Did the 1st D&C deny polygamy?

[Joey]

Great, T-Shirt. So could you provide just one first hand source.

I'm still waiting on a first hand source for Alan's reference to a summary of a statement he attributed to John Taylor. Without such a reference to examine, your whole point is moot.

Not following you here. Why is my point moot?

[T-Shirt]

I'm confused...I thought the angel Moroni had already taken back the Urim and Thummim with the gold plates....13 years before...

Just Curious,

I don't think there is any difinitive evidence anywhere as to when the Urim & Thumim was taken away. However, I believe that it was quite common for the early saints to refer to the seer stone also as Urim & Thumim. The church still has this seer stone it its posesion. This incedence in 1843 may have been refering to the seer stone, but we don't know for sure.

T-Shirt

[Guest The Headless Laban]

Plural marriage has always been considered a form of adultery or fornication unless authorized by God and the scriptures bear this out (2 Samuel 12:7-11, Jacob 2:30 etc.)

Plural marriage has always been adultery unless authorized by god, or the guy who started the church. Typically, the guy who started the church is the only one allowed to practices it at first. Then, after awhile he lets his friends join in the fun. Eventually their little party secret gets out and causes problems with those who weren't invited to the party. It's funny how that works.

[T-Shirt]

Great, T-Shirt.  So could you provide just one first hand source.

Joey,

I don't have much time, but I will add this. If by "first hand" source, you mean Joseph Smith or Oliver Cowdery, then I don't believe it exists, but there are many other sources that clearly indicate that Oliver Cowdery wrote it. If you cared to know, you could find these sources quite easily on your own.

And could you explain why it would be a better source than the "Preaface of the 1835 D&C's" actually signed by both Smith and Cowdery which I provided above.

[Joey]

Joey,

I don't have much time,

Ah yes, famous last words when one is actually called to be accountable for his statements.

but I will add this. If by "first hand" source, you mean Joseph Smith or Oliver Cowdery, then I don't believe it exists, but there are many other sources that clearly indicate that Oliver Cowdery wrote it. If you cared to know, you could find these sources quite easily on your own.

The first sign of "the hedge". Now he doesn't believe it exists!!! But there are so many "other sources" that T-Shirt can't provide a single one!!!!

But wait, it gets better.........

And, just where in this preface does it say that Joseph Smith wrote it?

Ah yes again, the double reverse tactic. It was T-Shirt who originally claims that it was written by Cowdery but can provide no evidence. Now he want's me to prove something I never said.

However T-Shirt, just read what is stated in the preface to your "doctrine":

"The second part (referring to the D&C's) contains items or principles for the regulation of the church, as taken from the revelations which have been given since its organization, as well as from former ones." This statement was signed by J. Smith as well as Cowdery.

I don't think one needs to add to that!!! Smith's words, not mine!

I'm sorry Joey, but this made me laugh. Do you know who is responsible for the History of the Church from which you quoted? That's right, B.H. Roberts.

And here I thought the logical conclusion would have been that J. Smith was responsible for his own journal. Now I'm being told that B. H. Roberts, some 50+ years later is responsible for Smith's statements. Interesting. Not very well thought out, but interesting just the same.

[mormon fool]

T-shirt,

Thanks for the Hyrum Andrus reference. I will have to look into this more closely. Perhaps he is going off an exchange of letters between Joseph and Oliver that discuss plural marriage in '37-'38.

Here is a footnote from a FARMS Publication

41. During late 1837-early 1838, Joseph and Oliver were involved in a prolonged emotional discussion about the alleged "adulterous affair" between Joseph and Miss Fanny Alger. Contemporary references to the Smith-Alger relationship are: Oliver Cowdery to Joseph Smith, 21 January 1838 (retained copy in Oliver Cowdery to Warren Cowdery, 21 January 1838), Oliver Cowdery to Warren Cowdery, 21 January 1838, Oliver Cowdery Letter Book, 80

[mormon fool]

Oliver is asked to mediate with Emma.

Although I wrote this earlier, I have not been able to locate my source for this. The too young/apostate Ann Eliza Demming claims this, but I don't accept most of what she claims as reliable.

[mormon fool]

Some other informative quotes on the "Article on Marriage"

At the October conference, 1869, Brigham Young will tell the Saints that Oliver wrote the article on marriage and "incisted on its being incerted in the Book of D. & C. contrary to the thrice expressed wish and refusal of the Prophet Joseph Smith." Joseph F. Smith diary, October 9, 1869. Oliver's statements will be omitted.

saintswithouthalos

I [Joseph F. Smith] here declare that the principle of plural marriage was not first revealed on the 12th day of July, 1843. It was written for the first time on that date, but it had been revealed to the Prophet many years before that, perhaps as early as 1832. About this time, or subsequently, Joseph, the Prophet, intrusted this fact to Oliver Cowdery; he abused the confidence imposed in him, and brought reproach upon himself, and thereby upon the church by "running before he was sent," so to speak, hence the publication, by O. Cowdery, about this time, of an article on marriage, which was carefully worded, and afterwards found its way into the Doctrine and Covenants without authority. This article explains itself to those who understand the facts, and is an indisputable evidence of the early existence of the knowledge of the principle of patriarchal marriage by the Prophet Joseph, and also by Oliver Cowdery.

Source: Joseph F. Smith in JofD 20:29.

[T-Shirt]

Joey,

I don't have much time,

Ah yes, famous last words when one is actually called to be accountable for his statements.

Nice come back Joey! You made no effort to address why you haven't even thouroughly checked your own sources and made it rather obvious that you have no interest in what the real facts are, but instead you accuse me of having no argument. Nice try. As a matter of fact, I didn't have much time, but I have a little now, so here we go.

but I will add this. If by "first hand" source, you mean Joseph Smith or Oliver Cowdery, then I don't believe it exists, but there are many other sources that clearly indicate that Oliver Cowdery wrote it. If you cared to know, you could find these sources quite easily on your own.

The first sign of "the hedge". Now he doesn't believe it exists!!! But there are so many "other sources" that T-Shirt can't provide a single one!!!!

Well, since I have already provided at least one source, this statement is patently false, but just so your little accusation of "hedging" can be put to rest, here are some more. I hope you read them, they really are very easy to find, which you could have easily done, that would be, if, you really wanted to know. Are you ready? Okay, here they are:

Source: Joseph F. Smith in JofD 20:29.

I [Joseph F. Smith] here declare that the principle of plural marriage was not first revealed on the 12th day of July, 1843. It was written for the first time on that date, but it had been revealed to the Prophet many years before that, perhaps as early as 1832. About this time, or subsequently, Joseph, the Prophet, intrusted this fact to Oliver Cowdery; he abused the confidence imposed in him, and brought reproach upon himself, and thereby upon the church by "running before he was sent," so to speak, hence the publication, by O. Cowdery, about this time, of an article on marriage, which was carefully worded, and afterwards found its way into the Doctrine and Covenants without authority. This article explains itself to those who understand the facts, and is an indisputable evidence of the early existence of the knowledge of the principle of patriarchal marriage by the Prophet Joseph, and also by Oliver Cowdery.

(Testimonies of Book of Mormon Witnesses, 29.)

Joseph Fielding Smith

A Declaration of Belief. At a conference of the Church held in Kirtland, Ohio, August 17, 1835, the Doctrine and Covenants was presented to the assembled conference for their acceptance or rejection. After the brethren there assembled had carefully and studiously considered the matter, the revelations which had been previously selected by the Prophet Joseph Smith were accepted as the word of the Lord by the unanimous vote of the conference, and were ordered printed. On the occasion of this conference, Joseph Smith the Prophet and his second counselor, Frederick G. Williams, were not present. They were on a brief mission to the Saints in Michigan, and because of this were not familiar with all the proceedings of this conference. After the conference had accepted the revelations, an article on marriage, which had been written by Oliver Cowdery, was read by Elder William W. Phelps and was ordered printed in the book with the revelations.

When this action had been taken, Oliver Cowdery arose and read another article, also written by himself, on "Governments and Laws in General." This article the conference also ordered printed in the book of Doctrine and Covenants. Unfortunately, a great many people, because these articles appeared in the Doctrine and Covenants, readily concluded that they had come through the Prophet Joseph Smith, and hence were to be received on a par with the other parts of the book of revelations. Because of this misinformation articles have been published from time to time declaring that these words on Government and Laws have come to us with the force of revelation having been from the mouth of the Prophet Joseph Smith. This article and the one on "Marriage" were not considered as revelations by the conference, but were published as an expression of belief of the members of the Church at that time.

The article on Governments and Laws has appeared in each edition of the Doctrine and Covenants since 1835, and has been accepted, as the preamble of the article states, as a declaration of belief of the Latter-day Saints. . . . (The Progress of Man, pp. 367-368)

(L. G. Otten and C. M. Caldwell, Sacred Truths of the Doctrine and Covenants [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1982-1983], 2: 372 - 373.)

With regard to the "Article on Marriage," Joseph F. Smith, quoting Brigham Young, stated: "Prest. Young spoke 12 minutes in relation to Sec. 109 B[ook] of Doctrine and Covenants ["Article on Marriage"]. Saying Oliver Cowdry wrote it, and incisted on its being incerted in the Book of D. & C. contrary to the thrice expressed wish and refusal of the Prophet Jos. Smith" (Joseph F. Smith Diary, 9 October 1869, Church Archives). On another occasion Joseph F. Smith stated, "Oliver Cowdery was not so discreet in regard to this matter [plural marriage] but in consequence of his conduct brought reproach upon the Church bringing upon the Church the accusation of fornication and polygamy—he wrote an article to stave off the impression that had been made which was published in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants which has been left out of the New Edition" ("Utah Stake Historical Record, 1877-1888," Church Archives).

(Lyndon W. Cook, The Revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith: A Historical and Biographical Commentary of the Doctrine and Covenants [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1985], .)

While the Prophet was visiting in Michigan, on August 17, 1835, a special conference was held at Kirtland, at which Oliver Cowdery introduced the "Book of Doctrine and Covenants of the Church." The title had evidently been accepted by a committee which had concluded that the former title of Book of Commandments was too limited in its scope. The printing of an edition of the revelations in 1835 was to contain more than just commandments. A series of "Lectures on Faith" had been developed and these were included in the 1835 edition, but not as Revelation. Also printed in this edition was an "Article on Government and Laws in General" (D&C 134) which was written by Oliver Cowdery and presented to the conference by William W. Phelps as an expression of the beliefs of the saints at that time on this subject. In the absence of Joseph Smith, the assembly voted to accept this article for printing, as well as an article on marriage. The article on marriage had been prepared by Oliver Cowdery and was also presented to the conference by Phelps as an expression of the belief of the saints at that time. This article was replaced in the 1876 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants with the present D&C 132 on the eternity of the marriage covenant. Upon his return to Kirtland, the Prophet accepted the decision of the assembly and permitted the printing of the two articles in the 1835 edition.

(The Chronology of the Ohio Revelations by Earl E. Olson Fn, BYU Studies, vol. 11 (1970-1971), Number 4 - Summer 1971 348.)

The year 1835 was a time in which Joseph's leadership was under persistent attack; within a few years, all the key actors in the publication of the lectures turned against Joseph and left the Church. According to Brigham Young, Oliver Cowdery included the "Article on Marriage" in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants in spite of Joseph's repeated requests that it not be included. fn Thus how can we conclude any particular level of enthusiasm for the lectures on Joseph's part merely from their inclusion and his signature on the prefatory letter? Perhaps Joseph merely felt bound by the vote of the 1835 conference, which was presided over by Rigdon and Cowdery in his absence.

(Book Reviews, BYU Studies, vol. 32 (1992), Num. 1 and 2 - Winter and Spring 1992 292.)

3. After this had been accomplished, Elder William W. Phelps arose and read an article prepared by Oliver Cowdery, on marriage. This was on vote ordered to be published also in the volume with the revelations. Then President Oliver Cowdery arose and read an article, "Of Governments and Laws in General," and this likewise was ordered by vote to be published with the book of revelations. Neither of these articles was a revelation to the Church. They had not been prepared by the Prophet Joseph Smith. He knew nothing of them until he returned from Michigan, and they by the conference had been ordered placed in the volume. This the Prophet permitted to be done, although it is extremely doubtful that he would have done so in regard to the article on marriage had he been present at the time this was ordered published. It contained matters which were not given by inspiration but which were not in conflict with the practice of the Church at that time. The Church has been criticized by its enemies for removing this article at a later time when its teachings were discovered to be in conflict with the revealed word of the Lord. This criticism was of course based on the false notion that this article was a revelation given to the Prophet Joseph Smith.

(Joseph Fielding Smith, Church History and Modern Revelation, 4 vols. [salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1946-1949], 3: 63.)

Why was the article on marriage that was published in the editions of the Doctrine and Covenants from 1835 to 1876 deleted from all subsequent editions?

This article was not a revelation and was never approved as a revelation. It was written originally by Oliver Cowdery and presented to and approved by the general assembly of the Church August 17, 1835, for publication with the revelations. Neither Joseph Smith nor Frederick G. Williams, one of the counselors in the First Presidency, was present at this assembly, as they were in Michigan. (HC 2:243.)

Also, it should be remembered that this article was prepared by Oliver Cowdery before some of the revelations were received and/or recorded concerning the eternal nature of the marriage covenant. For example, the article suggested "that all marriages in this church . . . should be solemnized in a public meeting . . . and that the solemnization should be performed by a presiding high priest, high priest, bishop, elder, or priest." (Page 251 of the 1835 edition.)

(Daniel H. Ludlow, A Companion to Your Study of the Doctrine and Covenants, 2 vols. [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1978], 1: 36 - 37.)

The minutes of the General Assembly referred to, were published in the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, and in that edition only. The "Reorganized" Church has never published them, at any rate, we have never seen an edition of their Doctrine and Covenants with them in, and we have examined quite a number. The fact is that those minutes would destroy one of their pet arguments; viz., that Section cix on marriage was a revelation given through the Prophet Joseph Smith. That article is not a revelation and was never considered such by the Saints. It was read by W. W. Phelps, at a conference of the Church, held August 17, 1835, and ordered printed in the Doctrine and Covenants, after the revelations and commandments had been compiled by the committee, of whom the Prophet was the chairman, and had been accepted by the vote of the several quorums and the body of the Church. It is interesting to know, in this connection, that at the time of this conference, the Prophet and Frederick G. Williams were in Michigan, and did not return until August 23,—six days after the adoption of this article on marriage, hence they had no voice in that conference, but of necessity had to acquiesce in the actions of the Saints in the adoption of this article as a rule of faith, which it continued to be until the reception of the law recorded in the 132nd section of the Doctrine and Covenants.

(Editor's Table., Improvement Era, 1906, Vol. Ix. May, 1906. No. 7. .)

NOT A REVELATION.

We have received the following from one of the missionaries now laboring in the field.

I am submitting to you the following matter which is being boldly charged against us by ministers here of the "Reorganized" church: In the Doctrine and Covenants, adopted and used by the above named church, page 342, section 111, an article on the subject of marriage appears, which they claim is a verbatim copy of the original revelation given to the Prophet Joseph Smith on the subject of marriage. It is further asserted by them that this alleged revelation appeared in the early editions of the Doctrine and Covenants published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but has been omitted from editions published by us since 1878.

None of the early publications and records of the Church are available here, so we elders have no means of getting at the facts and circumstances pertaining to this matter. We would, therefore, very much appreciate any information you can give us regarding it.

The article on marriage referred to by this elder is not a revelation and was never considered to be more than an opinion, or a rule by which the Church was to be guided, previous to the adoption of the revelation on celestial marriage given to the Prophet Joseph Smith. The statement that the article referred to is a revelation, is a gross error. Joseph Smith, the prophet, neither wrote the article on marriage, known as section 111, in the Reorganite edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, nor had any hand in its preparation. It was written by Oliver Cowdery and read at a general assembly of the Church held in Kirtland, August 17, 1835.

That a correct understanding of the matter may be obtained, we present the following facts:

On the 24th of September, 1834, a gathering of the priesthood was held in Kirtland, and a committee was appointed to select from among the revelations items of doctrine, and arrange them for the government of the Church. "These items," as the history reads, "to be taken from the Bible, Book of Mormon, and the revelations which have been given to the Church up to this date, or that shall be given until such arrangements are made." (History, vol. 2, p. 165.) The committee thus selected was composed of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon and Frederick G. Williams. This committee immediately went to work, and some time previous to August 17th of the following year had selected and arranged from among the revelations given in this dispensation those which they considered would be of most benefit to the Saints as items of doctrine and "a law and rule of faith and practice to the Church." They also revised and arranged the seven lectures on faith that are found in the forepart of the Doctrine and Covenants, and which were delivered before a class in theology at Kirtland; and recommended that these also be published in the book, with the revelations; but the article on marriage, and that on "Government and Laws in General," were not prepared nor presented to the Church by this committee when they made their recommendations, or reported their labors.

On the 17th of August, 1835, a general assembly of the Church was called in Kirtland for the purpose of considering and voting on the labors of this committee. Joseph Smith and Frederick G. Williams were absent during this conference, visiting the Saints in Michigan, and did not return until August 23, or one week after the conference had adjourned. At this special conference, Oliver Cowdery and Sidney Rigdon, the other members of the committee, presided. The morning session was devoted to the ordination of several brethren, and the arranging and seating of the various quorums for the purpose of voting on the revelations, etc., that had been prepared by the committee. At the afternoon session President Oliver Cowdery arose and introduced the "book of Doctrine and Covenants of the Church, in behalf of the committee." He was followed by President Sidney Rigdon, "who explained the manner by which they intended to obtain the voice of the assembly for or against the book." Following the remarks of Sidney Rigdon, William W. Phelps and John Whitmer each bore testimony that the Book of Revelations was true. Elder John Smith, in behalf of the high council of Kirtland, and Elder Levi Jackman, on behalf of the high council of the Church in Missouri, each accepted and acknowledged the revelations as the "doctrine and covenants of their faith, by unanimous vote." William W. Phelps then read a written and signed testimony of the twelve apostles that they accepted the book as being true, for "the Lord," said they, "has borne record to our souls, through the Holy Ghost shed forth upon us, that these commandments were given by inspiration of God, and are profitable for all men, and are verily true." Following the testimony of the apostles, Elder Leonard Rich, in behalf of the seventy, and Bishops Newel K. Whitney and John Corrill with their counselors, each bore testimony to the truth of the book. John Gould, in behalf of the elders, Ira Ames, in behalf of the priests, Erastus Babbit, in behalf of the teachers, and William Burgess, in behalf of the deacons, each in turn bore record and accepted the Doctrine and Covenants as a rule of faith. After each of the quorums had voted and accepted the revelations and lectures prepared by the committee, the question of accepting them was put to the entire assembly, both officers and members; and the labors of the committee were unanimously approved.

After this action had been taken, and the labors of the committee were accepted and the revelations adopted, William W. Phelps arose and read the article on marriage in question, which had been prepared by Oliver Cowdery, and it was moved and unanimously carried that it be "accepted and printed in said book." The same action was taken in relation to the article on government, which was read by Oliver Cowdery (see History of the Church, vol. 2, pp. 243-251.)

These articles, as we have stated, were not prepared by the committee and were not revelations, but were given as expressions of opinion and belief. They were written and presented to this special conference in the absence of Joseph Smith, who was the mouthpiece of God and the only one who could lawfully receive revelations for the guidance of the Church, and he was thus denied the privilege of entering objection to either of these articles had he felt so disposed. After having accepted this article on marriage, it became binding on the Church at that time, as a rule of faith, and so remained until superceded by the revelation on celestial marriage, when it became obsolete and without force. It was published in the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, through the action of this conference, and appeared in all other editions—which were mostly stereotyped—until about 1866. In 1876, under the direction of President Brigham Young and the general authorities, a new edition of the Doctrine and Covenants was published which contained some twenty-four additional revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith's, and one that had been given to President Brigham Young. The sections in this edition were divided into verses as they now appear, and rearranged. Among the revelations that were added was that on celestial marriage, which had been accepted by the Church, and had superceded the man-made rule on marriage, no longer binding, which was eliminated from the book.

The assertion made by these contentious opposers of the Latter-day Saints that this article on marriage was a revelation, is declared with the hope of making it appear that the revelation known as section 132, is in conflict with a previous revelation, and, therefore, was not given to Joseph Smith. This is taught where they feel it will cause confusion among the Saints, possibly destroy their faith; always with the idea of casting odium on the doctrine of celestial marriage, which was given to the Prophet Joseph Smith. That they are not sincere is evident from the fact that they publish, in the current edition of their Doctrine and Covenants, a synopsis of the minutes of this special conference of August 17, 1835, which plainly shows that the article read by William W. Phelps was not a revelation, and that it was not considered by the committee on compilation of which the prophet was the presiding officer. Moreover, while they are so bitter in their denunciation of President Brigham Young for eliminating from the Doctrine and Covenants that article—with which the prophet had nothing to do—they have been bold enough to eliminate from their editions the lectures on faith, which were compiled and revised by this committee and adopted by the unanimous vote of the Saints.

(Editor's Table., Improvement Era, 1909, Vol. Xii. January, 1909. No. 3 .)

The idea of unscriptural scripture is easier to illustrate with the Doctrine and Covenants than the Bible because it stands so much closer to us historically. Doctrine and Covenants 134 was written by Oliver Cowdery, along with an article on marriage, both of which were included in the 1835 edition. Neither were understood to be revelations. In 1876 the article on marriage was dropped from the Doctrine and Covenants. The article on governments and laws has been retained and has informally assumed the status of revelation

(Joseph Fielding McConkie, Gospel Symbolism [salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1999], 241.)

In 1835, in connection with the approval of the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants for publication, and in the absence of the Prophet, Oliver Cowdery wrote an article on marriage. The article, dealing with civil and monogamous marriage that is, with the then accepted marriage discipline of the Church — though not particularly a wise and proper presentation of the Church's views even on matters pertaining to civil marriage, was accepted by the people and approved for publication in the same book with the revelations. It was clearly understood by all concerned, however, that the article on marriage was not a revelation, that it contained Oliver Cowdery's views and not necessarily those of the Prophet, and that it was merely a statement of policy bearing on the system of civil marriage then prevailing in the Church and in the world.

When the Prophet returned and learned of the action taken relative to the publication of the article on marriage, he was greatly troubled. However, knowing that up to that date the new and everlasting covenant of marriage had only been revealed in principle, that there was as yet no command to practice it, and that the power and keys had not been restored whereby marriages could be solemnized so they would endure for eternity, he let the action stand. The higher order was to come later.

(Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2d ed. [salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966], 52.)

There are actually more, but this is enough.

But wait, it gets better.........

And, just where in this preface does it say that Joseph Smith wrote it?

Ah yes again, the double reverse tactic. It was T-Shirt who originally claims that it was written by Cowdery but can provide no evidence. Now he want's me to prove something I never said.

Uh, what are you talking about. First, I did provide evidence (and, of course, now you have substantialy more) Second, you used the preface to the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants as your "proof" that Oliver Cowdery didn't write it. I ask you again, where does the preface make this statement?

However T-Shirt, just read what is stated in the preface to your "doctrine":

"The second part (referring to the D&C's) contains items or principles for the regulation of the church, as taken from the revelations which have been given since its organization, as well as from former ones." This statement was signed by J. Smith as well as Cowdery.

I don't think one needs to add to that!!!

[BCSpace]

Plural marriage has always been considered a form of adultery or fornication unless authorized by God and the scriptures bear this out (2 Samuel 12:7-11, Jacob 2:30 etc.) 

Plural marriage has always been adultery unless authorized by god, or the guy who started the church. Typically, the guy who started the church is the only one allowed to practices it at first. Then, after awhile he lets his friends join in the fun. Eventually their little party secret gets out and causes problems with those who weren't invited to the party. It's funny how that works.

Then you must not believe the Bible to be the word of God, else you would have an explaination for verses like 2 Samuel 12:7-11. That's okay, no one's forcing you to believe....

[gaucho]

As for John Taylor's reading out section 111, while he had 3 wives, is there any evidence of that?

Here is the quote from John Taylor. I beleive he had 7 wives at the time he said this.

We are accused here of polygamy,... and actions the most indelicate, obscene,

and disgusting, such that none but a corrupt and depraved heart could have

contrived. These things are too outrageous to admit of belief;... I shall

content myself by reading our views of chastity and marriage, from a work

published by us containing some of the articles of our Faith. 'Doctrine and

Covenants,' page 330... Inasmuch as this Church of Jesus 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,..."' (tract published by John Taylor in

England, in 1850, page 8; published in "Orson Pratt's Works," 1851 edition).

[Zeta-Flux]

Dot, dot, dot...

I just love ellipses. How about you?

[pep]

WHY DID JOHN TAYLOR SO BLATANTLY DENY POLYGAMY? JOSEPH SMITH DID THE SAME. WERE THEY LYING TO PROTECT THE CHURCH OR

TO PROTECT THEMSELVES? HOW ABOUT THE SECTION WHERE JOSEPH SMITH ASKED ONE OF THE APOSTLES FOR HIS WIFE IN PLURAL MARRIAGE. THE APOSTLE WAS SHOCKED BUT SOME THREE DAYS LATER HANDED HER OVER. (SOUNDS LIKE A SACK OF POTATOES). THEN JOSEPH SMITH SAID HE WAS JUST TESTING HIM TO SEE IF HE HAD ENOUGH FAITH. ISN'T ABRAHAMIC TESTING THE PEROGATIVE OF THE LORD ALONE? IT ALL SEEMS RATHER SICK. ANY COMMENTS?

[gaucho]

WHY DID JOHN TAYLOR SO BLATANTLY DENY POLYGAMY? JOSEPH SMITH DID THE SAME. WERE THEY LYING TO PROTECT THE CHURCH OR

TO PROTECT THEMSELVES?

Maybe they were under covenant not to reveal it at that time, or maybe we don't have the entire story. Take the quote above from John Taylor. How do we know what was discussed prior to his statement?, or after? Here is a possible scenario:

People were accusing John Taylor and the church of all kinds of immoral behaviour, that we snatch women up and take them as our own. Maybe Pres. Taylor was trying to explain how it really is, that when God commands it, men can take plural wives, but only when he commands it. He then quoted from the Doctrine and Covenants which states we beleive a man should only have one wife, meaning that we don't go around snatching up women at will, it is a sacred covenant we enter in to only at God's command. An anti mormon would have left this out of the record when he posted it on the web.

I've also heard that the term polygamy had a different meaning in the mid 1800's. Polygamy was the term to describe unlawful sexual relations with more than one partner. Most early mormons referred to our practice as plural marriage, not polygamy.

[Guest Just Curious]

gaucho is there any way you could put the whole quote from there on here so we can see what was between the little .....'s

Here is the quote from John Taylor. I beleive he had 7 wives at the time he said this.

We are accused here of polygamy,... and actions the most indelicate, obscene,

and disgusting, such that none but a corrupt and depraved heart could have

contrived. These things are too outrageous to admit of belief;... I shall

content myself by reading our views of chastity and marriage, from a work

published by us containing some of the articles of our Faith. 'Doctrine and

Covenants,' page 330... Inasmuch as this Church of Jesus 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,..."' (tract published by John Taylor in

England, in 1850, page 8; published in "Orson Pratt's Works," 1851 edition).

[gaucho]

gaucho is there any way you could put the whole quote from there on here so we can see what was between the little .....'s

Here is the quote from John Taylor. I beleive he had 7 wives at the time he said this.

We are accused here of polygamy,... and actions the most indelicate, obscene,

and disgusting, such that none but a corrupt and depraved heart could have

contrived. These things are too outrageous to admit of belief;... I shall

content myself by reading our views of chastity and marriage, from a work

published by us containing some of the articles of our Faith. 'Doctrine and

Covenants,' page 330... Inasmuch as this Church of Jesus 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,..."' (tract published by John Taylor in

England, in 1850, page 8; published in "Orson Pratt's Works," 1851 edition).

I couldn't find the quote in its entirety, still looking. But I did come across this statement from his grandson that states John Taylor was not above hiding the truth to a gentile audience if he felt it was good for the church.

A charge which has been continually thrown at him as Editor of the Millenial Star was that as a Polygamist himself, he consistently denied that polygamy was church policy or even allowed - when closely read his writings do not include any explicit falsehood but their whole tenor is such as to make others believe that polygamy was not acceptable. Samual Taylor candidly admits that in this and similar church matters that when writing for a Gentile audience Taylor would disemble if he thought the good of the Church demanded it.

http://www.isle-of-man.com/manxnotebook/mormon/jtaylor.htm

[Guest Just Curious]

Anyone know why and when this revelation was removed from D&C?

[T-Shirt]

Anyone know why and when this revelation was removed from D&C?

Just Curious,

He is referring to the Article on Marriage which was written by Oliver Cowdery and included in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. This is what most of this thread has been talking about. It was not a revelation.

T-Shirt

[Guest Just Curious]

He is referring to the Article on Marriage which was written by Oliver Cowdery and included in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. This is what most of this thread has been talking about. It was not a revelation.

OK let me rephrase the question, when was this article on marriage which was once part of the D&C removed from being officially part of D&C and why was it removed.

[wenglund]

He is referring to the Article on Marriage which was written by Oliver Cowdery and included in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. This is what most of this thread has been talking about. It was not a revelation.

OK let me rephrase the question, when was this article on marriage which was once part of the D&C removed from being officially part of D&C and why was it removed.

According to Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.3, p.195-196, the Article on Marriage was last published in 1869 D&C and was not included in the 1876 edition.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest Just Curious]

According to Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.3, p.195-196, the Article on Marriage was last published in 1869 D&C and was not included in the 1876 edition.

Thanks Wade that is what I was looking for, did it by any chance give any reasoning as to why it was taken out, also was there any sustaining vote to remove it that you are aware of...thanks again..

[gaucho]

Apostle Dallin H. Oaks explains the church's stance on "Lying for the Lord":

"As far as concerns our own church and culture, the most common allegations of lying for the Lord swirl around the initiation, practice, and discontinuance of polygamy.

"It is clear from the record of history that Joseph Smith introduced the doctrine and practice of polygamy to a select few in the 1830s and 1840s, but it was not announced publicly by the church until the revelation was read aloud at a Church conference in Salt Lake City in 1852. It is also clear that during the federal prosecutions of the 1880s, numerous Church leaders and faithful members were pursued, arrested, prosecuted, and jailed for violations of various laws forbidding polygamy or cohabitation. Some wives were even sent to prison for refusing to testify against their husbands, my grandfather's oldest sister being one of them

[Guest Just Curious]

I have to wonder out loud if it could also be considered lying by "omission of relevant important facts which are not necessarily supportive of your position" when telling something to someone. In other words if you are asked a question and you only give part of the answer as you know the whole truth, is withholding the rest of the truth (even if it goes against you) considered lying. Personally in my book it is. I think omission of all truth when known and only giving the part of the truth that supports your position is definitely lying...