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

[Nighthawke]

The Word of Wisdom was canonized in August 1835. It became a commandment in September 1851:

The statement from the institute manual is simply not accurate. Brigham asked those present under the age of 90 to commit to living by the precepts of the Word of Wisdom. Nothing was said about it being binding on the body of the Church or being a commandment.

Compliance with the Word of Wisdom in the 19th century seems to have been interpreted as practicing "moderation," not abstinence. It was not until the 1930 that complete compliance (abstinence from tea, coffee, alcohol, and tobacco) was required for a temple recommend.

...the Institute Manual? Silly me, here I thought it was from the "Minutes of the General Conference" published in the Millennial Star. I provided documentation to back myself up, you haven't. Let's see what you can come up with.

[Guest johnny_cat]

Here is the entire quote from the Millennial Star:

"all things mentioned in the Word of Wisdom"

That part is accurate. Much of the manual's intepretation is not.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Johnny_cat writes:

There was no mention of it being binding on the body of the church, nor were its stipulations specified.

I think, though, that this is something quite different from being "ratified". In my view, in 1851, it was "ratified" even though it was not made binding by policy on the members of the church.

Ben

[Guest johnny_cat]

I think, though, that this is something quite different from being "ratified". In my view, in 1851, it was "ratified" even though it was not made binding by policy on the members of the church.

I would disagree that it "became a commandment" at that point. That Brigham Young endorsed it (though its practice then was quite different from ours) and asked those present to commit to living it is beyond dispute.

[Nighthawke]

Here is the entire quote from the Millennial Star:

"all things mentioned in the Word of Wisdom"

That part is accurate. Much of the manual's intepretation is not.

Because.... you say so?

[Nighthawke]

I think, though, that this is something quite different from being "ratified". In my view, in 1851, it was "ratified" even though it was not made binding by policy on the members of the church.

I would disagree that it "became a commandment" at that point. That Brigham Young endorsed it (though its practice then was quite different from ours) and asked those present to commit to living it is beyond dispute.

Except he didn't just "ask" there was a vote. What was the wording of the vote?

[enummaelish]

Guys, before it gets lost in the shuffle, could someone please explain to me why JLH believes that Joseph Smith had multiple husbands?

[Guest johnny_cat]

Because.... you say so?

In the absence of available documentation online ... yes.

Feel free to doubt me, as I am certainly not infallible. Probably the most detailed discussion of this is Paul Petersen's master's thesis (1972), which discusses the history of the Word of Wisdom and which I also read in the course of my research. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism's article seems to follow closely his outline, except it does not discuss the 1851 conference.

[Benjamin McGuire]

By the way, just so that it's clear. I largely agree with johnny_cat - and in the context of his original remark, I was not trying to justify the comparison made by tapped, which, I disagree with.

The 1851 conference seems to me to reflect a personal vote to commit oneself to living the Word of Wisdom. It would be a number of years before the Word of Wisdom was used as justification for excommunication (despite the intial suggestion made by Brigham Young in this conference). This is why I see the conference as representing a ratification of the Word of Wisdom as personally binding. But, I do not believe that this was an official position of the church. I do not believe that this notion can be seen in the historical record.

The Word of Wisdom as a whole isn't today considered binding or accepted byt the church even as policy. The policy is very narrow in scope and clearly defined. The Temple Recommend question reads:

What is your understanding of the Word of Wisdom? Will you live this law by abstaining from tea, coffee, alcohol, tobacco [or other harmful drugs]?

And while this allows for a more extended personaly interpretation of the Word of Wisdom, as far as policy goes, there is a distinct meaning which the church associates with the Word of Wisdom which is seen in the requirements for full participation in the church (i.e. temple attendance and worship).

For those who want to continue this debate, I recommend reading first:

"Did the Word of Wisdom Become a Commandment in 1851?" Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 14.3 (1981): 67 by Robert J. McCue. Since this is now available on-line, take the few minutes to check it out.

Ben

[JGB]

BTW, I get heartsick thinking about the European and English converts who came to Nauvoo and Utah, believing what the Article on Marriage said, only to later find out it was bogus

I am disturbed by this as well.

This piece of information is very interesting. Not specifically about polygamy but about the growth of the church in Utah.

How many members do you hear ask about the growth of the church? It grew because people were told to relocate to Zion. This would be a difficult trek for most, a one way trip with no way back out.

English and European converts living in their birth country typically did not own any land. Once they were converted(or was it part of the discussion from the missionaries?) they realized that they could finally own land and that the church would help them come to Zion.

These people gave up everything to come to Zion/Utah. Once they arrived on the coast they would be given meager assistance to make the journey over the wilds of the US to arrive in Zion. Many suffered along the way with handcarts, many suffered through the cold of winter, and many died as well.

Once they finally arrive into virtually the middle of nowhere(Zion) they buckle down into the theocratic rule under Brigham Young. Perhaps they soon realized many of the bizarre doctrines like polygamy, Adam God, blood atonement, etc, etc.. and wanted to leave?

Soon they realize they have nowhere to go, they would give up their land. Some where even frightened to leave. So they learned to live in Zion.

The members in Utah were commanded to bear many children. Polygamy help boost the numbers of children born into the church, this was important as they make the best members.

I find this type of assumption about how early Mormon immigrants from Europe must of felt duped and trapped simply amazing. Particularly given that I count those very immigrants among my ancestors. None of the family lore talks of being duped or trapped. Sure, it was hard, and being asked to go and settle outside of the Salt Lake Valley probably wasn't their preferred option.

Which raises another question. If they felt so trapped, then why did they stay faithful when asked to move so far away from the center, away from the controlling influences of BY? Why didn't they just say, "See you in Orderville," but continue on to the by-then well-known greener pastures of Oregon or California?

Or could it be that BY sent his roving band of Danites to ensure faithful complicity.

[tapped]

Chalk up another subject for (endless?) debate!

I think the pattern here... is that there is NO CLEAR PATTERN in what leaders accept as revelation, except as binging upon the church (or themselves, wink - wink). This may generate fodder for discussion , disagreement and debate...BUT: It does NOT help the membership with understanding these (super-convuluted) concepts-principles.

Doesn't it say in modern scripture/the D&C (something like) 'the Lord delights in plainness' (clarity, precision of thought & communication)?

Remem: the topic is polygamy....

[JLH]

Where does Joseph Smith ratify it's inclusion in the D&C?

Tell you what. Rather than continuing with all this nonsense, why don't you provide an actual reference which specifically calls the Article on Marriage "revelation" or "Scripture". I don't want a statement which includes it within the umbrella of a standard work. I want a statement similar to what we can find for other sections of the D&C or individual texts.

Rather than telling me how you perceive this, and how you interpret these texts (since obviously we aren't going to come to any agreement over them), why don't you provide some examples of how the Article on Marriage was considered scripture in practice.

Ben,

I don't know how to answer you since I have already provided photo-copies of original lds church source doucuments and statements from Joseph Smith himself backing up everything I've said. If you choose to deny the existence of these records, there is very little else anyone can do for your request of "evidential matter". But neither I nor anyone else should have to re-create the wheel for you all over again with respect to this topic and the historical documents already provided.

One of the issues here is that the formative LDS church actually lived by the notion of common consent. The people voted it in.

But when do lds get to pick and choose this type of answer - merely when it fits the need of their current story or apologetic defense? Let me elaborate :

When did the appropriate leaders of the lds church give consent to the polygamous tenets of D&C 132? Was it before Smith started practising polygamy? We all know that Smith took it upon himself to begin this practice long before there was any common consent from the members. Your argument now seems totally un-compelling doesn't it.

If you give Smith a "special exemption" to begin practising polygamy before comment consent because of his supposed stature as prophet and/or some sort of special relationship with God, should we not assume the same standard of "believability" applies when he publically declares that the "only" rule on marriage is that contained in one of your "standard works". Or should we give Smith more of a "Clintonesque" attribute in that "Doctrine & Covenants" didn't really mean "Doctrine & Covenants" back then.

Your "standards" of support simply cannot be all over the board or the entire claims tend to lose credibility.

[Benjamin McGuire]

JLH writes:

I don't know how to answer you since I have already provided photo-copies of original lds church source doucuments and statements from Joseph Smith himself backing up everything I've said.

I am disagreeing with your interpetation. I have read these documents and do not find them inconsistent with my interpretation. That is not my problem. You might attempt to explain why I have to read them the way that you claim that I do, but then, we run into the simple problem of why I (as a believer) should accept your interpretation (as a non-believer) when there doesn't seem to be any compelling reason (or even any logical reason) to do so.

I am sorry. It simply didn't occur the way that you suggest it did. Regardless, you run into a separate problem. The reality (not the interpretation of documents so to speak, but the actual practice) of the LDS response to the article on marriage, over the next several decades (until it was removed) is anything but what you seem to be suggesting that it should be. Which is to say, that my point of view is supported by every President of the Church following Joseph Smith, by most members of the church historically, and so on.

When did the appropriate leaders of the lds church give consent to the polygamous tenets of D&C 132? Was it before Smith started practising polygamy? We all know that Smith took it upon himself to begin this practice long before there was any common consent from the members. Your argument now seems totally un-compelling doesn't it.

Personally, I think you have no clue as to the issues that were part of these developments within the church. You are simply regurgitating relatively worthless opinions.

Smith, for example, did not make polygamy binding on the church did he? The fact that he practiced it is not an indicator that there was common consent among the members. Nor was that common consent necessary, since it was made a binding doctrine for the church until later (when it was adopted by common consent). Do you see the difference? Perhaps not. The discussion has run its course. You are firmly entrenched in your position. I am firmly entrenched in mine.

It's nice of you, however, to stick to your original guns, and to refuse to provide any kind of documentation that your point of view was actually held by members of the chruch following the initial publication of the D&C. So, rather than actually attempting to find references where the article on marriage was specifically called scripture (and trust me, I can find such references to those parts of scripture which were actually considered scripture), you simply declare that your interpretation of what you claim are Joseph's comments (or his implied consent to someone else's comments) is more than adequate.

It isn't. Perhaps you will insist that it is merely an apologetic tactic to be specific about what was considered revelation and what was not. Believe me, it isn't an apologetic posture for me. This is really what I believe.

Further, let me point out a few things, since you seem to be reasserting them:

You wrote:

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"

What you seem to fail to understand is that this preface was written (see the date) on February 17th, 1835. There was no article on marriage in existence at this time. The article on marriage first appears at the conference in which the D&C was presented to the membership of the church in August of 1835. The comments to which Joseph Smith attached his name cannot reference either the Article on Marriage or the Article on Church Government. Then, you make this claim:

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.

Of course, Joseph Smith didn't actually write it - the individuals who claimed responsibility for that piece of text signed their names to it, and Joseph's is not there. Further, when this was pointed out to you, you changed your argument suggesting, that:

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.

But this seems to be stretching the connection to try and make your point.

So forgive me if I seem less than impressed by your "research".

Ben

[Beowulf]

Which raises another question. If they felt so trapped, then why did they stay faithful when asked to move so far away from the center, away from the controlling influences of BY? Why didn't they just say, "See you in Orderville," but continue on to the by-then well-known greener pastures of Oregon or California?

They were faithful enough... But a recent issue of the Ensign about the settlement of San Bernardino CA noted that when BY asked for volunteers, the group was over-subscribed by several times over! BY was so peeved at this excessive enthusiasm for California that he left the farewell party early, in a huff!

Beowulf

[JLH]

Smith, for example, did not make polygamy binding on the church did he? The fact that he practiced it is not an indicator that there was common consent among the members. Nor was that common consent necessary, since it was made a binding doctrine for the church until later (when it was adopted by common consent).

Ben,

Seeing as you claim "I have no clue", help me out here.

If Smith did not make polygamy "binding", what does this mean?

Was Smith practicing something that was not only against the law in Illinois, but also practicing something that was not yet allowed by God? Again, was he allowed a "special exemption" since he was a supposed prophet.

IF it was not "binding", what can we now conclude with respect to the women he married? Was his marriage/sealing to these women "not binding"? If it was not binding on anyone, why was Smith even doing it to begin with.

Think about your statements. If Smith's actions were "not binding", what was his purpose of practicing polygamy to begin with during his life? How can a reasonable man not conclude that Smith was only out to fulfill his "personal desires" if we are asked to conclude that his actions "were not binding" on those he chose to participte with?

Perhaps this is where you must now "re-define" the word "binding" to fit your argument.

[This is usually where those supporting Smith's lifestyle and polygamous practices will abandon the conversation.]

Of course, Joseph Smith didn't actually write it - the individuals who claimed responsibility for that piece of text signed their names to it, and Joseph's is not there. Further, when this was pointed out to you, you changed your argument suggesting, that:

 

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.

But this seems to be stretching the connection to try and make your point.

Ben,

Again, putting aside emotions for a moment here, there were several statements by Smith referring to the D&C's article on marriage. The one above was one of many Smith publicly made.

Also, you may not be aware of how and why Smith was appointed "Publisher and Editor" of the Times & Seasons. It was an effort led by Brigham Young to bring the standards and reporting accuracy of the paper to a higher level. See here:

The first editors of the paper were Ebenezer Robinson and Don Carlos Smith (one of Joseph Smith Jr.'s younger brothers). Don Carlos became sole proprietor in December of 1840 (RLDS Church History 2:468). After the sudden death of Don Carlos on August 7, 1841, Ebenezer Robinson returned to take over the editorship of the Times and Seasons (Times and Seasons 2:503).

In late 1841 the Twelve Apostles, headed by Brigham Young, expressed their disapproval of the manner in which the Times and Seasons was conducted. They voted to remove Ebenezer Robinson from his position as editor, and appoint Willard Richards in his place. It was finally decided that Joseph Smith Jr. would be the chief editor of the paper, assisted by John Taylor (Church History 2:552-557; see also Times and Seasons 3:729). Robinson's valedictory statement in his last issue (February 15, 1842) is interesting, as it gives the early history of the Times and Seasons, and indicates that as long as the paper would be under the supervision of Joseph Smith "all things will go right" (Times and Seasons 3:696).

So if you choose not to accept the fact that Smith, as Prophet, Publisher, Editor, had no idea of the statements he signed off on, dealing with probably the most visable issue within the church at that time, I'll let it be a testimony to your standards of reason/logic/denial.

[JLH]

Which raises another question. If they felt so trapped, then why did they stay faithful when asked to move so far away from the center, away from the controlling influences of BY? Why didn't they just say, "See you in Orderville," but continue on to the by-then well-known greener pastures of Oregon or California?

They were faithful enough... But a recent issue of the Ensign about the settlement of San Bernardino CA noted that when BY asked for volunteers, the group was over-subscribed by several times over! BY was so peeved at this excessive enthusiasm for California that he left the farewell party early, in a huff!

Beowulf

Can one assume that church controlled publications are out to portray accuracy?

[enummaelish]

JLH:

Why didn't you answer my question about your claim that Joseph had multiple husbands?

[JLH]

JLH:

Why didn't you answer my question about your claim that Joseph had multiple husbands?

E,

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner.

I had originally just passed on what Micah Whitney had told me from his account. As I suspect he is "up there" in age (I'd venture in his early seventies), I will allow him the lattitude of misspeaking on some details.

I susspect he could be confusing terms given that Smith had many wives and also the accounts of Smith being sealed to many men. Micah, remember, is a member of the "reorganized" lds church and may not have all the "original lds lingo" down pat.

However, I will attempt to follow up with Micah on this point to bring the needed closure for you. As long as I am going to follow up with Micah on this point, would there be any ohter questions from our conversation, as I've relayed it above, that you would like me to get any further clarification about from Micah. At his age, once he is awake and talking it's best to get as much as you can.

Just let me know.

[Confidential Informant]

Was Smith practicing something that was not only against the law in Illinois, but also practicing something that was not yet allowed by God?

AARRGGHHH! Let's get this straight. Joseph Smith's plural marriages were not illegal. First, there was no such thing as an "anti-polygamy" law at that time. In fact, to this day the only state with anything could rightly be called an "anti-polygamy law" is Utah (it's in the constitution). Second, the crime involved would have been "bigamy" but it is impossible that Smith committed this crime. To committ bigamy a man (or woman) must be legally married to two people at the same time. That required getting marriage licenses and following proper requirements. Smith's plural marriages never did this. He had one legal wife, that was Emma. All subsequent wives were "joined" to him via a religious ceremony which the state of Illinois did not recognize as valid in anyway, i.e. Joseph never had more than one legal wife. therefore he never broke any bigamy laws.

C.I.

[JLH]

In fact, to this day the only state with anything could rightly be called an "anti-polygamy law" is Utah (it's in the constitution).

He had one legal wife, that was Emma. All subsequent wives were "joined" to him via a religious ceremony which the state of Illinois did not recognize as valid in anyway, i.e. Joseph never had more than one legal wife. therefore he never broke any bigamy laws.

CI,

Let's set aside you personal interpretation of Illinois statutes of bigamy for a moment.

Explain to me how the Utah law prohibits polygamy if the Illinois law did not. Particularly with respect to what and how you "vision" a joining via a religious ceremony only.

While I do not agree with your analysis, how does the Utah law determine who are polygamists if all practicng such merely claim it is not a legal union, but, as you say, a religious ceremony? What is the difference between the utah law and the illinois law?

[Beowulf]

QUOTE (Beowulf @ Mar 4 2005, 01:01 PM)

QUOTE 

Which raises another question. If they felt so trapped, then why did they stay faithful when asked to move so far away from the center, away from the controlling influences of BY? Why didn't they just say, "See you in Orderville," but continue on to the by-then well-known greener pastures of Oregon or California?

They were faithful enough... But a recent issue of the Ensign about the settlement of San Bernardino CA noted that when BY asked for volunteers, the group was over-subscribed by several times over! BY was so peeved at this excessive enthusiasm for California that he left the farewell party early, in a huff!

Beowulf 

Can one assume that church controlled publications are out to portray accuracy?

Is this a hostile question?

It was a historical piece, about the settlement of San Bernardino by Mormon pioneers. Light-hearted, as evidenced by the above, and also informative. Probably not rigorous by academic standards, but does not need to be, not being an historical journal.

Be that as it may, I presume that accuracy is the intent.

Is there any reason not to make such a presumption?

[JLH]

Is this a hostile question?

It was a historical piece, about the settlement of San Bernardino by Mormon pioneers. Light-hearted, as evidenced by the above, and also informative. Probably not rigorous by academic standards, but does not need to be, not being an historical journal.

Be that as it may, I presume that accuracy is the intent.

Is there any reason not to make such a presumption?

No hostility intended.

I posed the question to demonstrate a point (particularly to Benjamin McGuire).

I think it would be reasonable to assume that church controlled publications could be reasonably assumed to project accuracy. Particularly when the proclaimed prophet is the editor and publisher of the periodical.

Benjamin believes such a postion is not reasonable when "conspiracy theories" provide the answer that is needed as compared the the logical answer one would get by reading the words of the publisher/prophet.

[Benjamin McGuire]

JLH writes:

Again, putting aside emotions for a moment here, there were several statements by Smith referring to the D&C's article on marriage. The one above was one of many Smith publicly made.

The one you presented isn't a statement made by Joseph Smith. When will this become clear for you.

Why don't you present the other statements if you think that they will help your case.

Also, you may not be aware of how and why Smith was appointed "Publisher and Editor" of the Times & Seasons. It was an effort led by Brigham Young to bring the standards and reporting accuracy of the paper to a higher level.

I spent several years working for the Daily Herald. The letter which was written and published wasn't a piece of "reporting". It was a letter to the paper.

So if you choose not to accept the fact that Smith, as Prophet, Publisher, Editor, had no idea of the statements he signed off on, dealing with probably the most visable issue within the church at that time, I'll let it be a testimony to your standards of reason/logic/denial.

Joseph didn't sign off on it. If he had, we would have seen his signature affixed to the list of others at the end of the note which was published.

Which part of this do you find so hard to understand?

Let's set aside you personal interpretation of Illinois statutes of bigamy for a moment.

Let's not. Why don't you present us with your personal interpretation of the Illinois statutes of bigamy. Perhaps you would even introduce some cases which show how this relates to Joseph's activities.

Ben

[JLH]

Ben,

Don't want to get too far ahead of unanswered questions. I noticed you skipped this part of the conversation.

Ben,

Seeing as you claim "I have no clue", help me out here.

If Smith did not make polygamy "binding", what does this mean?

Was Smith practicing something that was not only against the law in Illinois, but also practicing something that was not yet allowed by God? Again, was he allowed a "special exemption" since he was a supposed prophet.

IF it was not "binding", what can we now conclude with respect to the women he married? Was his marriage/sealing to these women "not binding"? If it was not binding on anyone, why was Smith even doing it to begin with.

Think about your statements. If Smith's actions were "not binding", what was his purpose of practicing polygamy to begin with during his life? How can a reasonable man not conclude that Smith was only out to fulfill his "personal desires" if we are asked to conclude that his actions "were not binding" on those he chose to participte with?

Perhaps this is where you must now "re-define" the word "binding" to fit your argument.

[This is usually where those supporting Smith's lifestyle and polygamous practices will abandon the conversation.]

If you can't answer/explain your position, I'll understand.

[Brackite]

Hello there pseudogratix,

QUOTE (Brackite @ Mar 2 2005, 10:16 AM)

How can a man cleave until his own wife and none else when he has 12 other plural wives out there???

Because the other women in such a plural marriage relationship aren't just other women, but also wives.

QUOTE (Brackite @ Mar 2 2005, 10:30 AM)

Anyway what about Bigamy being against the law in the State of Illinois since the year of 1833? Here is Doctrine and Covenants Section 58:21...

Putting aside the sealings that probably would not be considered illegal according to the wording of that law ( http://www.utlm.org/images/newsletters/no9...isbigamylaw.gif ), it could be that there were some illegal actions made on behalf of the members during the Nauvoo period in regard to this law. Granted, it does seem contradictory on the surface. Perhaps someone can throw some more light on the subject.

Since Bigamy was back then (and still is today) against the law in the State of Illinois those women that Joseph Smith married were not really his plural wives. They were just other women, and Joseph Smith I am afraid to have to say so was clearly in violation of Doc. and Cov. 42:22-23. He was also in violation of Doc. and Cov. 58:21. Remember that these marriages of Joseph Smith to these other women were Not just sailings for eternity, but they included getting married and sealed to Joseph Smith for time and all eternity. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence that Joseph Smith did indeed have sexual relations with some of his plural wives. Why can