Jump to content

Post-Manifesto Polygamy


Brackite

Recommended Posts

A lot of LDS Church Apologists and Members will point out that the Manifesto of 1890 officially ended any new plural marriage among the Later-day Saints. They almost always state that the Manifesto was a Revelation from the Lord God to Wilford Woodruff to officially end the practice of entering into any new plural marriages. Here is what is stated about the Manifesto on the official LDS Church

Link to comment

I guess God is a wicked... vile man... because after issuing the 1400BC+ Manifesto....

Deut. 17: 17

17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

He broke his own contract. :P

2 sam 12

7

Link to comment
Since these Plural Marriages of these LDS Apostle occurred after the Manifesto of 1890, were these new plural marriages by these LDS Apostles good, pure, and righteous, or were these new plural marriages by these LDS Apostles evil, vile, and wicked???

Some believe that the FIRST Manifesto was only applicable in the USofA and it's territories. So, if performed in Mexico, Canada or International waters, it did not apply. Thus the eventual need for the SECOND Manifesto.

But surely you knew that.

HiJolly

Link to comment
Some believe that the FIRST Manifesto was only applicable in the USofA and it's territories. So, if performed in Mexico, Canada or International waters, it did not apply. Thus the eventual need for the SECOND Manifesto.

so god cares about frontiers and countries now?..interesting

Link to comment
so god cares about frontiers and countries now?..interesting

Like that's anything new...

Civil weddings followed immediately by sealings in those countries that don't recognise religious weddings, no more missionaries in Venzuela because they can't get a visa, etc...

Ridiculous argument, really.

Del

Link to comment
Some believe that the FIRST Manifesto was only applicable in the USofA and it's territories.  So, if performed in Mexico, Canada or International waters, it did not apply.  Thus the eventual need for the SECOND Manifesto. 

But surely you knew that. 

HiJolly

Quinn discusses the differing "beliefs" and "interpretations" of members of the First Presidencies and members of the Twelve. They were certainly not united in how they felt about the decision or even if it was a revelation.

Official Declaration 1 does specify that it is Woodruff's "advice" that members obey the laws of the land. Although there were polygamous marriages performed in Mexico [wasn't it against the law there as well?] and Canada, Quinn points to many cases where the bride and groom were residents of Utah Territory and came back to live there after the ceremonies. Quinn also points to cases where high church leaders approved polygamous marriages, officiated them and even entered into them while still in Utah Territory.

The situation of high church leaders saying one thing in public but different things in practice continued with the end of Polygamy just as it had happened with the beginning of polygamy. This caused me to lose a tremendous amount of respect for those in those callings in that time and those in those callings at other times as well. If there was any situation where the leaders of the established church led the members astray then it is this.

A much longer treatment about post-manifesto polygamy by Quinn can be found at http://www.lds-mormon.com/quinn_polygamy.shtml.

Edited for typos

Link to comment
so god cares about frontiers and countries now?..interesting

Like that's anything new...

Civil weddings followed immediately by sealings in those countries that don't recognise religious weddings, no more missionaries in Venzuela because they can't get a visa, etc...

Ridiculous argument, really.

Del

I don't think the point is ridiculous. Take the time to think about it instead of making a quick reply.

Polygamy could only be practiced by the command of God, right? What was the purpose of the Manifesto? Was it to stop the practice of polygamy everywhere or just in the jurisdiction of the United States government?

Civil weddings, Venezuela, Bethlehem. . .those of instances where the laws of the land need to be observed. Pezp's point is about a commandment of God only applying to certain lands where LDS people live. After all, the non-verified item I hear from time to time is the church does not sanction polygamy for members even if it is legal in their country.

Link to comment

Hi Edgar,

You wrote:

Official Declaration 1 does specify that it is Woodruff's "advice" that members obey the laws of the land. Although there were polygamous marriages performed in Mexico [wasn't it against the law there as well?] and Canada, Quinn points to many cases where the bride and groom were residents of Utah Territory and came back to live there after the ceremonies. Quinn also points to cases where high church leaders approved polygamous marriages, officiated them and even entered into them while still in Utah Territory.

Yes, Polygamy Marragies were also illegal in Mexico, though the Mexican Government did Not enforce the law against Polygamy. The following is from D. Michael Quinn's Post-Mainfesto Polygamy Essay:

Although most people have a general awareness of these legal prohibitions, a persistent myth among Mormons maintains that polygamy and polygamous cohabitation were not in violation of the laws of Mexico, where the First Presidency established a polygamous refuge in 1885. On the contrary, since 1884 Mexican federal statutes (which were adopted in the states of Chihuahua, Sonar, and Oaxaca where Mormon colonies were established) prohibited marriage between persons where one partner was already legitimately married, defined children of such a union as "spurious," and also refused to recognize as legitimate any marriage performed outside Mexico unless it was "valid according to the laws of the country in which it was celebrated."40

Church leaders were aware of this situation from the beginning of the Mormon colonies in Mexico, as indicated by John W. Young

Link to comment

Brackite wrote:

I know that the new Plural Marriage of Wilford Woodruff was performed a steamship on the Pacific Ocean, between San Francisco and Portland.

How does this "knowledge" stack up in relationship to some posters' insistance that we can't really know things that we say we know? :P

Link to comment
Polygamy could only be practiced by the command of God, right?  What was the purpose of the Manifesto?  Was it to stop the practice of polygamy everywhere or just in the jurisdiction of the United States government?

One could argue that since it was the US Government that was opposing polygamy, the Manifesto only needed to apply to US territory.

Civil weddings, Venezuela, Bethlehem. . .those of instances where the laws of the land need to be observed.  Pezp's point is about a commandment of God only applying to certain lands where LDS people live.  After all, the non-verified item I hear from time to time is the church does not sanction polygamy for members even if it is legal in their country.

Actually, my husband would love it if someone could confirm this item, because he's been wondering the exact same thing, and also how the church deals with converts who already have several wives. He's wondering because an ex-sister-republic of Yugoslavia, Bosnia, is considering making polygamy legal (lots of Muslims over there). So if anyone could confirm that, or tell me where I could find that information, that'd be great.

But anyway, the examples that were given are not as irrelevant as you seem to believe they are. One of our articles of faith states that we believe in honouring our governments and laws. This in itself makes it obvious to me that God cares about countries and borders, contrarily to what pezp seemed to be arguing.

Del

Link to comment

So del march you believe that the law of countries and rulers is stronger to the law of god? god has tu adapt to "rulers and kings and stuff"???

thanx edgar, that was my point, i think god shouldnt have to command things to such country and other things to others...

Link to comment
So del march you believe that the law of countries and rulers is stronger to the law of god? god has tu adapt to "rulers and kings and stuff"???

*sigh* You know perfectly well (or you should know, by now) that I don't believe anything is stronger than God.

However, I do believe that God asked us to respect the laws of the countries we are in, even when they clash with the laws He gave us, and that He even provided ways to help us do that on some occasions.

In other words, it is God Himself that tells us to give the priority to our countries' laws sometimes.

thanx edgar, that was my point, i think god shouldnt have to command things to such country and other things to others...

Should I take it that it means you don't approve of the church's policy not to send missionaries in many Islamic countries, or not to create units there?

Del

Link to comment

god knows everything right? i just dont understand why he gives commandments that he already knows are going to clash with some countries laws....

that doesnt make sense to me.

i dont aprove many things about the church...(man i dont even believe in it) but i think that if the restored gospel is meant for all mankind...you should send missionaries or make units everywhere no matter whats the price...christians in the old days (the ones whoe were truly persecuted and killed for their beliefs)did it

Link to comment
god knows everything right? i just dont understand why he gives commandments that he already knows are going to clash with some countries laws....

that doesnt make sense to me.

God knows everything, but He's not responsible for everything. In particular, He's not responsible for what kind of government the various countries have.

i dont aprove many things about the church...(man i dont even believe in it) but i think that if the restored gospel is meant for all mankind...you should send missionaries or make units everywhere no matter whats the price...christians in the old days (the ones whoe were truly persecuted and killed for their beliefs)did it

Hum, yeah, I can imagine the letter those missionaries would receive:

Dear Elder Whoever,

you have been called to serve your mission in Saudi Arabia. We promise we will do our best to have your body brought back to your family after you are executed.

Or maybe when making the pre-mission interviews, the local leaders could ask for volunteers? Hey, that way, even suicidal missionaries could go on a mission!

Honestly :unsure::P:ph34r:<_<

Del

Link to comment
God knows everything, but He's not responsible for everything. In particular, He's not responsible for what kind of government the various countries have

he may not be responsible but he KNOWS what goverment these cpuntries have so whats the point of giving commandments that will conflict??

:P the saudi arabian thing was funny though

if it was truly gods church id think it would be fair to say that he would protect his sons who are making HIS work...but thats just my opinion...

so you prefer not to take the risk...so much for your strong knowledge that you are doing HIS work

Link to comment

Idle rumors posted on anti sites, with no substantiating evidence.

Since Madame Mountford (maiden name Lydia Mary Olive Mamreoff von Finkelstein) was already married to Charles E. Mountford, it is unlikely that there was any sort of marriage between her and Wilford Woodruff, secret or not. They did develop a close and mutually respectful relationship and she was vicariously sealed to Wilford Woodruff in 1920, three years after she died. Again, if she had already been married to him, this would not have taken place in 1920. Wilford Woodruff's relationship with Madame Mountford is thoroughly analyzed in Thomas Alexander's biography.

Other errors in the post: Madame Mountford was an Episcopalian, not a Jew, although she was born and raised in Jerusalem and claimed descent from Melchizedek and Ephraim. She did associate with both Jews and Muslims in Jerusalem as well as Christians. She was educated in English speaking Catholic schools.

I question whether Wilford Woodruff ever even met Madame Mountford outside of Salt Lake City, let alone a ship. Madame Mountford was a famous lecturer and Salt Lake City was just one stop on her circuit, where she spoke in the Tabernacle and was invited to speak in General Conference. There were many other stops on that lecture tour, including London and New Zealand.

Madame Mountford's lectures in Salt Lake were instrumental in promoting missionary work in Israel, although Andrew Jensen only arrived in Salt Lake two months after Mountford had left.

As for the other allegations, they are vague and unsubstantial, with probably even less supporting evidence than the first one.

Link to comment
he may not be responsible but he KNOWS what goverment these cpuntries have so whats the point of giving commandments that will conflict??

Can't you see the difference between giving a Law and making allowances for those who are forbidden to obey it by their governments, and submitting the giving of the Law to the good will of men's governments? The first case shows God's authority and mercy. The second case would only show weakness and cowardice.

if it was truly gods church id think it would be fair to say that he would protect his sons who are making HIS work...but thats just my opinion...

so you prefer not to take the risk...so much for your strong knowledge that you are doing HIS work

Could you PLEASE make up your mind on whether we should walk by faith only or by faith AND reason??? If we send our missionaries in situations where we KNOW they are going to be killed, then we are simply being foolish, and God has no duty to compensate for our stupidity.

Have you never heard the story of the man in the flood, who claimed that God would save him?

Del

Link to comment

Do you have any sources that are not really biased? Any unimpeachable sources? Any sources known for objectivity? Quinn does not qualify IMO. But he has made a lot of money I suppose on his writings.

The ruling on polygamous marriage by the Supreme Court was political at the time, in that once you have established a legal status of husband and wife, a subseguent law outlawing that status is an "ex post facto" law that is unconstitutional. That argument is seldom brought up. President Woodruff stated that he saw what would happen if the practice were continued, the unlawful seizure of property of the church, (note, not the defendants themselves). Once lawfully married, before the subsequent law making it illegal, would we expect the parties to be forced to divorce? Mandatory divorce from a lawful marriage! Interesting.

Another point. If there is an ambiguity in a written commandment, who clarifies on behalf of the Lord? Not writers on an internet forum. It would be the prophet only, in that other's opinions are just that.

Regards,

Quest

Link to comment

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...