITING TEACHING (9)
  · HOWARD W. HUNTER (1)
  · HUGH NIBLEY (13)
  · HYMNS (7)
  · INTERVIEWS IN MORMONISM (18)
  · J REUBEN CLARK (1)
  · JAMES E. FAUST (7)
  · JEFF LINDSAY (6)
  · JEFFREY MELDRUM (1)
  · JEFFREY R. HOLLAND (32)
  · JEFFREY S. NIELSEN (11)
  · JOHN GEE (3)
  · JOHN L. LUND (3)
  · JOHN L. SORENSON (4)
  · JOHN TAYLOR (1)
  · JOSEPH B. WIRTHLIN (1)
  · JOSEPH F. SMITH (1)
  · JOSEPH FIELDING SMITH (8)
  · JOSEPH SITATI (1)
  · JOSEPH SMITH - POLYGAMY - SECTION 1 (21)
  · JOSEPH SMITH - POLYGAMY - SECTION 2 (22)
  · JOSEPH SMITH - PROPHECY (8)
  · JOSEPH SMITH - SECTION 1 (25)
  · JOSEPH SMITH - SECTION 2 (23)
  · JOSEPH SMITH - SECTION 3 (22)
  · JOSEPH SMITH - SECTION 4 (31)
  · JOSEPH SMITH - SEER STONES (7)
  · JOSEPH SMITH - WORSHIP (13)
  · JUDAISM (3)
  · JULIE B. BECK (6)
  · KEITH B. MCMULLIN (1)
  · KERRY MUHLESTEIN (9)
  · KERRY SHIRTS (6)
  · KINDERHOOK PLATES (6)
  · KIRTLAND BANK (6)
  · KIRTLAND EGYPTIAN PAPERS (17)
  · L. TOM PERRY (5)
  · LAMANITE PLACEMENT PROGRAM (3)
  · LAMANITES (36)
  · LANCE B. WICKMAN (1)
  · LARRY ECHO HAWK (1)
  · LDS CHURCH - SECTION 1 (19)
  · LDS CHURCH OFFICE BUILDING (9)
  · LDS OFFICIAL ESSAYS (27)
  · LDS SOCIAL SERVICES (3)
  · LGBT - AND MORMONISM - SECTION 1 (42)
  · LORENZO SNOW (1)
  · LOUIS C. MIDGLEY (6)
  · LYNN A. MICKELSEN (2)
  · LYNN G. ROBBINS (1)
  · M. RUSSELL BALLARD (13)
  · MARK E. PETERSON (7)
  · MARK HOFFMAN (12)
  · MARLIN K. JENSEN (3)
  · MARRIOTT (2)
  · MARTIN HARRIS (5)
  · MASONS (16)
  · MELCHIZEDEK/AARONIC PRIESTHOOD (9)
  · MERRILL J. BATEMAN (3)
  · MICHAEL R. ASH (26)
  · MISSIONARIES - SECTION 1 (25)
  · MISSIONARIES - SECTION 2 (25)
  · MISSIONARIES - SECTION 3 (25)
  · MISSIONARIES - SECTION 4 (25)
  · MISSIONARIES - SECTION 5 (25)
  · MISSIONARIES - SECTION 6 (17)
  · MITT ROMNEY (71)
  · MORE GOOD FOUNDATION (4)
  · MORMON CELEBRITIES (14)
  · MORMON CHURCH HISTORY (8)
  · MORMON CHURCH PR (13)
  · MORMON CLASSES (1)
  · MORMON DOCTRINE (35)
  · MORMON FUNERALS (12)
  · MORMON GARMENTS (20)
  · MORMON HANDCARTS (12)
  · MORMON INTERPRETER (4)
  · MORMON MARRIAGE EXCLUSIONS (1)
  · MORMON MEMBERSHIP (38)
  · MORMON MONEY - SECTION 1 (25)
  · MORMON MONEY - SECTION 2 (25)
  · MORMON MONEY - SECTION 3 (23)
  · MORMON NEWSROOM (5)
  · MORMON POLITICAL ISSUES (5)
  · MORMON RACISM (18)
  · MORMON TEMPLE CEREMONIES (38)
  · MORMON TEMPLE CHANGES (15)
  · MORMON TEMPLES - SECTION 1 (25)
  · MORMON TEMPLES - SECTION 2 (25)
  · MORMON TEMPLES - SECTION 3 (24)
  · MORMON TEMPLES - SECTION 4 (42)
  · MORMON VISITOR CENTERS (10)
  · MORMON WARDS AND STAKE CENTERS (1)
  · MORMONTHINK (13)
  · MOUNTAIN MEADOWS MASSACRE (21)
  · MURPHY TRANSCRIPT (1)
  · NATALIE R. COLLINS (11)
  · NAUVOO (3)
  · NAUVOO EXPOSITOR (2)
  · NEAL A. MAXWELL - SECTION 1 (1)
  · NEAL A. MAXWELL INSTITUTE (1)
  · NEIL L. ANDERSEN - SECTION 1 (3)
  · NEW ORDER MORMON (8)
  · OBEDIENCE - PAY, PRAY, OBEY (15)
  · OBJECT LESSONS (15)
  · OLIVER COWDREY (6)
  · ORRIN HATCH (10)
  · PARLEY P. PRATT (11)
  · PATRIARCHAL BLESSING (5)
  · PAUL H. DUNN (5)
  · PBS DOCUMENTARY THE MORMONS (20)
  · PERSECUTION (9)
  · PIONEER DAY (3)
  · PLAN OF SALVATION (5)
  · POLYGAMY - SECTION 1 (22)
  · POLYGAMY - SECTION 2 (23)
  · POLYGAMY - SECTION 3 (15)
  · PRIESTHOOD BLESSINGS (1)
  · PRIESTHOOD EXECUTIVE MEETING (0)
  · PRIMARY (1)
  · PROCLAMATIONS (1)
  · PROPOSITION 8 (21)
  · PROPOSITION 8 COMMENTS (11)
  · QUENTIN L. COOK (11)
  · RELIEF SOCIETY (14)
  · RESIGNATION PROCESS (28)
  · RICHARD E. TURLEY, JR. (6)
  · RICHARD G. HINCKLEY (2)
  · RICHARD G. SCOTT (7)
  · RICHARD LYMAN BUSHMAN (11)
  · ROBERT D. HALES (5)
  · ROBERT L. MILLET (7)
  · RODNEY L. MELDRUM (15)
  · ROYAL SKOUSEN (2)
  · RUNTU'S RINCON (78)
  · RUSSELL M. NELSON (14)
  · SACRAMENT MEETING (11)
  · SALT LAKE TRIBUNE (1)
  · SCOTT D. WHITING (1)
  · SCOTT GORDON (5)
  · SEMINARY (5)
  · SERVICE AND CHARITY (24)
  · SHERI L. DEW (3)
  · SHIELDS RESEARCH - MORMON APOLOGETICS (4)
  · SIDNEY RIGDON (7)
  · SIMON SOUTHERTON (34)
  · SPAULDING MANUSCRIPT (8)
  · SPENCER W. KIMBALL (12)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 1 (18)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 10 (17)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 11 (15)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 12 (19)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 13 (21)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 14 (17)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 15 (12)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 2 (21)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 3 (18)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 4 (25)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 5 (22)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 6 (19)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 7 (15)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 8 (13)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 9 (19)
  · STORIES - SECTION 1 (1)
  · SUNSTONE FOUNDATION (2)
  · SURVEILLANCE (SCMC) (12)
  · TAD R. CALLISTER (3)
  · TAL BACHMAN - SECTION 1 (25)
  · TAL BACHMAN - SECTION 2 (25)
  · TAL BACHMAN - SECTION 3 (25)
  · TAL BACHMAN - SECTION 4 (25)
  · TAL BACHMAN - SECTION 5 (25)
  · TAL BACHMAN - SECTION 6 (25)
  · TAL BACHMAN - SECTION 7 (9)
  · TALKS - SECTION 1 (1)
  · TEMPLE WEDDINGS (6)
  · TEMPLES - NAMES (1)
  · TERRYL GIVENS (1)
  · THE PEARL OF GREAT PRICE (1)
  · THE SINGLE WARDS (5)
  · THE WORLD TABLE (3)
  · THOMAS PHILLIPS (18)
  · THOMAS S. MONSON (33)
  · TIME (4)
  · TITHING - SECTION 1 (25)
  · TITHING - SECTION 2 (25)
  · TITHING - SECTION 3 (13)
  · UGO PEREGO (5)
  · UK COURTS (7)
  · UNNANOUNCED, UNINVITED AND UNWELCOME (36)
  · UTAH LIGHTHOUSE MINISTRY (3)
  · VALERIE HUDSON (3)
  · VAN HALE (16)
  · VAUGHN J. FEATHERSTONE (1)
  · VIDEOS (30)
  · WARD CLEANING (4)
  · WARREN SNOW (1)
  · WELFARE - SECTION 1 (0)
  · WENDY L. WATSON (7)
  · WHITE AND DELIGHTSOME (11)
  · WILFORD WOODRUFF (6)
  · WILLIAM HAMBLIN (11)
  · WILLIAM LAW (1)
  · WILLIAM SCHRYVER (5)
  · WILLIAM WINES PHELPS (3)
  · WOMEN AND MORMONISM - SECTION 1 (24)
  · WOMEN AND MORMONISM - SECTION 2 (25)
  · WOMEN AND MORMONISM - SECTION 3 (37)
  · WORD OF WISDOM (7)
Copyright And Info
Articles posted here are © by their respective owners when designated.

Website © 2005-2021

Compiled With: Caligra 1.119

HOSTED BY