A Problem With Emma Smith

[why me]

False dichotomy.

PS- Your inclusion of Fanny Alger into the polygamous equation makes your world a whole lot more messy than just dishonesty with Emma.

If you say so. However, I think that Don Bradley wrote a wonderful piece on Fanny and Joseph. It may not be as messy as you assume.

Edited October 25, 2012 by why me

[CA Steve]

I'm puzzled why some believe the RLDS/Community of Christ was founded solely against polygamy. For many, the greater reason was lineage and how Joseph designated his son as successor. Of course, it was (and still is) difficult for many to accept Joseph Jr. as a fallen prophet. Meaning, you cannot write as the word of God (Book of Mormon) that polygamy is wrong and then go ahead and do it anyway! What more proof do we need that he "lost his calling" by practicing polygamy when told by God not to do it?

I will admit to finding the whole concept of polygamy reprehensible and cannot fathom how any group of people with a direct revelation from God telling them not to do it, to go ahead and do it anyway!

I will also admit that for many years the RLDS held up the lineage issue as making us superior and closer to God than the other factions (fulfillment of revelation). In this day, I am happy that this petty issue has gone away. For me, it is not about us rather what the Lord Jesus is doing through us in fulfilling his will.

I did not mean to imply that the RLDS was founded solely on polygamy. My fairly uninformed opinion is that it rejected most of what Joseph Smith introduced in Nauvoo. I do think that from the beginning, it rejected polygamy and any involvement in polygamy by Joseph Smith.

[Thunderfire]

This would be true except for the fact that Joseph III went to Utah and was told the truth about his father.

Your comment justifies what I wrote regarding Joseph III going out (per his mothers counsel) to learn for himself if his dad practiced polygamy of not. If he was told the truth while in Utah, he did not find it credible because he continually denied his father's involvement all the days of his life. So again, even if it was wrong, the RLDS promoted the testimony of a son regarding his father.

Either way, all the different factions were wooing Joseph III to join their group for added legitmacy. He seemed to merely want to learn about his dad. I cannot fault a mother wanting to protect the image of a father to a son.

You simply cannot deny the significance Joseph III had on the RLDS. He led the RLDS for 45 years while at the same time the LDS went through the leadership of Young, Taylor, Woodruff, Snow, and Smith. For many, it is more correct to say that the RLDS is more the church of Joseph III than his father Joseph Jr.

It is interesting to think about what the LDS would resemble if Joseph III joined the Utah group instead of the RLDS! The LDS may in fact more resemble what the RLDS/Community of Christ looks like today if he had joined and in turn lead that group.

[Thunderfire]

I did not mean to imply that the RLDS was founded solely on polygamy. My fairly uninformed opinion is that it rejected most of what Joseph Smith introduced in Nauvoo. I do think that from the beginning, it rejected polygamy and any involvement in polygamy by Joseph Smith.

Forgive me if I came across as implying you were. I have often joked that the RLDS membership more resembles Francis Higbee (publisher of the Expositor) having a history of dissent against the leaders!

HIstory does show that the early RLDS struggled with rooting out polygamy within the church and many of the other aspects of the Nauvoo era. Regarding the concept of dissent, it is still strong in the church. I have personally seen apostles and even the president of the church grilled over issues regarding doctrine by the membership. Many in the church see the leaders as fallible human beings and they are by no means followed blindly.

This is neither good or bad, just a reality in the RLDS/Community of Christ. The people expect direct and personal confirmation from God regarding what the leaders say and if what they say goes against the Bible and Book of Mormon, then they must account for it!

[why me]

The fact is that Emma kept the lie going inside the RLDS cburch, deceiving the members of that church. And that was the point behind Uncle Dale's comments.

[Thunderfire]

The fact is that Emma kept the lie going inside the RLDS church, deceiving the members of that church. And that was the point behind Uncle Dale's comments.

Well, we really do not know if Emma personally witnessed Joseph having " sexual relations" with other women. Of course, if there were children born that would be proof enough, but there was none. I believe the concept of "sealing" in the church went too far becoming full blown polygamy with many other leaders in the church and they had the offspring to prove it.

So was Emma really perpetuating a lie? Again, we really do not know and it is only conjecture. She may have had a VERY fine line regarding her husbands involvement with the other women. Meaning, yes, she knew he was sealed to many women. But the real truth regarding if he consumated these sealings is only known to our ancestors and God.

But in all this, what really gets me is how Joseph is not seen as a fallen prophet by doing something that the Book of Mormon speaks against. For me, if Joseph did have many wives and had sexual relationships with them, then he is fallen. Especially when he brought forth as the mind and will of God that polygamy was bad.

This may be a reason why she protected Joseph III from the sins of his father by not telling him the truth!

[jwhitlock]

The Book of Mormon says polygamy is wrong and should have never entered the church in the first place.

This needs to be corrected; the Book of Mormon says no such thing.

What it does say is that polygamy should only be practiced under the direction of the Lord. A careful reading of the relevant scripture in Jacob is quite clear about that.

[Thunderfire]

This needs to be corrected; the Book of Mormon says no such thing.

What it does say is that polygamy should only be practiced under the direction of the Lord. A careful reading of the relevant scripture in Jacob is quite clear about that.

I respect your view and acknowledge that each of us has deeply rooted beliefs regarding polygamy (and what the Book of Mormon says about it). Not knowing how the LDS book of Mormon words that passage in Jacob, this is how it is worded in the RLDS version:

..."For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures; for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David and Solomon his son. Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which things was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph. Wherefore, I the Lord God, will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old. Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none. For I the Lord God, delighteth in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me, thus saith the Lord of hosts..."

So in my opinion, God would cease to be God if in one breath he calls polygamy an abomination but in the next says it's acceptable. For me, this is one of those black and white issues. If God calls it an abomination, then for all eternity this will be the case. But giving the benefit of the doubt, can you share where in this passage it gives the hint that God will allow it in certain situations even though he calls polygamy an abomination? Again, I see no wiggle room here. Even more pointed in this passage is the mention how God led Lehi out of Jerusalem so they would NOT do this act which God calls an abomination.

Again, I'm not trying to be argumentative because the LDS version of the Book of Mormon may read differently.

[jwhitlock]

I respect your view and acknowledge that each of us has deeply rooted beliefs regarding polygamy (and what the Book of Mormon says about it). Not knowing how the LDS book of Mormon words that passage in Jacob, this is how it is worded in the RLDS version:

..."For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures; for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David and Solomon his son. Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which things was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph. Wherefore, I the Lord God, will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old. Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none. For I the Lord God, delighteth in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me, thus saith the Lord of hosts..."

So in my opinion, God would cease to be God if in one breath he calls polygamy an abomination but in the next says it's acceptable. For me, this is one of those black and white issues. If God calls it an abomination, then for all eternity this will be the case. But giving the benefit of the doubt, can you share where in this passage it gives the hint that God will allow it in certain situations even though he calls polygamy an abomination? Again, I see no wiggle room here. Even more pointed in this passage is the mention how God led Lehi out of Jerusalem so they would NOT do this act which God calls an abomination.

Again, I'm not trying to be argumentative because the LDS version of the Book of Mormon may read differently.

My "deeply rooted belief regarding polygamy" actually finds it reprehensible that so many are applying trendy presentism in attempts to deplore the practice of polygamy.

However, let me quote what you may have left out from the LDS version of the Book of Mormon; and the LDS version I'm quoting from is the 1830 original, so if the RLDS version has eliminated the key phrase below, then they basically stand condemned for changing scripture:

"Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes. For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people: otherwise, they shall hearken unto these things."

I still find it interesting how often that very important, qualifying portion of the scripture is so often left out by people who want to say the Book of Mormon condemns polygamy in all cases. As I noted before, the Lord doesn't contradict himself, He simply places a specific stipulation on the practice of polygamy - which is that it is only to be done when He commands it.

A further correction is appropriate here. The Lord is very specific about what He considers an abomination, and it is not the practice of polygamy itself. It is the unrighteous practice of taking many wives and concubines when not sanctioned by Him, done for the purpose of committing whoredoms. Again a careful reading of the passage would make that clear.

You may want to rethink this particular black and white issue of yours, since it isn't supported in the Book of Mormon.

[TAO]

One night the Lord took me in the "night visions" and showed a time when people argued over "rights and authority", each trying to prove their claim as the true heirs. Yet in the end, none of them were right with the Lord because their eyes were on themselves and not what the Lord was doing. This was shown in how they failed to look outside and see how the Lord's work of kingdom building was proceeding in spite of our need to prove our individual sects as "more right" than the other.

In the end, the only thing of importance is our devotion to the Lord of the church instead of the church of the Lord.

Nice story!

[Damien the Leper]

My "deeply rooted belief regarding polygamy" actually finds it reprehensible that so many are applying trendy presentism in attempts to deplore the practice of polygamy.

However, let me quote what you may have left out from the LDS version of the Book of Mormon; and the LDS version I'm quoting from is the 1830 original, so if the RLDS version has eliminated the key phrase below, then they basically stand condemned for changing scripture:

"Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes. For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people: otherwise, they shall hearken unto these things."

I still find it interesting how often that very important, qualifying portion of the scripture is so often left out by people who want to say the Book of Mormon condemns polygamy in all cases. As I noted before, the Lord doesn't contradict himself, He simply places a specific stipulation on the practice of polygamy - which is that it is only to be done when He commands it.

A further correction is appropriate here. The Lord is very specific about what He considers an abomination, and it is not the practice of polygamy itself. It is the unrighteous practice of taking many wives and concubines when not sanctioned by Him, done for the purpose of committing whoredoms. Again a careful reading of the passage would make that clear.

You may want to rethink this particular black and white issue of yours, since it isn't supported in the Book of Mormon.

Here isn't an 1830 LDS edition of the Book of Mormon and you know it. Furthermore, you also know there were significant changes made to the Book of Mormon over the years. This is demonstrated when you read edition that compares 3 different editions.

[Calm]

So in my opinion, God would cease to be God if in one breath he calls polygamy an abomination but in the next says it's acceptable. For me, this is one of those black and white issues. If God calls it an abomination, then for all eternity this will be the case. But giving the benefit of the doubt, can you share where in this passage it gives the hint that God will allow it in certain situations even though he calls polygamy an abomination? Again, I see no wiggle room here. Even more pointed in this passage is the mention how God led Lehi out of Jerusalem so they would NOT do this act which God calls an abomination.

I apologise if I have asked this of you before, but I have a perennial curiosity about how those who view polygyny as an abomination explain the principle of Levirate marriage which was understood to be a commandment that might in some cases require polygamy (and now that I think of it since the widow's children would be considered the dead brother's children, if the husband desired to have children legally considered his, it would even necessitate the practice of polygyny).

So how do you reconcile Levirate marriage with your belief about God's feelings about polygyny?

[Calm]

Here isn't an 1830 LDS edition of the Book of Mormon and you know it.

So this http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/book-of-mormon-1830 is a figment of our imagination? Edited October 26, 2012 by calmoriah

[Stargazer]

I think the memories of Joseph practicing polygamy were so painful to her that she just wanted to block them out of her mind and pretend they never happened.

My grandmother on my mother's side would never talk about her husband, my grandfather. He was an alcoholic, and eventually left home never to return. When I once asked her to tell me about him she told me that she couldn't remember anything. I got the idea that there was a sore spot there. It wasn't until later that I found out, through others, what had happened. I was never sure if the forgetting was real, or a refusal to acknowledge him.

[Damien the Leper]

So this http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/book-of-mormon-1830 is a figment of our imagination?

There is an 1830 Edition of the Book of Mormon but it isn't exclusively LDS. The lds church didn't even exist in 1830. It is illogical to assume that the 1830 is one and the same as that of the Salt Lake church founded by Brigham Young.

[tyler90az]

They were human beings and both made mistakes. I even think, dare I say it, Joseph Smith Jr. appeared to have made more. Another couple cases of human beings being held up to angelic standards. Joseph Smith Jr. had to go through more then any modern Prophet. The weight Emma Smith had to carry may have been even tougher. It was Joseph Smith Jr's baby and he had a perfect knowledge. Unlike Emma who had to rely more on faith. I would be the first to admit I would have probably been more like Oliver Cowdery, adios.

Let her receive the glory she deserves.

[jwhitlock]

Here isn't an 1830 LDS edition of the Book of Mormon and you know it. Furthermore, you also know there were significant changes made to the Book of Mormon over the years. This is demonstrated when you read edition that compares 3 different editions.

Oh get real. The "1830" on the title page says otherwise.

[jwhitlock]

There is an 1830 Edition of the Book of Mormon but it isn't exclusively LDS. The lds church didn't even exist in 1830. It is illogical to assume that the 1830 is one and the same as that of the Salt Lake church founded by Brigham Young.

This is a new bit of irrationality to me. Evidently the logical succession of Joseph / Church / Apostles seems to be conveniently off your radar when it comes to this kind of unfounded claim of being "illogical".

In any case, given the lack of emphasis that RLDS / CoC place on the Book of Mormon, and the heavy emphasis The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - founded by the Book of Mormon's translator, Joseph Smith, currently places on it, your assertion above doesn't hold any water.

[sethpayne]

I found the following paragraphs from Uncle Dale interesting. I think that he made a great point with the following post that he made on a different forum about Emma and polygamy and her denial of it. He said:

What is inexcusable, is the fact that she supplied the support

necessary to start up a church based upon such lies. It can

be argued that she mainly served in a passive role in this

respect -- that she seldom evangelized for the RLDS. But

I see the same lies repeated by William Smith and by.

Katherine Smith Salisbury, for the RLDS. It was a religious

conspiracy. At times it was a conspiracy of silence, and at

other times it was a conspiracy of falsehoods --but it all

worked together to establish a false church, palming off

false doctrines upon believing members.

That is what I find inexcusable. Today even the topmost

leaders in Community of Christ are beginning to admit

openly that the founders of their sect lied about the

basic doctrines of the Church from the 1850s onward. I

guess that counts as progress.

As for Emma, I would caution any student of Mormon

History not to take her words at face value, no matter

how pious-sounding or plausible her testimony may be.

Same goes for that of Apostle William Smith and his

sister Katherine. Their lies amount to human evil.

UD

Personally, I think that he is right. Why would Emma allow an entire church to be started on a principle that she knew was a lie? Why would she allow another church to be started that would claim that Joseph never practiced polygamy. My take on it is simple. Emma allowed this lie to get out of control and she couldn't take it back. So the web grew and grew and Emma could no longer control it and a new church was formed based on a lie.

My speculation is this:

Emma truly believed in her husband. Her faith in his original divine calling was unshakable. She may have seen the period from 1839 to his death as one where he husband faltered. If so, she felt that this was a pious omission when she saw her son ready to take on his father's calling.

Another possibility, and one I find more likely, is that polygamy was incredibly traumatic for Emma. By the founding of the RLDS church she had convinced herself that her husband did not, in fact, practice polygamy. Our minds can pull off some pretty crazy things to help us adapt to difficult situations.

[Thunderfire]

However, let me quote what you may have left out from the LDS version of the Book of Mormon; and the LDS version I'm quoting from is the 1830 original, so if the RLDS version has eliminated the key phrase below, then they basically stand condemned for changing scripture...

You may want to rethink this particular black and white issue of yours, since it isn't supported in the Book of Mormon.

Forgive me if my response came across as too "in our face." That was not my intent because I never compared the LDS and RLDS/Community of Christ versions of the Book of Mormon before. What I can say is that the Community of Christ has the original "Printers Manuscript" for the Book of Mormon on display in Independence.

I was quoting from our 1908 Devotional Version printed in 1953. So I will agree that it is possible for changes to have been made over the years. Yet the First Presidency wrote to its authenticity by saying: compared with the original manuscript and the Kirtland edition of 1837, which was carefully re-examined and compared with the original manuscript by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. Regardless of whether the LDS or the RLDS edition is correct, I am simply stating why I believe what I do about polygamy. Here is the verse again:

..."For behold, thus saith the Lord, This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures: for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives, and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord,

Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph. Wherefore, I, the Lord God, will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none: For I, the Lord God, delighteth in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me: thus saith the Lord of hosts..." (Jacob 2:32-37 RLDS)

In this section the Lord is saying he DOES NOT want the people here to do what David and Solomon did there. He says that those who practice polygamy are "committing whoredoms" in his sight. That because of this vile act he was removing Lehi from Jerusalem so they would not do this abominable act. In my opinion, this is enough for me to believe polygamy was never acceptable; that polygamy was a sign of apostasy coming to the church; and the Lord was going to purge this from his righteous branch .

So we really don't know the heart of Emma; her deepest convictions and beliefs; her devotion to her surviving children coupled with the circus surrounding her being married to Joseph. For me, regardless of how we view polygamy the evidence points to Emma not agreeing with polygamy and this is what she instilled in Joseph III. I believe she was a pretty devout individual and the "holy mother" of the RLDS.

[Damien the Leper]

This is a new bit of irrationality to me. Evidently the logical succession of Joseph / Church / Apostles seems to be conveniently off your radar when it comes to this kind of unfounded claim of being "illogical".

In any case, given the lack of emphasis that RLDS / CoC place on the Book of Mormon, and the heavy emphasis The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - founded by the Book of Mormon's translator, Joseph Smith, currently places on it, your assertion above doesn't hold any water.

Oh get real. The "1830" on the title page says otherwise.

You haven't substantiated your argument. I've seen an actual 1830 edition and there is no LDS on it.

[jwhitlock]

Forgive me if my response came across as too "in our face." That was not my intent because I never compared the LDS and RLDS/Community of Christ versions of the Book of Mormon before. What I can say is that the Community of Christ has the original "Printers Manuscript" for the Book of Mormon on display in Independence.

I was quoting from our 1908 Devotional Version printed in 1953. So I will agree that it is possible for changes to have been made over the years. Yet the First Presidency wrote to its authenticity by saying: compared with the original manuscript and the Kirtland edition of 1837, which was carefully re-examined and compared with the original manuscript by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. Regardless of whether the LDS or the RLDS edition is correct, I am simply stating why I believe what I do about polygamy. Here is the verse again:

..."For behold, thus saith the Lord, This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures: for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives, and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord,

Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph. Wherefore, I, the Lord God, will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none: For I, the Lord God, delighteth in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me: thus saith the Lord of hosts..." (Jacob 2:32-37 RLDS)

In this section the Lord is saying he DOES NOT want the people here to do what David and Solomon did there. He says that those who practice polygamy are "committing whoredoms" in his sight. That because of this vile act he was removing Lehi from Jerusalem so they would not do this abominable act. In my opinion, this is enough for me to believe polygamy was never acceptable; that polygamy was a sign of apostasy coming to the church; and the Lord was going to purge this from his righteous branch .

So we really don't know the heart of Emma; her deepest convictions and beliefs; her devotion to her surviving children coupled with the circus surrounding her being married to Joseph. For me, regardless of how we view polygamy the evidence points to Emma not agreeing with polygamy and this is what she instilled in Joseph III. I believe she was a pretty devout individual and the "holy mother" of the RLDS.

While that's interesting, I quoted from the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, which was the original. If you can't find it in your edition, then someone evidently wasn't being particularly accurate when they claimed it had been compared with the original manuscript.

What I quoted qualifies the practice of polygamy to be done only when God commands it. If what I quoted is not found in the RLDS version, then it has been removed on purpose by them to fit their doctrine. If you're going to continue to ignore the fact of that qualifying statement, and if you're going to ignore the fact that the Lord is NOT saying that all polygamy is unacceptable (He never says that anywhere in the scriptures), but instead He is saying that unauthorized polygamy for the purpose of committing whoredoms is what is really unacceptable, then you're not going to really understand at all what the practice of plural marriage was about.

In essence, the Book of Mormon does not absolutely prohibit polygamy. it prohibits the polygamy that was practiced by David and Solomon when they went outside of the boundaries the Lord had set for them. That's very clear from the scripture, especially if you include what I quoted from the original, which you seem to indicate has been removed by the RLDS for their own purposes.

If indeed the passage has been removed (and I don't have an RLDS-modified copy of the Book of Mormon to look at), then that appears to be a tacit admission by them that it would be damaging to their claims that all polygamy under any circumstance is forbidden by the Book of Mormon. Personally, I find that rather interesting on a variety of levels.

[jwhitlock]

You haven't substantiated your argument. I've seen an actual 1830 edition and there is no LDS on it.

The Church was organized in the same year (1830) that the Book of Mormon was published. The Church was founded by the translator of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith. That exact same Church in 1838, per Doctrine and Covenants 115, was designated as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In 1838 that Church was still led by Joseph Smith.

There's nothing more to substantiate. The 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon is indeed an LDS version, in every sense of the phrase. You really have to make a stretch of the imagination to claim some kind of illogic about all of it - unless all you're doing is making throwaway statements.

In any case, these games you're trying to play are irrelevant. The 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon makes a clear point in Jacob about polygamy, and that it is only to be practiced when the Lord commands it.

[Damien the Leper]

I'm pretty sure the Church of Christ, according to the authoritative Book of Commandments, was organized on April 6, 1830.

[Thunderfire]

While that's interesting, I quoted from the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, which was the original. If you can't find it in your edition, then someone evidently wasn't being particularly accurate when they claimed it had been compared with the original manuscript.

I'm embarrassed to say that I found an LDS copy of the Book of Mormon in my library. I'm sure it was a free missionary copy, being copywrited in 1981. This is how the passage is worded in the LDS edition I found:

..."For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son. Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph. Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts..." (Jacob 2:23-28 LDS)

This again is the same passage from the RLDS edition I posted above for comparison purposes:

..."For behold, thus saith the Lord, This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures: for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives, and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord. Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph. Wherefore, I, the Lord God, will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none: For I, the Lord God, delighteth in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me: thus saith the Lord of hosts..." (Jacob 2:32-37 RLDS)

When compared side by side, both versions say: No man shall have more than one wife~~God led Lehi out Jerusalem so he could raise up a righteous "branch" (not seed) unto himself~~polygamy is seen by God as a whoredom, even an abomination before him. So doing this is real bad thing and in the LDS version the next verse (29) reads: This people shall keep my commandments or cursed will be the land for their sakes. Regardless of what happened in the past. From the time this passage was first given to man and written down to today, polygamy was not a good thing for the church to engage in or something I believe God would never go back and change his mind.

What I quoted qualifies the practice of polygamy to be done only when God commands it. ...(snip)

In essence, the Book of Mormon does not absolutely prohibit polygamy. ...(snip)

We will need to agree to disagree on this point and move on. From what I posted above, I believe both the LDS and RLDS editions are almost identical here (besides versification) and boldly makes clear that polygamy (at least for this restoration movement) was absolutely prohibited. Even worse, if we did it then even the land would be cursed! For me, I see no wiggle room whatsoever to ever justify the practice of polygamy. As to the curse this would bring upon the people the LDS version goes on to say (verse 33) that the men who do this will be visited with a sore curse, even unto destruction.

In my opinion, we saw the effects of this curse upon our ancestors and the terrible hardships they bore, leading to a fragmentation of the original movement into many pieces. I believe that each splinter group formed around what they believed the original mission and message of the "restoration movement" to be. I still think the restoration movement is far larger than what we can even barely imagine!

Thank you for responding and please accept this in the good spirit intended.