Faithful LDS woman ex'd for publicly announcing she doesn't believe JS lived polygamy.

[webbles]

1 hour ago, manol said:

My recollection is that Joseph specifically opposed something called "spiritual wifery".  Now I don't know exactly what that term meant in the context of the day, but at a glance it seems to imply something similar to the definition you ascribe to "plural marriage"; i.e., a sealing but without the couple having a physical marriage relationship.  Am I mistaken about that?

"spiritual wifery" is having a sexual relationships without being married.  John C Bennet is what triggered a lot of the statements against spiritual wifery.

2 hours ago, manol said:

(By the way, I find it plausible that Mormon women lied under oath about the exact nature of their relationships with Joseph Smith.  My understanding is that during the US Government's crackdown on polygamy, the prosecutors would question Mormon women to find out who was the first (and therefore legal) wife, as she was the only one who could not be compelled to testify against her husband.  The women would be deceptive and say things like they couldn't remember who was the first wife, and/or which child was from which mother, which of course were lies, but it did throw a monkey wrench in that avenue of attack by the Government prosecutors.  I am under the impression that lying for a good cause was considered a virtue, with Joseph Smith's public denials of polygamy being (imo wrongly!) considered a justifying example thereof.)

The two situations are very different.  In the polygamy crackdown, the women were trying to protect their husbands and sister-wives.  And I don't believe they outright lied, they just obstructed the case by not testifying or saying they can't remember.  The testimonies of the women who said they were wives of Joseph Smith were not trying to protect anyone nor where they try to obstruct the case.  In fact, the case had nothing to do with the church or with the women.  The two parties were RLDS and the Church of Christ (Temple Lot).  The only reason the women were asked to testify was that the Church of Christ was trying to prove that the RLDS were not the true inheritors of Joseph Smith because they didn't practice polygamy which Joseph had taught.  So, there was not much incentive to lie.  Additionally, the testimonies from the Temple Lot case is only a part of the evidence that Joseph practiced polygamy.

[webbles]

8 hours ago, webbles said:

William Clayton's journal has most of it which I know some people think was edited so we just have to wait and see if the church ever releases them

I just found this announcement - https://www.churchhistorianspress.org/article/newsletter/2025-september.  A few months old but we are actually going to get the journals.  They've been working the past 8 years, they've been transcribing the journals and they will be published by Yale.  I hope they also include photographs of the diaries.  But this has the potential to change several theories about early polygamy.  If the journals look to be edited later on, then a lot of the contemporary evidence of Joseph's polygamy is gone.  But if it wasn't edited, we'll have solid contemporary evidence.

[MustardSeed]

On 12/18/2025 at 8:51 AM, teddyaware said:

believe one of the main reasons why a fair number of members are struggling with the church’s history of plural marriage is due to the fact that they are carnally minded.

I’m not sure how you define that, or where the problem lies for you. But I will tell you that my husband‘s a very happy man. 😉

[gopher]

On 12/19/2025 at 7:55 PM, Calm said:

While I definitely agree there has been great damage done by those who speak out against the prophets, since we can’t know what the Church would have been like if the Ban had only been temporary or rather the First Presidency and the 12 had come to a decision earlier that the time to end it had come, all this type of judgment can be is opinion.

Not saying you are wrong either.  I can’t say what went on outside the history and there are gaps in the records, though not as many as there once were.  My own opinion is it appears that Brigham did not give the Ban as revelation even if he thought it was grounded in/supported by revelation and there was debate while he was still living as well as afterwards on how it should be applied (questions about the Ables as well as Jane Manning and others).  At least one of the explanations used to support the continuation of the Ban was found to be a lie (we have documentation of Able’s ordination being done with Joseph’s knowledge and Brigham did not declare his priesthood as invalid even if he was not able to receive his endowment as he had his washing and anointing).

I am happy with just the Church releasing the info and the public acknowledgment of the actual record, such as this below, through the research supported by the Church and with that available for study, letting people decide the why it happen for themselves, including letting it sit on the shelf until somehow we know more.   I certainly have no problem letting any judgment rest in God’s hands to be revealed when he so chooses, but ignoring the record, pretending contradictions aren’t present within it will not benefit the Church nor increase confidence in our prophets imo and it seems to me the Church agrees since it gave access to scholars and published the Gospel Topic on Race, calling it a policy, not a revelation and citing the long history rather than any doctrinal justification for requiring a revelation to lift it.

https://doctrineandcovenantscentral.org/blacks-and-priesthood-temple-ban-timeline/

http://www.blacklatterdaysaints.org/history

 

I'm not dismissing the accounts and records from that time period.  If I believed the restored church was lead by men who were permitted to act in ways against the will of God, I would agree that the priesthood ban was completely unjustified, uninspired, and done against the will of God.  But a study of scripture has taught me that God would not allow prophets from the 1850's until 1978 to disobey His will.  I believe if God didn't see purpose in the priesthood ban, He wouldn't have allowed it to continue.  I realize Utah is landlocked so sending a big fish to swallow disobedient prophets isn't an option, but I believe God would have found another way to convince them to obey Him instead of allowing them to continue promoting a false practice.  I understand that isn't a popular opinion with critics and some apologist/church scholars, but I don't think any believer should feel ashamed to trust in the prophets that God has called in these latter days.

My personal belief is that when it comes to speculating about the motives and intents of prophets, I would rather speculate on the side that they following the will of God, even if I don't understand or agree with what they do.  It doesn't mean ignoring the record or pretending contradictions don't exist, but it does mean not going down the road which leads to doubt and disbelief. 

[gopher]

On 12/19/2025 at 10:27 PM, Rain said:

There is another option though besides speculation and being persuaded by someone else and it is doing what the church teaches: study and pray about it sincerely and humbly. So if one does that and the answer they get is that polygamy was wrong then I think that's a whole lot different than speculation or persuasion.

I know that many will then say that if it doesn't align with what church leaders say then your answers didn't really come from the Spirit, but if that's the case then we are back to people saying church leaders are not infallible even when they don't believe it.

 

I think if you get revelation from the Spirit that polygamy was wrong, then go with that.  We can't claim that promptings from the Spirit are only true when they align with what church leaders say.  I think we should let promptings from the Spirit influence us much more than speculation or persuasion from others, especially from those who aren't authorized to declare Christ's doctrines.

But we also can't dismiss the accounts of those who actually practiced polygamy and who claimed to have received answers from the Spirit that polygamy wasn't wrong.

[gopher]

20 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I’m not sure how you define that, or where the problem lies for you. But I will tell you that my husband‘s a very happy man. 😉

Oh my

[Calm]

1 hour ago, gopher said:

I'm not dismissing the accounts and records from that time period.  If I believed the restored church was lead by men who were permitted to act in ways against the will of God, I would agree that the priesthood ban was completely unjustified, uninspired, and done against the will of God.  But a study of scripture has taught me that God would not allow prophets from the 1850's until 1978 to disobey His will.  I believe if God didn't see purpose in the priesthood ban, He wouldn't have allowed it to continue.  I realize Utah is landlocked so sending a big fish to swallow disobedient prophets isn't an option, but I believe God would have found another way to convince them to obey Him instead of allowing them to continue promoting a false practice.  I understand that isn't a popular opinion with critics and some apologist/church scholars, but I don't think any believer should feel ashamed to trust in the prophets that God has called in these latter days.

My personal belief is that when it comes to speculating about the motives and intents of prophets, I would rather speculate on the side that they following the will of God, even if I don't understand or agree with what they do.  It doesn't mean ignoring the record or pretending contradictions don't exist, but it does mean not going down the road which leads to doubt and disbelief. 

It’s a valid view, imo.  Just to be clear in case I wasn’t, I wasn’t challenging you, just presenting my own view, exchange of ideas kind of thing.

[manol]

On 12/17/2025 at 5:56 PM, webbles said:

Wilford even had to make the statement that the Lord wouldn't let the prophet lead the church astray

The exact quote is:  “The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray.”

Quite a bit hinges on that one doctrine being absolutely correct, doesn't it?

What if God is no respecter of persons, and doesn't prevent prophets from making mistakes (big or small) any more than He prevents any of the rest of us from making mistakes?

What if one of the lessons God wants us to learn is how to connect with Him directly and individually, rather than always giving the final say to an external voice (a prophet and/or a religion)?

Before making the doctrine that "the Lord will never permit the prophet to lead us astray" a foundation of my belief system, I would want God to tell to me in my mind and in my heart that it is absolutely correct.  I would want it to taste delicious to my soul.  I would want it to consistently lead me to love God and believe in Christ.  I would want it to lead me to love God without reservation and simultaneously love my neighbor as myself, no mental gymnastics required. 

Imo we are to be followers of Christ rather than followers of men, be they prophets or presidencies or quorums. 

Edited December 21, 2025 by manol

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, manol said:

The exact quote is:  “The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray.”

Quite a bit hinges on that one doctrine being absolutely correct, doesn't it?

What if God is no respecter of persons, and doesn't prevent prophets from making mistakes (big or small) any more than He prevents any of the rest of us from making mistakes?

What if one of the lessons God wants us to learn is how to connect with Him directly and individually, rather than always giving the final say to an external voice (a prophet and/or a religion)?

Before making the doctrine that "the Lord will never permit the prophet to lead us astray" a foundation of my belief system, I would want God to tell to me in my mind and in my heart that it is absolutely correct.  I would want it to taste delicious to my soul.  I would want it to consistently lead me to love God and believe in Christ.  I would want it to lead me to love God without reservation and simultaneously love my neighbor as myself, no mental gymnastics required. 

Imo we are to be followers of Christ rather than followers of men, be they prophets or presidencies or quorums. 

I think it depends on how someone defines 'astray'.  Obviously it can mean 'won't let the president make mistakes' because we don't believe in an infallible prophet.  So it has to mean something else.  

It would probably be most helpful to know how Pres. Woodruff defined or understood the word, since he is the one who used it.  I'm not sure we have access to his thoughts on the matter though.

[manol]

19 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think it depends on how someone defines 'astray'.  Obviously it can [do you mean "can't"?] mean 'won't let the president make mistakes' because we don't believe in an infallible prophet.  So it has to mean something else.  

Thanks for replying. 

I think "leading astray" in this context would be "making a crucial mistake on something that really matters".  Which still comes down to one's definitions of terms, but it does exclude small mistakes.

Imo it takes some mental gymnastics to say that there has never been any "astray" coming from the President of the LDS Church anywhere along the way regarding the priesthood ban, the practice of polygamy, women giving blessings, the Adam/God doctrine, and so forth.  Maybe these are not "things that really matter"... in which case, arguably, the correctness of Wilford Woodruff's Manifesto and the claims he made around it (including that quote) don't really matter either.  

And if we are going to cut this much slack to the teachings and actions of prophets, would it be wrong to cut the same amount of slack to Karen Hyatt?  And yes I realize the two situations are not exactly analogous.

 

19 hours ago, bluebell said:

It would probably be most helpful to know how Pres. Woodruff defined or understood the word, since he is the one who used it.  I'm not sure we have access to his thoughts on the matter though.

True.  But we have a pretty good idea of what he actually said, and any "leading" a prophet does is via his words and actions.  Not his thoughts. 

Imo whether "the Lord will never permit the President of the LDS Church to lead the members astray" is a true principle is the sort of thing one can legitimately ask God about, if it's something that matters to you.  Doing so is not demonstrating a "lack of faith"; quite the contrary, doing so with real intent would very much be an act of faith.

In my opinion. 

 

Edited December 22, 2025 by manol

[Calm]

3 hours ago, manol said:

What if one of the lessons God wants us to learn is how to connect with Him directly and individually, rather than always giving the final say to an external voice (a prophet and/or a religion)?

This, this, this…

Also “astray” can mean anything from a stumble off the path and quickly turning around to regain footing on it, to running parallel to the path a short way thinking there might be better ground to walk on before realizing it’s best to keep to the path,  to months of camping out within sight of the path because of curiosity but still feeling the call of the path, to years and decades of wandering far and wide but ultimately being drawn back on course, to cutting all connections with the path possible because one decided to move off to take permanent residence as far away from God’s way as one can find, forever lost because you don’t go looking for the way back.

I wonder which Pres Woodruff had in mind when he said it.  I wonder how he used the principle in his judgment of church leaders.  I wonder what God had in mind if he inspired Wilford to remember it.

Quote

But we have a pretty good idea of what he actually said, and any "leading" a prophet does is via his words and actions.  Not his thoughts

I haven’t studied his words and actions.  I wonder if he ever talked on the subject of infallibility or related ideas and if he made anything that looked like a course correction.

Edited December 21, 2025 by Calm

[webbles]

3 hours ago, manol said:

The exact quote is:  “The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray.”

Quite a bit hinges on that one doctrine being absolutely correct, doesn't it?

What if God is no respecter of persons, and doesn't prevent prophets from making mistakes (big or small) any more than He prevents any of the rest of us from making mistakes?

What if one of the lessons God wants us to learn is how to connect with Him directly and individually, rather than always giving the final say to an external voice (a prophet and/or a religion)?

Before making the doctrine that "the Lord will never permit the prophet to lead us astray" a foundation of my belief system, I would want God to tell to me in my mind and in my heart that it is absolutely correct.  I would want it to taste delicious to my soul.  I would want it to consistently lead me to love God and believe in Christ.  I would want it to lead me to love God without reservation and simultaneously love my neighbor as myself, no mental gymnastics required. 

Imo we are to be followers of Christ rather than followers of men, be they prophets or presidencies or quorums. 

The exact quote is also near the end of a decent length talk at General Conference in 1890.  Here's an online version of the talk - https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/sites/default/files/archive-files/pdf/woodruff/2023-06-22/president_woodruffs_manifesto.pdf.  It also includes a talk from George Q. Cannon which is also kind of similar to what Wilford Woodruff talks about.  They aren't talks about "listen to us and obey us", they are talks about trying to convince the members.  They talk about praying and faith and reasons why the manifesto is correct.  They are trying to get the people to listen to God so that He can tell them in mind and heart that it is absolutely correct.

It always bothers me that we sometimes use snippets like that ("The Lord will never permit me ...") and miss the rest of the context of the talk.  The foundation is to listen to God and follow Him.  If He tells us that the prophets are His spokespeople, than we can trust God that He will keep the prophets inline.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

It always bothers me that we sometimes use snippets like that ("The Lord will never permit me ...") and miss the rest of the context of the talk. 

Amen, amen, amen

Edited December 21, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

if he made anything that looked like a course correction.

Thought of one myself….This looks like a course correction to me:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/sealing?lang=eng
 

Quote

This practice continued until 1894, when President Wilford Woodruff received a revelation that limited adoptive sealings and instead focused on sealing marriages and parent-child relationships. President Woodruff exhorted the Saints to search their genealogies “as far as they can, and to be sealed to their fathers and mothers.” He urged the Saints to be sealed to deceased spouses and parents, even those who had not been members of the Church, promising that “there will be very few, if any, who will not accept the Gospel.”

 

Edited December 21, 2025 by Calm

[manol]

2 hours ago, webbles said:

If [God] tells us that the prophets are His spokespeople, th[e]n we can trust God that He will keep the prophets inline.

Does the second necessarily follow from the first?  If so, that implies a belief infallibility. 

And imo it sounds like that state of blind self-security which is at odds with the thinking of at least one President of the Church:

"What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually." - Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses Volume 9 Page 150, emphasis mine.

Imo the place to put one's trust is the Spirit of God, rather than in men. 

 

Edited December 22, 2025 by manol

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, manol said:

Does the second necessarily follow from the first?  If so, that implies infallibility. 

Imo this sounds like that state of blind self-security which is at odds with the thinking of at least one President of the Church:

"What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually." - Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses Volume 9 Page 150, emphasis mine.

Imo the place to put one's trust is the Spirit of God, rather than in men. 

 

In the above quote, President Young’s counsel to the saints is that they need to receive confirmatory personal revelation from God in order to know for certain that the prophets and apostles are leading the members aright, and that by receiving said confirmatory revelation the members are much better able to properly sustain the church leaders in their indispensable roles as prophets, seers and revelators. President Young is most definitely not instructing the members of the church that they need to learn how to “go it alone” without looking to the leaders of the church for the essential contemporary guidance they need in order to more effectively serve God and keep his commandments. I can see how a careless and perfunctory analysis of President Young’s words might cause someone to erroneously conclude that personal revelation obviates the need for prophetic guidance from those who stand at the head of the church, but President Young is actually teaching something that’s diametrically opposite to a “Lone Ranger” approach to gospel living.

Edited December 22, 2025 by teddyaware

[manol]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

In the above quote, President Young’s counsel to the saints is that they need to receive confirmatory personal revelation from God in order to know for certain that the prophets and apostles are leading the members aright, and that by receiving said confirmatory revelation the members are much better able to properly sustain the church leaders in their indispensable roles as prophets, seers and revelators.

Agreed.

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

President Young is most definitely not instructing the members of the church that they need to learn how to “go it alone” without looking to the leaders of the church for the essential contemporary guidance they need in order to more effectively serve God and keep his commandments.

Agreed.

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

I can see how a careless and perfunctory analysis of President Young’s words might cause someone to erroneously conclude that personal revelation obviates the need for prophetic guidance from those who stand at the head of the church, but President Young is actually teaching something that’s diametrically opposite to a “Lone Ranger” approach to gospel living.

Imo President Young is teaching what might be called "informed consent" (and certainly not "blind consent") to the guidance of Church leaders, with the "informing" being done by the Spirit of God.

Let me ask you this question:

Is there a point at which "follow the Spirit of God" takes a back seat to "follow the Prophet", or otherwise becomes redundant? 

The Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins teaches that we each need to have our own "oil" for our own "lamps", and that we cannot borrow it from someone else.  And imo that means we cannot even borrow it from a Prophet.  

Edited December 22, 2025 by manol

[Senator]

20 hours ago, manol said:

The exact quote is:  “The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray.”

What amuses me about that quote is the embedded irony in it? What if, by saying this the prophet led decades of saints into the belief of an infallible prophet. Then when discovering the prophets can indeed be wrong, their world view is crushed and they leave the church. In other words they felt they had but led astray.

[manol]

41 minutes ago, Senator said:

What amuses me about that quote is the embedded irony in it? What if, by saying this the prophet led decades of saints into the belief of an infallible prophet. Then when discovering the prophets can indeed be wrong, their world view is crushed and they leave the church. In other words they felt they had but led astray.

Wilford Woodruff was in a rather unenviable position. 

The Church was under attack by an utterly irresistible force - the government and population and will and power of the United States, who pretty much had no other enemies at the time - for what had arguably become the defining doctrine of the LDS Church.  How was he going to preserve the Church, or at least as much of it as he could?  I'm sure he very sincerely felt that people's souls were at stake, and presumably he sought the outcome that would result in the greatest good for the greatest number of souls.  Once he had decided on his course of action (whether by revelation or inspiration or desperation or some combination thereof), he pulled out all the stops.  He was trying to turn the Titanic before it hit the iceberg, and he used every bit of rudder he had, including the claim (rightly or wrongly) that God would not permit him to do this if it was a mistake. 

In retrospect I think he was remarkably successful, even if I find that particular claim dubious. 

Edited December 22, 2025 by manol

[Senator]

5 minutes ago, manol said:

Wilford Woodruff was in a rather unenviable position. 

The Church was under attack by an utterly irresistible force - the government and population and will and power of the United States, who pretty much had no other enemies at the time - for what had arguably become the defining doctrine of the LDS Church.  How was he going to preserve the Church, or at least as much of it as he could?  I'm sure he very sincerely felt that people's souls were at stake, and presumably he sought the outcome that would result in the greatest good for the greatest number of souls.  Once he had decided on his course of action (whether by revelation or inspiration or desperation or some combination thereof), he pulled out all the stops.  He was trying to turn the Titanic before it hit the iceberg, and he used every bit of rudder he had, including the claim (rightly or wrongly) that God would not permit him to do this if it was a mistake. 

In retrospect I think he was remarkably successful, even if I find that particular claim dubious. 

Is this another example of “expressly speaking” by God with ulterior motives?

Makes one wonder…

[bluebell]

20 hours ago, manol said:

 

Imo whether "the Lord will never permit the President of the LDS Church to lead the members astray" is a true principle is the sort of thing one can legitimately ask God about, if it's something that matters to you.  Doing so is not demonstrating a "lack of faith"; quite the contrary, doing so with real intent would very much be an act of faith.

In my opinion. 

 

I agree.

I've always leaned toward 'leading astray' meaning leading into apostasy, because that is the one place the scriptures teach God's church will not go in the last days.  But that certainly isn't an authoritative take on it.

[bluebell]

19 hours ago, webbles said:

If He tells us that the prophets are His spokespeople, than we can trust God that He will keep the prophets inline.

That's a perfect way to put it.

[JVW]

On 12/19/2025 at 8:16 PM, manol said:

I find your insight into the distinction between "plural marriage" and "polygamy" enlightening.   The working hypothesis I arrived at some years ago (and have not revisited) is along generally similar lines, though lacking that insight.  So this is not me disagreeing with you; this is me hoping to learn from you:

Thank you for your kind words, brother.

On 12/19/2025 at 8:16 PM, manol said:

My recollection is that Joseph specifically opposed something called "spiritual wifery".  Now I don't know exactly what that term meant in the context of the day, but at a glance it seems to imply something similar to the definition you ascribe to "plural marriage"; i.e., a sealing but without the couple having a physical marriage relationship.  Am I mistaken about that?

John C. Bennett was the assistant president of the Church and he was going around telling young women that they were already married in heaven so they didn't need to be married, or get permission from anyone, in order to have sex and consummate that marriage. That was the practice of spiritual wifery and Bennett was excommunicated for it. He got pissed and wrote a book accusing Joseph and other leaders of secretly practicing polygamy and went on a campaign up and down the East Coast selling his book and preaching anti-Mormonism. The accusations he made of Joseph practicing secret polygamy is what Joseph denied. I don't believe that Joseph was accused of practicing Spiritual Wifery. see: https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/john-c-bennett-and-spiritual-wifery/ for a brief overview.

This site has a bunch of quotes of Joseph denying the practice of polygamy. Of course it's couched in commentary basically calling him a lying snake (which is, oddly, what the josephsmithspolygamy site does as well) https://mit.irr.org/joseph-smith-statements-denying-polygamy . Feel free to check out the link but I'll post the quotes down here if you want to skip the laced opinions. Please note that half of these quotes were made in 1844, I also believe that this list is not exhaustive but it may be.

Quote

MARRIAGE. v. 4 "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." 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, C1, p. 251 (1835)

Joseph Smith refers people to extract from Doctrine and Covenants on Marriage which disavows polygamy, stating that this is "the only rule allowed by the church." Times and Seasons, vol. 3, p. 909 (1842). See bottom half of left-hand column.

Joseph Smith repeats again statement from Doctrine and Covenants on Marriage to deny all allegations of polygamy being practice. Times and Seasons, vol. 3, p. 939 (1842)

Joseph and Hyrum Smith announce the excommunication of Hiram Brown, a member of the Church, for "preaching Polygamy, and other false and corrupt doctrines, in the county of Lapeer, state of Michigan." Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 423 (1844)

Hyrum Smith, with full knowledge and consent of his brother Joseph, publishes statement categorically denying any teaching of plural wives or polygamy, and that all such teaching is false doctrine. “… some of your elders say, that a man having a certain priesthood, may have as many wives as he pleases, and that doctrine is taught here: I say unto you that that man teaches false doctrine, for there is no such doctrine taught here; neither is there any such thing practiced here.” Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 474 (March, 1844)

Statement denouncing teaching of plural wives as fiendish. States that the spiritual wife system merely allows a man to be married to another wife for time and eternity if his first wife dies. Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 715 (1844) See bottom half of right column A.

"...What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers." (History of the Church, vol 6, p. 411) Joseph Smith made this statement preaching from the stand to the Latter-day Saints in Nauvoo on Sunday May 26, 1844.

As you know, I'm no scholar. Regarding this issue I spent around 2-3 years in deep study, but I didn't make notes or write scholarly articles and I have a poor memory so I could be wrong about anything historical that I mention. I was just looking for revelation, peace, and internal resolution. Once I obtained that I was satisfied.

On 12/19/2025 at 10:27 PM, Rain said:

There is another option though besides speculation and being persuaded by someone else and it is doing what the church teaches: study and pray about it sincerely and humbly. So if one does that and the answer they get is that polygamy was wrong then I think that's a whole lot different than speculation or persuasion.

I know that many will then say that if it doesn't align with what church leaders say then your answers didn't really come from the Spirit, but if that's the case then we are back to people saying church leaders are not infallible even when they don't believe it.

I received revelation from God about this issue. The issue is that properly communicating personal revelation to others is impossible. For me, the revelation boiled down to this "believe the Book of Mormon more than the Doctrine and Covenants" and the Book of Mormon clearly states that the practice of polygamy is an abomination before God that has led to the destruction of civilizations and was the reason why Jerusalem fell shortly after Lehi left. It was also the reason why the church was going to be destroyed in the late 19th century. The patterns are consistent.

Along with that, my heart was also changed in how I perceive prophets. We don't know what we don't know and it's an expression of God's love when He allows us to continue living life in error and false belief. This is evidenced by my favorite verse in the Book of Mormon, Alma 32:19 - "And now, how much more cursed is he that knoweth the will of God and doeth it not, than he that only believeth, or only hath cause to believe, and falleth into transgression?".

I have many reasons to believe that the church currently espouses false beliefs, policies, principles, or doctrines. I think there are many people who believe this about the current church. And I would argue that if someone doesn't believe that, even after modern prophets have said that the church is still in the process of being fully restored, then they are in error in their beliefs. I firmly believe that President Nelson made some very poor choices during his presidency, but he is also the only prophet that I've received confirmation from God about his prophetic call. I don't doubt that Oaks is making some bad decision as well. These things don't mean that they aren't prophets or that the church isn't led by Jesus, but it does mean that life is complicated and I have to use my brain, best judgment, and a lot of prayer and consulting with God over grievances and concerns. It's a lot of work.

[bluebell]

17 hours ago, manol said:

Does the second necessarily follow from the first?  If so, that implies a belief infallibility. 

 

 

From my perspective, I don't think it implies infallibility.  Especially when considered in light of D&C 1.

24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;

38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

[JVW]

23 hours ago, manol said:

The exact quote is:  “The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray.”

Before making the doctrine that "the Lord will never permit the prophet to lead us astray" a foundation of my belief system, I would want God to tell to me in my mind and in my heart that it is absolutely correct.  I would want it to taste delicious to my soul.  I would want it to consistently lead me to love God and believe in Christ.  I would want it to lead me to love God without reservation and simultaneously love my neighbor as myself, no mental gymnastics required. 

Imo we are to be followers of Christ rather than followers of men, be they prophets or presidencies or quorums. 

I have a question for you. Is there ever a time throughout Biblical history where God's chosen prophet or Apostle led Israel, or the church, astray? I haven't studied this but my gut response to this question is that prophets have never led Israel astray. What happens to lead the church astray is the members begin worshipping false gods and then murder the prophets. Under that assumption I think it's safe to assume that a prophet would be murdered before a prophet would successfully rebel against God to destroy Israel. I think the best attempt made was by Jonah, and he failed spectacularly.