Sealed... for Time and for All Eternity

[BCSpace]

At this point it dawned on me that the main point of our lesson was ironically quite opposite to the main point of Section 132.

How so?

[kamenraider]

In regard to the 1831 revelation, Marquardt DOES NOT mention anything about the Church supressing it in his book, as the FAIR article alleges. Also, there is an original manuscript of the revelation in the LDS Church Archives that is separate from the letter written to Brigham Young. It was written sometime before the 1861 letter, obviously, but is not dated. It could've even been written a few hours after Joseph Smith had spoken the revelation for all we know. The claim that FAIR makes that the "only evidence that an 1831 revelation was given is the 1861 document" is incorrect.

[thesometimesaint]

kamenraider:

In Wiki:

Lorenso Snow:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_F._Smith

The Manifesto, issued by Wilford Woodruff, states:

"To Whom It May Concern:

"Press dispatches having been sent for political purposes, from Salt Lake City, which have been widely published, to the effect that the Utah Commission, in their recent report to the Secretary of the Interior, allege that plural marriages have been contracted in Utah since last June or during the past year, also that in public discourses the leaders of the Church have taught, encouraged and urged the continuance of the practice of polygamyâ??

"I, therefore, as President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, do hereby, in the most solemn manner, declare that these charges are false. We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting other number of plural marriages have during that period been solemnized in our Temples or in any other place in the Territory.

"One case has been reported, in which the parties allege that the marriage was performed in the Endowment House, in Salt Lake City, in the Spring of 1889, but I have not been able to learn who performed the ceremony; whatever was done in this matter was without my knowledge. In consequence of this alleged occurrence the Endowment House was, by my instructions, taken down without delay.

"Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I heareby declare my intention to submit to those laws, to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.

"There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of my associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy; and when any Elder of the Church has used language which appeared to convey such teaching, he has been promptly reproved. And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.

"WILFORD WOODRUFF [signed]

"President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."[10]

[edit] Formal acceptance by the LDS Church

"President Lorenzo Snow offered the following:

"'I move that, recognizing Wilford Woodruff as the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the only man on the earth at the present time who holds the keys of the sealing ordinances, we consider him fully authorized by virtue of his position to issue the Manifesto which has been read in our hearing, and which is dated September 1890, and that as a Church in General Conference assembled, we accept his declaration concerning plural marriages as authoritative and binding.'

"The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous.

"Salt Lake City, Utah, October 6, 1890."[10]

[edit] New plural marriages vs. existing plural marriages

The Manifesto was the end of official church authorization for the creation of new plural marriages that violated local laws. It had no effect on the status of already existing plural marriages, and plural marriages continued to be performed in locations where it was believed to be legal. As Woodruff explained at the general conference where the Manifesto was accepted by the church, "[t]his Manifesto only refers to future marriages, and does not affect past conditions. I did not, I could not, and would not promise that you would desert your wives and children. This you cannot do in honor."[11] Despite Woodruff's explanation, some church leaders and members who were polygamous did begin to live with only one wife.[12] However, the majority of Mormon polygamists continued to cohabit with their plural wives in violation of the Edmunds-Tucker Act.[13]

Joseph F. Smith

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1890_Manifesto

"One of the first issues he faced was the ongoing difficulties for the Church due to the practice of plural marriage. As Church President, Smith supported Mormon Apostle Reed Smoot's candidacy for the U.S. Senate. But Smoot's election was contested on the grounds that he was an officer in the Church. The Senate investigation again focused national attention on Mormon marriages and political influence. Following his appearance before a Senate panel in 1904, Smith took steps to prevent any surreptitious continuation of church plural marriages. On April 6, 1904, Smith issued the "Second Manifesto." He also declared that any church officer who performed a plural marriage, as well as the offending couple, would be excommunicated. He clarified that the policy applied world-wide, and not just in North America. Two members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, John W. Taylor and Matthias F. Cowley, resigned in 1905 following the second manifesto. Smith, however, continued to live with his plural wives after the 1890 and the 1905 manifestos. In 1906, Smith was brought to trial on a charge of unlawful cohabitation with four women in addition to his

lawful wife; he pleaded guilty and was fined $300, the maximum penalty then permitted under the law.[2]"

[kamenraider]

thesometimesaint, regarding Lorenzo Snow and Joseph F. Smith, here's an excerpt from a 1991 talk by D. Michael Quinn:

President Lorenzo Snow, President of the L.D.S. Church from 1898 to 1901, but also an Apostle from 1890 to his Presidency, was generally opposed both to new plural marriages and to polygamous cohabitation after 1890. For example, as soon as he became Church President in 1898, President Snow stopped sending authorizations for new plural marriages, to Mexico. But there were exceptions.

He cohabited with his youngest plural wife who went to Canada briefly, in 1896, to bear his last child. And in so doing, he violated the testimony that he had given publicly in 1891, that the Manifesto prohibited cohabitation with plural wives. He was 82 Years old at the birth of his last polygamous child.

He told Matthias F. Cowley in 1898 that he did not want to know about or interfere with Cowley's commission from George Q. Cannon to perform new plural marriages. So he essentially was willing to turn a blind eye to the new plural marriages that Apostle Matthias F. Cowley asked if he could continue to perform.

And Lorenzo Snow said, "I won't interfere with President Cannon's work." In 1900, Lorenzo Snow told the Presidency secretary that he "admired the grit of a post-Manifesto plural wife who risked excommunication by her local ward Bishop because she refused to identify her plural husband." President Snow instructed the Bishop to accept her confession and to forgive "her transgression without any further requirement." In 1901, Lorenzo Snow authorized Heber J. Grant, who was an Apostle, to marry a plural wife. But then two months later, he changed his mind apparently because he felt there was too much jeopardy for the Church for him to authorize an Apostle to marry so long after the Manifesto.

Then Joseph F. Smith. He was a counselor in the First Presidency from the Manifesto until 1901, when he became President and served until his death in 1918. In 1896 as a counselor, he performed in the Salt Lake Temple a "proxy plural marriage" for Abraham Cannon, which had been approved earlier by the First Presidency. This is the only marriage that I know of and have any evidence of that he performed after the Manifesto.

Because Lorenzo Snow refused to allow Anthony W. Ivins to perform new plural marriages for residents of Mexico, Joseph F. Smith decided privately to actually go against the instructions of the President of the Church. In 1900, second counselor Joseph F. Smith instructed Seymour B. Young of the First council of seventy, to perform two plural marriages in Mexico. And later that same year, second counselor Smith authorized Patriarch Alexander F. MacDonald to perform new plural marriages in Mexico for any Mexican residents who requested them. He gave both authorizations without the knowledge of the Church President and in spite of Lorenzo Snow's specific refusal to allow such marriages. Because Lorezo Snow did not know that Alexander F. MacDonald was authorized, he threatened to excommunicate MacDonald in 1901 for performing those marriages.

MacDonald stopped performing those ceremonies for four months, and then Apostle Cowley visited Mexico, performed two plural marriages and apparently reassured him that Joseph F. Smith would protect him from Church discipline. Patriarch MacDonald immediately resumed the priesthood work.

When he became President, Joseph F. Smith renewed permission for Anthony W. Ivins to perform plural marriages for Mexican residents. And Ivins did this from 1902 to 1904. And then he extended that to include permission for Ivins to perform marriages for non-residents. This was more dangerous, because this required written permission from Salt Lake. These written letters for Anthony W. Ivins to perform marriages for non-residents of Juarez Stake, occurred from 1903 to 1904. But President Smith never told Ivins about MacDonald, so President Ivins down in Mexico had no idea that Patriarch MacDonald was performing marriages with authorization.

On 17 April 1902, I have the only contemporary account of Joseph F. Smith as Church President giving authorization for a man to marry polygamously. And he did it in this way: "As President of the Church I cannot authorize you to marry this plural wife. However, I will not oppose your doing it." And that's the kind of authorization he gave.

As Church President, Joseph F. Smith did not want to know the specifics of new ceremonies, but he increased financial support for post-Manifesto plural wives and children of Apostles and mission presidents, and he gave advice for the hiding of plural wives so that they would not be subject to arrest. Joseph F. Smith probably authorized Apostles Clawson and Cowley to marry their plural wives after the second Manifesto of 1904, since he did authorize a close friend to perform one plural marriage as late as 1906, and o.k.'d another one that occurred in 1907.

When the man President Smith authorized to perform the 1906 plural marriage was investigated by the Apostles for probable excommunication, this man obtained the Church President's permission to tell the details. And those details obviously disturbed the Apostles. Their formal decision after hearing his testimony was that they didn't believe a word of what he had said, that Joseph F. Smith had authorized him. And they wouldn't offend the Church President by asking for verification of whether in fact he had given that authorization. And then they exonerated the man from any punishment, even though he admitted all the details of performing a plural marriage in 1906.

Joseph F. Smith's shield also was obvious when the Apostles tried to excommunicate a mission president who married a plural wife in 1907. After discussing the matter with Joseph F. Smith for years. The Quorum of Twelve said they exonerated the mission president because there was no witness to the marriage. It was performed by a now-deceased secretary to the First Presidency's office.

There is no evidence that I've seen that Joseph F. Smith commissioned Patriarch Judson Tolman to perform plural marriages from 1906 to 1910. But President Smith did protect a few men who ware married by Tolman. Even though this Patriarch and several of the others he married were excommunicated by the Apostles, the Church President, Joseph F. Smith, intervened. He not only prevented the excommunication but he even continued in prominent Church offices men who had been married by Judson Tolman as late as 1907 and 1908. They, in some cases, continued cohabiting with their plural wives.

These protected men were stake officials with the kind of General Authority family connections that would have most likely made them, or encouraged them, to consult with Joseph F. Smith in advance of Judson Tolman's performing the ceremony.

Now, Joseph F. Smith's post-Manifesto relationship with John W. Woolley is the most complicated and the most contested, argued against. they were friends, that's undeniable. John W. Woolley was a friend of most of the General Authorities of the Church. He was one of the pioneer members of the Church who lived as late as he lived into the twentieth century. And the Church President.

Joseph F. Smith, performed John W. Woolley's civil marriage in the Salt Lake Temple in 1910, indicating again the closeness of their friendship.

Woolley had been serving as a stake high councilman since 1877, and a Salt Lake Temple worker since 1894. About the time John W. Woolley began performing plural marriages in 1912, his son wrote the first account of the circumstances for the 1886 revelation to John Taylor at Woolley's home. John W. Woolley performed plural marriages even before he was ordained a Patriarch in 1913, so patriarchal authority by ordination was not the basis on which he was performing those marriages. He was tried for those marriages in 1914. But in a bid to prevent excommunication, John W. Woolley told the Quorum of Twelve the names of those he married. He violated his promise to those persons he had married.

Patriarch Woolley claimed that ex-Apostle Cowley was responsible for John Woolley feeling that he could perform new plural marriages. Cowley denied this vehemently. And John W. Woolley's explanation to the Apostles may have been protecting somebody else by re-sacrificing the already punished Cowley. The fundamentalist claim is that John W. Woolley was protecting Joseph F. Smith, who allowed Apostles like Francis M. Lyman to punish new polygamy to protect the Church.

I haven't seen any evidence conclusively to support or refute the claim that Joseph F. Smith secretly endorsed plural marriages from 1910 to his death in 1918. But known evidence does show that his actions certainly were ambiguous regarding new plural marriage after his second Manifesto for 6 years after it. So it would not be inconsistent for him to have given encouragement to Judson Tolman or John W. Woolley. But I have no evidence that that was in fact the case. And historians are always bound by our evidence; we can't go, really, beyond that.

--LINK

[ttribe]

Did Lorenzo Snow or Joseph F. Smith look kindly on earthly polygamous marriages?

Did Heber J. Grant, George Albert Smith, David O. McKay, Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. Lee, Spencer W. Kimball, Ezra Taft Benson, Howard W. Hunter, Gordon B. Hinckley or Thomas S. Monson? I'll see your two and raise you 8 more.

[ttribe]

In regard to the 1831 revelation, Marquardt DOES NOT mention anything about the Church supressing it in his book, as the FAIR article alleges.

The FAIR article says "critics", not Marquardt specifically. Besides, what does that have to do with the crux of the argument?

Also, there is an original manuscript of the revelation in the LDS Church Archives that is separate from the letter written to Brigham Young.

CFR please.

It was written sometime before the 1861 letter, obviously, but is not dated. It could've even been written a few hours after Joseph Smith had spoken the revelation for all we know.

Or it could have been written much later...for all we know.

The claim that FAIR makes that the "only evidence that an 1831 revelation was given is the 1861 document" is incorrect.

How can you say it is incorrect when your statement is speculative at best?

[kamenraider]

The FAIR article says "critics", not Marquardt specifically.

Read it again:

* Critics claim that the Church â??suppressedâ? a revelation given to Joseph Smith in 1831 which encouraged the implementation of polygamy by intermarriage with the Indians in order to make them a â??white and delightsomeâ? people.

Source(s) of the criticism

* Richard Abanes, Becoming Gods: A Closer Look at 21st-Century Mormonism (Harvest House Publishers: 2005). 73, 367 n.136. ( Index of claims )

* Richard Abanes, One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003), 131, 530n23-24 (PB) ( Index of claims )

* Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1945), 184, footnote. ( Index of claims )

* Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997) 27. ( Index of claims )

* B. Carmon Hardy, Doing the Works of Abraham: Mormon Polygamy, Its Origin, Practice, and Demise

* H. Michael Marquardt, The Joseph Smith Revelations: Text and Commentary, (Signature Books: Salt Lake City, 1999),

* Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism (Moody Press, 1979), 208-212. ( Index of claims )

* Richard S. Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History, (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1989), 3

Besides, what does that have to do with the crux of the argument?

I think that incorrectly listing Marquardt together with such people as Abanes and the Tanners as a source of the criticism that the Church supressed the 1831 revelation is unfair and implies that his research has an anti-Mormon bias.

CFR please.

The manuscript of the revelation is what I posted a pic of above. The letter to Brigham Young is a separate document.

[footnote:]

10. Manuscript in LDS archives; versification omitted. See also Phelps to Brigham Young, 12 August, 1861, LDS Archives.

--The Joseph Smith Revelations: Text and Commentary, H. Michael Marquardt, SLC: Signature Books 1999, pg. 375.

According to what Mr. Marquardt could learn, the original revelation is preserved in a vault in the LDS church historical department. The paper on which it is written has the appearance of being very old. There is also a second copy of the revelation in the church historical department. This appears in a letter from W. W. Phelps to Brigham Young. The letter is dated August 12, 1861.

--The Changing World of Mormonism, Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Chicago: Moody Press 1980, pg. 210.

Or it could have been written much later...for all we know.

Yes.

How can you say it is incorrect when your statement is speculative at best?

Speculative!?! See CFR answer above.

[ttribe]

I think that incorrectly listing Marquardt together with such people as Abanes and the Tanners as a source of the criticism that the Church supressed the 1831 revelation is unfair and implies that his research has an anti-Mormon bias.

Uhhh...given Signature's history...it's not that far from true.

The manuscript of the revelation is what I posted a pic of above. The letter to Brigham Young is a separate document.

Okay.

Yes.

Speculative!?! See CFR answer above.

Did I miss something? Did you not just agree with me that it could be far newer? Your "speculation" on the age of the revelation is what I was referring to.

[kamenraider]

Did I miss something? Did you not just agree with me that it could be far newer? Your "speculation" on the age of the revelation is what I was referring to.

Maybe you did miss something. I wrote:

The claim that FAIR makes that the "only evidence that an 1831 revelation was given is the 1861 document" is incorrect.

I wasn't speculating on the age of the revelation here, I just pointed out that FAIR is wrong about the letter being the only evidence for it.

Let's get back on topic now.

Why do you think that the Gospel Doctrine study guide has the reading assignment end at D&C 132:33?

[ttribe]

Let's get back on topic now.

Why do you think that the Gospel Doctrine study guide has the reading assignment end at D&C 132:33?

Perhaps because the discussion is only on our marriages now...and the lesson is NOT about polygamy...just like there isn't a one-to-one relationship between NECM and polygamy (one is a subset of the other). Instead of taking me through some more questions, how about you cut to the chase?

[Deborah]

Why do you think that the Gospel Doctrine study guide has the reading assignment end at D&C 132:33?

Because the lesson is about being married for time and eternity, not plural marriage.

From the teacher's manual:

Purpose

To help class members understand that eternal marriage is an essential part of Heavenly Fatherâ??s plan, to help youth prepare for eternal marriage, and to encourage married couples to abide in the marriage covenant.

[kamenraider]

Perhaps because the discussion is only on our marriages now...and the lesson is NOT about polygamy...just like there isn't a one-to-one relationship between NECM and polygamy (one is a subset of the other). Instead of taking me through some more questions, how about you cut to the chase?

Your statement that polygamy is a subset of the NECM is exactly right. It is also correct that those who gain exaltation are a subset of those who enter the NECM. But is there a one-to-one relationship between those who gain exaltation, and polygamists? That's the question.

Mortal Man wrote this in the original post:

So what is this law that's so essential to our exaltation?

How can we be sure to follow it so as not to miss out on the seashore stuff?

Unfortunately, we'll never find out because the study guide ends at verse 33.

Had we been allowed to continue on to verse 34, we would have found out what the law is.

34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.

When you are sealed in the temple you promise to observe and keep all the laws, rites and ordinances pertaining to the NECM. Also the blessings attached are sealed on you only through your faithfulness. Is the principle of plural marriage a law that pertains to the NECM? What do you think? The Church doesn't practice it now. Does that mean that you can ultimately gain exaltation cheaper than Abraham or Joseph Smith or whoever, without living it? The Church used to generally only give second anointings to polygamists during the time that polygamy was practiced:

Tues. June 24, 1902 SLC

Apostle Marriner W. Merrill. Topics treated. Spoke in reference to the calling of a patriarch and looked upon it as very different to that of a high priest or elder, as it was his especial duty to bless; there was a time when the patriarchal priesthood and second anointings were conferred only upon those who had entered into the practice of plural marriage.

...

--Marriner W. Merrill, as quoted by Rudger Clawson in A Ministry of Meetings: The Apostolic Diaries of Rudger Clawson, ed. by Stan Larson, SLC: Signature 1993, pg. 454.

I think that is significant, since the second anointing constitutes a realization of the blessings promised in the endowment, and is therefore necessary to receive prior to exaltation.

[kamenraider]

Because the lesson is about being married for time and eternity, not plural marriage.

Maybe you can see from my post immediately above, though, how the latter might be directly relevant to the former.

[ttribe]

Your statement that polygamy is a subset of the NECM is exactly right. It is also correct that those who gain exaltation are a subset of those who enter the NECM. But is there a one-to-one relationship between those who gain exaltation, and polygamists? That's the question.

Doubtful. First, my reading of D&C 132 does not imply such a conclusion (and never has). Second, why would the Lord tell us we are living in the "Fullness of Times", and yet hamstring our ability to achieve the highest order of the Celestial Kingdom? The line of thought simply does not jive with the extant revelations and direction from living Prophets, Seers and Revelators.

When you are sealed in the temple you promise to observe and keep all the laws, rites and ordinances pertaining to the NECM. Also the blessings attached are sealed on you only through your faithfulness. Is the principle of plural marriage a law that pertains to the NECM? What do you think? The Church doesn't practice it now. Does that mean that you can ultimately gain exaltation cheaper than Abraham or Joseph Smith or whoever, without living it? The Church used to generally only give second anointings to polygamists during the time that polygamy was practiced:

Is my path to exaltation "cheaper" if I'm not asked to be a martyr like Joseph Smith or Peter too? The logic is the same.

[kamenraider]

... why would the Lord tell us we are living in the "Fullness of Times", and yet hamstring our ability to achieve the highest order of the Celestial Kingdom? The line of thought simply does not jive with the extant revelations and direction from living Prophets, Seers and Revelators.

Good question.

Is my path to exaltation "cheaper" if I'm not asked to be a martyr like Joseph Smith or Peter too? The logic is the same.

Yes, the logic is the same.

He [brigham Young] also said that a person always had to experience the opposit & pass through sorrow, pain & affliction before he could be exhalted to glory & if a man had the exact glory that Jesus had he would have to die in the same way & if a man passed through this world without passing through the dregs of poverty he would have to pass through it hereafter before he could be exhalted to Eternal riches in their fulness.

--Brigham Young, quoted in Wilford Woodruff's Journal, Jan. 6, 1856.

[juliann]

I've always wondered why only a minority of LDS members hold temple recommends. Since temple ordinances are necessary for exaltation, you'd think that more members would be interested and temple worthy.

Nobody can ultimately deprive another person of an opportunity for exaltation, btw. They have to do that themselves.

When is the last time you heard the prophet telling members living near temples that they didnt' have to participate....as BY said about polygamy? You are going to have to do better than that. I've always wondered why you don't just come out and say that modern Mormon leaders are in apostasy?

[Deborah]

The Church used to generally only give second anointings to polygamists during the time that polygamy was practiced:

CFR. And how would you know since these are generally very personal and private.

Verse 34 is the revelation to Joseph that applied to Joseph and the saints at that time and was the final answer to Joseph's original question. The N&EC is the sealing power whether to one wife or many. Why are you so obsessed with this? I honestly don't think anyone as obsessed as you are would have been invited to participate in plural marriage. The men who did were very reluctant and only after much prayer did they do so.

[juliann]

Read it again:

I think that incorrectly listing Marquardt together with such people as Abanes and the Tanners as a source of the criticism that the Church supressed the 1831 revelation is unfair and implies that his research has an anti-Mormon bias.

That has to be the most absurd excuse I have ever heard.

[juliann]

When you are sealed in the temple you promise to observe and keep all the laws, rites and ordinances pertaining to the NECM. Also the blessings attached are sealed on you only through your faithfulness. Is the principle of plural marriage a law that pertains to the NECM? What do you think? The Church doesn't practice it now. Does that mean that you can ultimately gain exaltation cheaper than Abraham or Joseph Smith or whoever, without living it?

.....cheaper?

If it is so necessary why isn't the church practicing it now? There is no reason they couldn't....the FLDS certainly do. Why don't they know what you do? Who is right? You or President Monson? You can't have it both ways.

[kamenraider]

That has to be the most absurd excuse I have ever heard.

Why?

[kamenraider]

CFR. And how would you know since these are generally very personal and private.

In case you didn't notice, immediately following the above assertion, I gave the reference to back it up.

Verse 34 is the revelation to Joseph that applied to Joseph and the saints at that time and was the final answer to Joseph's original question. The N&EC is the sealing power whether to one wife or many.

It applied only to Joseph and the saints then?

Why are you so obsessed with this? I honestly don't think anyone as obsessed as you are would have been invited to participate in plural marriage. The men who did were very reluctant and only after much prayer did they do so.

So is this about me now? You crack me up, Deborah! (That's hard to do, btw.)

[kamenraider]

When is the last time you heard the prophet telling members living near temples that they didnt' have to participate....as BY said about polygamy? You are going to have to do better than that. I've always wondered why you don't just come out and say that modern Mormon leaders are in apostasy?

Did Brigham Young say that members didn't have to participate in polygamy? I know he said this:

It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives.

--Brigham Young, JD 11:268-269.

Are you a polygamist at least in your faith, Juliann?

I don't think that believing that plural marriage is an eternal principle is tantamount to believing that modern LDS leaders are in apostasy. Apostasy is all about not believing in true principles, not about believing in true principles. People aren't damned for believing too much truth, but are damned for their unbelief. Joseph Smith said: "When God offers a blessing or knowledge to a man, and he refuses to receive it, he will be damned." (TPJS pg. 322).

.....cheaper?

If it is so necessary why isn't the church practicing it now? There is no reason they couldn't....the FLDS certainly do. Why don't they know what you do? Who is right? You or President Monson? You can't have it both ways.

David O. McKay did decide to let some polygamists in places like Egypt and Nigeria join the Church without giving up their wives in the early 60's. The First Presidency decided not to let them get sealed in the temple though. They felt it would be too confusing to try to enforce a ban on polygamy in some countries but not others. I think that the two main reasons why it is not practiced today are various state laws against things such as unlawful cohabitation, and PR considerations. If there were something inherently wrong now with the state of being married polygamously rather than just with cohabitating in that state, then serial polygamous sealings would not be allowed after the death of a first wife, nor would any divorced men be cleared to have a second woman sealed to them without the first sealing being cancelled.

[Deborah]

In case you didn't notice, immediately following the above assertion, I gave the reference to back it up.

key words "there was a time" implying that as of 1902 that wasn't the case.

It applied only to Joseph and the saints then?

It applies only to those to whom the commandment is given. It is not given as of the Declaration.

[kamenraider]

key words "there was a time" implying that as of 1902 that wasn't the case.

Yeah, as I noted in that post, it was "during the time that polygamy was practiced."

It applies only to those to whom the commandment is given. It is not given as of the Declaration.

To whom was the commandment given?

[Deborah]

To whom was the commandment given?

to the saints of Joseph's day who were called to live the law. It is not given to us at this time and in fact we are commanded not to have plural marriages.