Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest joepalmeto

D&C 101:4. 1835 - 1876 forbade polygamy

Recommended Posts

Guest joepalmeto

From 1835 to 1876, D&C section 101 verse 4 read

"Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached

with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again."(History of the Church, vol. 2, pg. 247)

This scripture remained in the LDS canon until 1876.

The general body of the church were informed about polygamy in 1852, at which time many practiced it because leaders like Brigham professed the necessity of it for exhaltation.

How did the members justify practicing this that was expressly forbidden in their own scriptures?

Since 132 contradicted 101:4, 101:4 was removed in 1876, when section 132 was placed in the new edition.

Did Brigham Young tell the members to ignore this scripture? Did his current teachings trump canonized scripture?

Share this post


Link to post
Since 132 contradicted 101:4, 101:4 was removed in 1876, when section 132 was placed in the new edition.

Regarding the passage in question, "CHAPTER XLV: INTRODUCTION OF THE NEW MARRIAGE SYSTEM FOR THE CHURCH" of "Comprehensive History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, vol. 2" by B. H. Roberts @ http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=205205 states:

Share this post


Link to post

I came up with the same conclusion, that the article that is in question was never a revelation in the first place.

Pseudogratix answers the question very will. The only different that I see (which isn

Share this post


Link to post

Pseudo & tubaloth,

Why do we put reliance on a third party statement, after the fact, that Smith was not present during the day this reveation on marriage was put into the 1835 D&C's when we have the words of Joseph Smith himself ratifying that this doctrine on marriage was, in fact, part of the 1835 D&C's.

Again, I realize this puts the lds church's claims in bad light, but why ignore the facts, especially when they are statements of the prophet himself. As editor and publisher of the Times & Season (lds church paper), Smith himself verified that this revealtion on marriage, that joepalmeto referred to above, was in fact part of the 1835 D&C. He never denied it being part of the D&C but, contray to what some lds apologists say, in fact ratified it with his statements in the church press.

Please read for yourself Smith's own words in this photocopy of the 1842 volume of the Times & Season here:

http://www.irr.org/mit/WDIST/wdist-mp-t&sv3p939.html

BTW, this was not the only edition of the Time's & Season that Smith, while acting as the publisher and editor, made this same statement. He and Hyrum supported this statement many times.

It seems to conclude otherwise is merely "wishful thinking", but not supportable.

Share this post


Link to post
Pseudo & tubaloth,

Why do we put reliance on a third party statement, after the fact, that Smith was not present during the day this reveation on marriage was put into the 1835 D&C's when we have the words of Joseph Smith himself ratifying that this doctrine on marriage was, in fact, part of the 1835 D&C's.

Again, I realize this puts the lds church's claims in bad light, but why ignore the facts, especially when they are statements of the prophet himself. As editor and publisher of the Times & Season (lds church paper), Smith himself verified that this revealtion on marriage, that joepalmeto referred to above, was in fact part of the 1835 D&C. He never denied it being part of the D&C but, contray to what some lds apologists say, in fact ratified it with his statements in the church press.

Please read for yourself Smith's own words in this photocopy of the 1842 volume of the Times & Season here:

http://www.irr.org/mit/WDIST/wdist-mp-t&sv3p939.html

BTW, this was not the only edition of the Time's & Season that Smith, while acting as the publisher and editor, made this same statement. He and Hyrum supported this statement many times.

It seems to conclude otherwise is merely "wishful thinking", but not supportable.

". . . the words of Joseph Smith himself . . . "

Then why didn't he sign it? It ends with "We the undersigned . . ." but the folks at IRR didn't post that page up did they? Perhaps because Joseph Smith's name isn't there?

Share this post


Link to post
Pseudo & tubaloth,

Why do we put reliance on a third party statement, after the fact, that Smith was not present during the day this reveation on marriage was put into the 1835 D&C's when we have the words of Joseph Smith himself ratifying that this doctrine on marriage was, in fact, part of the 1835 D&C's.

Again, I realize this puts the lds church's claims in bad light, but why ignore the facts, especially when they are statements of the prophet himself.  As editor and publisher of the Times & Season (lds church paper), Smith himself verified that this revealtion on marriage, that joepalmeto referred to above, was in fact part of the 1835 D&C.  He never denied it being part of the D&C but, contray to what some lds apologists say, in fact ratified it with his statements in the church press.

Please read for yourself Smith's own words in this photocopy of the 1842 volume of the Times & Season here:

http://www.irr.org/mit/WDIST/wdist-mp-t&sv3p939.html

BTW, this was not the only edition of the Time's & Season that Smith, while acting as the publisher and editor, made this same statement.  He and Hyrum supported this statement many times.

It seems to conclude otherwise is merely "wishful thinking", but not supportable.

". . . the words of Joseph Smith himself . . . "

Then why didn't he sign it? It ends with "We the undersigned . . ." but the folks at IRR didn't post that page up did they? Perhaps because Joseph Smith's name isn't there?

Nighthawke,

That's a fair question. Let me provide you the complete copy of October 1, 1842 Issuance of Times & Season, Vol. III, No. 23. You will see that the site I took the photo copy from above was not trying to mislead anyone, but merely reflected what would print out on one "webpage".

Here is a link to the entire issue of that issue of the Times & Season and you will see that the statement was signed by several well recognized leaders of the lds church at that time including Emma Smith. Furthermore, you will see that Joseph Smith signed the issuance as editor and publisher (and prophet of the church lest we not forget) as well. See here and scroll down to pages 939 thru 942:

http://www.centerplace.org/history/ts/v3n23.htm

As you will see, all on the above board as stated by the prophet, his wife, and the upstanding leaders in the church from that time (including future prophets Taylor and Woodruff).

Hope this puts your suspicions to rest.

Share this post


Link to post

The point you miss JLH is that it wasn't a revelation. It wasn't considered a revelation. It wasn't presented to the church as a revelation.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
The point you miss JLH is that it wasn't a revelation. It wasn't considered a revelation. It wasn't presented to the church as a revelation.

Ben

Ben,

Sorry, but your statement is simply not factually correct. I think it is just something the lds church now likes to tell it's members. Again, instead of telling you, let me just show you. I always find documented facts better than one's specualtion.

Here is a photocopy of the introduction to to the 1835 D&C's written and signed by Smith and others:

http://www.irr.org/mit/D&C/1835dc-p3.html

As you see it says:

"The second part contains items or principals for the regulation of the church, as taken from revelations which have been given since its organization as well as from former ones"

As was demonstrated above from the Times & Season article, Smith ratified that the only rule (regulation taken from revelation) on marriage was that contained in the Doctrine and Covenants.

Who should I believe, you, the apologists who want ot revise history, or the words of Joseph Smith.

Stick with the facts. It may not be what the lds church wants you to believe, but at least it will be the truth. :P

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not much of an expert on church history but.... :P

I don't see the idea that the verse in question was not revelation as pertinent.

Well, first it seems clear to me that it was a revelation but are there not other scriptures that are not considered revelation?

I guess I don't see what this has to do with the removal of scripture that was considered official doctrine.

One other thing... can any scripture be removed if it is voted upon by the church?

I find this thread VERY interesting...

<_<

~dancer~

Share this post


Link to post

then that would be the "I wasn't in town when that happened" excuse?

Why was it admitted - accepted into the D&C then?????

this stuff is getting stranger & stranger, ladies & gentlemen...

Share this post


Link to post

JLH -

The Article on Marriage does not occur in the "second part" of the book. Rather, it is separated along with the article on church government, into an appendix. This is signficant.

The meeting minutes at which the contents of the new D&C were ratified in 1835 can be found here:

http://www.saintswithouthalos.com/m/350817.phtml

You will notice that the two additional articles (found in the appendix) which were presented, were presented separately from the rest of the contents of the text. They were not identified as revelations (as were the earlier revelations). It was on this basis that the article on marriage was later removed from the D&C (as well as the Lectures on Faith).

The article on Marriage was never adopted by the church as a revelation, neither was the article on church government, nor the Lectures on Faith.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post

Truth Dancer writes:

I find this thread VERY interesting...
I don't see it as being significantly different from the discussion that you participated in on ZLMB 6 months ago. Do you?

Ben

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Ben...

Maybe I missed something on ZLMB but I didn't realize that this official scripture was removed and replaced by sec 132.

:P

~dancer~

Share this post


Link to post
From 1835 to 1876, D&C section 101 verse 4 read
"Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached

with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare

yada, yada, yada

How did the members justify practicing this that was expressly forbidden in their own scriptures?

Easy, if you read it carefully you will see that this revelation was referring to the Church of Christ, not the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. :P

Share this post


Link to post

Truth Dancer writes:

Maybe I missed something on ZLMB but I didn't realize that this official scripture was removed and replaced by sec 132.
Whether it was replaced or not, there are other things which have been removed. The Lectures on Faith, for example.

The question is whether or not the Article on Marriage was considered "scripture" and I am fairly certain that it wasn't. It's removal, then, was in line with other things which have been removed, and have not been "voted" on either.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
The Article on Marriage does not occur in the "second part" of the book. Rather, it is separated along with the article on church government, into an appendix. This is signficant.

Ben,

We have the words of Joseph Smith ratifying it's inclusion in the D&C's as provided above. We have Smith qualifying it as a rule of the church. We have Smith stating that the D&C contains the principals of church regulation as recieved from revelations. What more do we need? I think you are trying to read into things statements of facts that are not there.

The meeting minutes at which the contents of the new D&C were ratified in 1835 can be found here:

And here is what is reflected on the site you provided (BTW, I noticed this site is not affiliated with the lds church - shall I assume it does not contain an official response by the lds church?):

"President W. W. Phelps then read an article on Marriage which was accepted and adopted, and ordered to be printed in said book, by a unanimous vote."

Seems pretty clear that it was accepted and adopted. Where does it say it was not official doctrine. Where in the minutes does it say it was not approved or received by revelation from Smith? Don't you think that Smith had plenty of time (almost ten years) to remove it from the D&C's if it was as you claim it to be? Why did Smith make public statements including it in the D&C's for years to come? Don't you think BY had virtually his entire adult life as a prophet to remove it from your doctrine if it was not supposed to be there?

Come on, let's use reason and read the facts for what they are. Like I said, I know the church does not want to admitt any of this, but look at the first hand accounts and documented facts! I think it's time we quit trying to "revise history" to suit our emotional needs of today.

Share this post


Link to post
Pseudo & tubaloth,

Why do we put reliance on a third party statement, after the fact, that Smith was not present during the day this reveation on marriage was put into the 1835 D&C's when we have the words of Joseph Smith himself ratifying that this doctrine on marriage was, in fact, part of the 1835 D&C's.

Again, I realize this puts the lds church's claims in bad light, but why ignore the facts, especially when they are statements of the prophet himself.

Share this post


Link to post

Also, it should be noted that:

Following the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, the next edition was published in 1844 in Nauvoo, Illinois.3 Eight more revelations were added to the 102 in the 1835 edition. These 8 revelations are now found as sections 103, 105, 112, 119, 124, 127, 128 and 135 in the 1981 edition.

When the Brigham Young led Church arrived in the Salt Lake valley in 1847, they had no printing facility. The Doctrine and Covenants was published in England from 1845 to 1869. In 1876, Elder Orson Pratt was assigned to produce a new edition. The revelations were divided into verses which have been maintained in subsequent editions. Elder Pratt included 26 new sections (now numbered 2, 13, 77, 85, 87, 108-111, 113-118, 120-123, 125, 129-132 and 136). He removed the "Article on Marriage" found in previous editions. In 1879 Elder Pratt published the 1876 edition in England, adding footnotes to the text. This edition was published in 1880 in Salt Lake City and accepted by the Church as its official edition. (source: http://www.boap.org/LDS/LDS-scriptures/Doc_and_Cov/)

Share this post


Link to post
You will notice that the two additional articles (found in the appendix) which were presented, were presented separately from the rest of the contents of the text. They were not identified as revelations (as were the earlier revelations). It was on this basis that the article on marriage was later removed from the D&C (as well as the Lectures on Faith).

The article on Marriage was never adopted by the church as a revelation, neither was the article on church government, nor the Lectures on Faith.

Ben

Even though the two articles, 101:Marriage and 102:Of Governments and Laws in General were placed in the Appendix, they were voted on separately by the General Assembly on August 17, 1835. Despite the fact that neither were revelations, they were adopted by unanimous vote for inclusion in the 1835 D&C. By the way these two articles were also part of the three Nauvoo editions (1844, 1845, and 1846) as 109 and 110 respectively.

In 1876, the LDS decided to remove D&C 101 and replace it with D&C 132.

If the LDS rationale for removing the article on Marriage was the fact that it wasn't revelation, then why wasn't the article on Laws and Government removed too (it wasn't revelation either)? The article "Of Governments and Laws in General" is still retained in the LDS D&C as section 134.

Joseph and Hyrum published a jointly signed notice that Hiram Brown was teaching preaching polygamy and other false doctrines and for him to appear in church court. [Times and Seasons, 5:423 (1 February 1844)]

Hyrum strongly denounced the doctrine of polygamy in an article printed in the Times and Seasons, 5:474 (15 March 1844).

I don't understand how the LDS can justify polygamy when the D&C clearly forbids the practice and the First Presidency at the time declares it to be false doctrine - EVEN AFTER the supposed revelation was received on July 12, 1843.

Share this post


Link to post
You will notice that the two additional articles (found in the appendix) which were presented, were presented separately from the rest of the contents of the text. They were not identified as revelations (as were the earlier revelations). It was on this basis that the article on marriage was later removed from the D&C (as well as the Lectures on Faith).

The article on Marriage was never adopted by the church as a revelation, neither was the article on church government, nor the Lectures on Faith.

Ben

Even though the two articles, 101:Marriage and 102:Of Governments and Laws in General were placed in the Appendix, they were voted on separately by the General Assembly on August 17, 1835. Despite the fact that neither were revelations, they were adopted by unanimous vote for inclusion in the 1835 D&C. By the way these two articles were also part of the three Nauvoo editions (1844, 1845, and 1846) as 109 and 110 respectively.

In 1876, the LDS decided to remove D&C 101 and replace it with D&C 132.

If the LDS rationale for removing the article on Marriage was the fact that it wasn't revelation, then why wasn't the article on Laws and Government removed too (it wasn't revelation either)? The article "Of Governments and Laws in General" is still retained in the LDS D&C as section 134.

Joseph and Hyrum published a jointly signed notice that Hiram Brown was teaching preaching polygamy and other false doctrines and for him to appear in church court. [Times and Seasons, 5:423 (1 February 1844)]

Hyrum strongly denounced the doctrine of polygamy in an article printed in the Times and Seasons, 5:474 (15 March 1844).

I don't understand how the LDS can justify polygamy when the D&C clearly forbids the practice and the First Presidency at the time declares it to be false doctrine - EVEN AFTER the supposed revelation was received on July 12, 1843.

If you will look at the wording of what was voted on on that day you will notice that the article on marriage was not voted on as a revelation.

Share this post


Link to post

I think the question of whether or not the statement in question was a revelation is somewhat of a red herring. Yes, to some extent it's relevant--if in fact the statement was a revelation, it's not very flattering for the church.

But if the statement was not a revelation, it's significance is only mitigated to the slightest extent. As has been mentioned on early in the thread, the brethren voted on and unanimously approved this statement. The statement was also included in canonized scripture, and remained there for ten years; not an insigificant amount of time. By comparision, not even the alleged revelation concerning blacks finally being granted priesthood privilages has been canonized in scripture, demonstrating how important a statement must be to be included in the D&C.

The fact is that that church members were aware of the statement; it was canonized scripture voted upon unanimously by the top Mormon authorities. Any polygamous relationships which remained or began after the publication of this statement were in direct opposition to LDS scripture. Surely this matter is of concern to LDS, regardless of whether or not the statement was an "official revelation".

Share this post


Link to post
Surely this matter is of concern to LDS, regardless of whether or not the statement was an "official revelation".

Assuming that any of them actually studied their scriptures back then (i.e., notice how hard it can be to get to members to do so in this day of leisure), perhaps. :P

At any rate, it may be more constructive to cite some actual quotes from the allegedly concerned members during the corresponding time frame that cited the corresponding passage in voicing their concern over plural marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
I think the question of whether or not the statement in question was a revelation is somewhat of a red herring.  Yes, to some extent it's relevant--if in fact the statement was a revelation, it's not very flattering for the church. 

But if the statement was not a revelation, it's significance is only mitigated to the slightest extent.  As has been mentioned on early in the thread, the brethren voted on and unanimously approved this statement.  The statement was also included in canonized scripture, and remained there for ten years; not an insigificant amount of time.  By comparision, not even the alleged revelation concerning blacks finally being granted priesthood privilages has been canonized in scripture, demonstrating how important a statement must be to be included in the D&C. 

The fact is that that church members were aware of the statement; it was canonized scripture voted upon unanimously by the top Mormon authorities.  Any polygamous relationships which remained or began after the publication of this statement were in direct opposition to LDS scripture.  Surely this matter is of concern to LDS, regardless of whether or not the statement was an "official revelation".

Not so fast... let's see if y'all can spot the difference between the vote on the Book of Doctrine and Covenants and the vote on the article on marriage okay?

First we have the vote on the Book of Doctrine and Covenants presented to the General Assembly of the Priesthood and the Church:

President W.W. Phelps then read the written testimony of the Twelve, as follows:

"The testimony of the Witnesses to the Book of the Lord's Commandments, which commandments He gave to His Church through Joseph Smith, Jun., who was appointed by the voice of the Church, for this purpose.

"We therefore feel willing to bear testimony to all the world of mankind, to every creature upon the face of all the earth, that the Lord has borne record to our souls, through the Holy Ghost shed earth upon us, that these Commandments were given by inspiration of God, and are profitable for all men, and are verily true. We give this testimony unto the world, the Lord being our helper; and it is through the grace of God the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ, that we are permitted to have this privilege of bearing this testimony unto the world, in the which we rejoice exceedingly, praying the Lord always that the children of men may be profited thereby.

(Signed)

"Thomas B. Marsh,

"David W. Patten,

"Brigham Young,

"Heber C. Kimball,

"Orson Hyde,

"Wm. E. M'Lellin,

"Parley P. Pratt,

"Luke S. Johnson,

"William Smith,

"Orson Pratt,

"John F. Boynton,

"Lyman E. Johnson."

Elder Leonard Rich bore record of the truth of the book, and the council of the Seventy accepted and acknowledged it as the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote.

Bishop Newel K. Whitney bore record of the truth of the book, and with his counselors accepted and acknowledged it as the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote.

Acting Bishop John Corrill bore record of the truth of the book, and with his counselors accepted and acknowledged it as the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote.

Acting President John Gould gave his testimony in favor of the book, and with the Elder accepted and acknowledge it as the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote.

Ira Ames, acting president of the Priests, gave his testimony in favor of the book, and with the Priests accepted and acknowledged it as the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote.

Erastus Babbitt, acting president of the Teachers, gave his testimony in favor of the book, and they accepted and acknowledged it as the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote.

William Burgess, acting president of the Deacons, bore record of the truth of the book, and they accepted and acknowledged it as the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote.

The venerable assistant president, Thomas Gates, then bore record of the truth of the book, and with his five silver-haired assistants, and the whole congregation, accepted and acknowledged it as the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote.

The several authorities and the general assembly, by a unanimous vote, accepted the labor of the committee.

Then we have the vote on the article of marriage:

President W. W. Phelps then read the following article on marriage, which was accepted and adopted and ordered to be printed in said book, by a unanimous vote.

- History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2: 245.

The article on marriage, written by Oliver Cowdery, clearly was not voted/presented as revelation but simply approved for publication. Joseph Smith was in Michigan at this time.

Share this post


Link to post

Back In February of 1831, Joseph Smith received Doctrine and Covenants Section 42 as a Revelation through the Lord God. Here is the heading to Doctrine and Covenants Section 42:

SECTION 42

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Kirtland, Ohio, February 9, 1831. HC 1: 148

Share this post


Link to post
By comparision, not even the alleged revelation concerning blacks finally being granted priesthood privilages has been canonized in scripture, demonstrating how important a statement must be to be included in the D&C.

Where do you come up with this garbage? Have you no shame in posting such inaccuracies day after day?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...