D&C 101:4. 1835 - 1876 forbade polygamy

pseudogratix · March 2, 2005

From Doctrine and Covenants Section 42:22-23 along with Doctrine and Covenants Section 49:15-16, we can easily conclude that Monogamy was clearly the Law of the Church throughout the time that Joseph Smith was Prophet and President over the Church.

Not really, these passages don't address the issue of additional wives.

Brackite · March 2, 2005

Hello There,

Not really, these passages don't address the issue of additional wives.

Yes they do. Especially in Doctrine and Covenants Section 42:22-23. How can a man cleave until his own wife and none else when he has 12 other plural wives out there???

JLH · March 2, 2005

Nighthawke,

If you're ever visiting Nauvoo, Illinois, stop by the City Clerks office at 712 Commerce street downtown. It is one block west of the post office and is two story green victorian styled building with white shudders on the windows. Ask for Ms. Rachel Whitney, the current City Clerk. She is the great, great granddaughter of Elias Higbee, one of the church leaders and signatures on the issue of the Time's and Season I provided you. She is of lovely lady and lots of fun to talk with. Her office is up the first flight of stairs as you walk in, second door on the left. Now, her great, great grandmother, Sarah Higbee just happened to be the City Clerk in 1842. Rachel still has the original "notary's" hand book (with seals) that Sarah maintained. Ask Rachel to turn to page 27 of that record and you will see that Sarah notarized Joseph Smiths signature as validating that "all things published in Vol. 23 of the Oct. 1842 Times and Season to be true and accurate". Now, of even more importance to this thread, you will note that there is a handwritten asterick (*) after Joseph's notarized signature. At the bottom of page 28 is a similar asterick (*) with the following hand written statement: "The rule on marriage published in todays Times & Season was recieved by me via revelation prior to my departure for Wisconsin". This statement too was followed by Joseph Smith's initials "JS" and attested to by Brigham Young's signature which Sarah notarized on the top of page 31 of that record. Now, here's where it get interesting and what fnally convinced me of the authenticity. Page 29-30 of that record appear to be ripped out of the book. After bringing this to the attention of Rachel, I questioned how BY's notarized signature really applied to attest Josephs validations of the 1842 issue of the Times and Seasons or perhaps to something that was written on the missing page 29-30. Here's where I found out that Rachel is not a member of the lds church, but rather she is a member of the reorganized lds church, COC. So obviously I had great doubt about trusting the one page removed attest signature of BY. After a brief discussion, Rachel takes me over to the public works department where her husband of over 57 years, Micah, still works part time. Micah is the great, great grandson of Newell K. Whitney, another signature of the Times and Season volume provided above. Well, as Micah explained to me, it turns out that Newell's brother, Nathan, was a convert to the lds church back then and married a pretty little filly who happened to be the niece of John Taylor. However, unbeknownst to anyone at the time, Nathan was still married to a wife in Carbondale Illinois upon his marriage Taylor's niece. However, his marriage to Taylor's niece was recorded and notarized on page 29 of Sarah's town clerk register. Shortly after his nuptuals with Taylor's niece, Nathan had second thoughts and wanted to annul his recent marriage and move back with his wife in Carbondale. Only problem was he did not want any record of his recent marriage to exist so he broke into the clerks office and ripped out page 29-30 for insurance purposes. Micah then showed me an article out of the December 1842 issue of the Carthage Composer verifying this story. Why was it in an article in the Carthage Composer you ask? Well it turns out that Joseph had a concubinal relationship with not only Sarah Higbee, but the wife of Carthage mayor Silas Davis, Abigail. Apparently, as Micah explained, Smith convinced that his polyandrous practices, while not legal in Carthage, where perfectly legal in Nauvoo. He convinced Abigail that it would be recorded in city records and it would all be approved by God and city council. Lacking funds to properly adorn Abigail with a nice ring, Smith borrowed funds from Abigail that she apparently took from Carthage city coffers but for which Smith signed a promissory note for to Abigail. With all the excitement of becoming one of God's chosen, Abigail only saw that Smith had Sarah notarize "an entry" in the clerk's register. The entry was to record the promissory note, not the marriage. And guess what, you got it, the entry was made on page 30. Well when the ring finally arrived, Sarah saw how much bigger it was than the one she got from Smith and became incredibly jealous. She waited a couple of months and when news broke that an audit of city funds showed Carthage coming up short, Sarah sent Silas a letter informing him that she had recorded evidence of the funds borrowed from Abigail. Well, as Micah recalls, when the City of Nauvoo was served with a discovery request from the City of Carthage regarding this record, Sarah became totally embarrased to find out page 29-30 had been ripped out by Nathan. Not knowing why the page was missing, it became tabloid fodder along with her letter to Silas. (As a sidebar of humor here, turns out that Smith could not come up with the funds to repay Abigail and she in turn had to sell the ring to replenish the city coffers. The local jewler it turns out, determined that the ring Smith gave to Abigail was really cubic zurconium. According to and as recorded in Newell Whitney's journal which Micah still has, Newell recorded this passage on page 131 dated June 1844: "the prophet and Hyrum suffered a tragic death today. Cant help but to wonder if outcome would had been different if Joseph knew to give a girl diamonds".)

Now, if after your meeting with Rachel and looking at all the same evidence I looked at doesn't convince you that Smith's rule on marriage in the 1835 D&C's was a revelation, you win.

pseudogratix · March 2, 2005

How can a man cleave until his own wife and none else when he has 12 other plural wives out there???

Because the other women in such a plural marriage relationship aren't just other women, but also wives.

Corky Wallace · March 2, 2005

Ha! Brackite has been fooled by a simple English phrase!

15 And again, verily I say unto YOU, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man.
16 Wherefore, it is lawful that HE should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation;

Brackite, my friend, when it says "I say unto YOU" and "HE" it is clear the Lord was talking directly to and referring to Sidney Rigdon, who was against polygamy, anyway. The polygamy doctrine excluded everyone else except Sidney, and therefore that commandment was accepted by the saints in a way of the very highest integrity.

Geez, when you have the spirit, these things are so easy to figure out.

REPENT, BRACKITE, REPENT!!! You certainly have sinned and are not seeing the text as the Lord intended it!

(I think I'm starting to get the hang of this apologetics thing. How'd I do, guys?)

Joking aside - I agree this thread is pretty interesting.

Brackite · March 2, 2005

Hello There,

Because the other women in such a plural marriage relationship aren't just other women, but also wives.

Oh OK. I don't know if that really makes any sense, but it is OK for now I guess.

Anyway what about Bigamy being against the law in the State of Illinois since the year of 1833? Here is Doctrine and Covenants Section 58:21:

21 Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.

Nighthawke · March 2, 2005

Well it turns out that Joseph had a concubinal relationship with not only Sarah Higbee, but the wife of Carthage mayor Silas Davis, Abigail. Apparently, as Micah explained, Smith convinced that his polyandrous practices, while not legal in Carthage, where perfectly legal in Nauvoo.

Oh this sounds like great fun...

As for your info, I find it interesting that both Todd Compton (In Sacred Loneliness) and Danel Bachman (A Study of the Mormon Practice of Plural Marriage before the Death of Joseph Smith) both missed these two "concubines". Why is that? Lack of documentation perhaps? No record of a "Carthage Composer"? Nauvoo city clerk is listed as Carol Lea McGhghy by the way, I wonder if she knows Rachel Whitney? Maybe I should call first or send them a copy of your post before I drop by... Funny though how City Hall is listed at 60 N Bluff Street, and not 712 Commerce Street. Is there a Commerce St. in Nauvoo?

On second thought, I think one of the members of FAIR lives in Nauvoo, maybe he could walk over on his lunch break one day this week and look her up?

pseudogratix · March 2, 2005

Anyway what about Bigamy being against the law in the State of Illinois since the year of 1833? Here is Doctrine and Covenants Section 58:21...

Putting aside the sealings that probably would not be considered illegal according to the wording of that law ( http://www.utlm.org/images/newsletters/no9...isbigamylaw.gif ), it could be that there were some illegal actions made on behalf of the members during the Nauvoo period in regard to this law. Granted, it does seem contradictory on the surface. Perhaps someone can throw some more light on the subject.

Brackite · March 2, 2005

Hello There,

Ha! Brackite has been fooled by a simple English phrase!
15 And again, verily I say unto YOU, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man.
16 Wherefore, it is lawful that HE should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation;
Brackite, my friend, when it says "I say unto YOU" and "HE" it is clear the Lord was talking directly to and referring to Sidney Rigdon, who was against polygamy, anyway. The polygamy doctrine excluded everyone else except Sidney, and therefore that commandment was accepted by the saints in a way of the very highest integrity.
Geez, when you have the spirit, these things are so easy to figure out.
REPENT, BRACKITE, REPENT!!! You certainly have sinned and are not seeing the text as the Lord intended it!
(I think I'm starting to get the hang of this apologetics thing. How'd I do, guys?)
Joking aside - I agree this thread is pretty interesting.

Thank You Corky Wallace, for helping clarifying this for me. <_< :unsure:

JLH · March 2, 2005

As for your info, I find it interesting that both Todd Compton (In Sacred Loneliness) and Danel Bachman (A Study of the Mormon Practice of Plural Marriage before the Death of Joseph Smith) both missed these two "concubines". Why is that?

How do you know that what was in those books was written by Compton and Bachman? Did they sign each and every one. Prove to me that things weren't added or deleted by the publsihers. Just because they are listed as the authors doesn't mean others didn't add or subtract from these books. Prove to me that they looked at all availabe records. How do we know that new information hasn't been discovered since they wrote their books. Prove to me it hasn't.

No record of a "Carthage Composer"?

So, that doesn't mean it didn't exist. I prayed about it and God told me it did. I testify to you that the Carthage Composer is true. I know it's true. How can you be sure that it just hasn't been discovered yet. Archeology is finding new things every day. Maybe it was called something different back then. You know, like horses=tapirs. Prove to me I wrong.

Nauvoo city clerk is listed as Carol Lea McGhghy by the way, I wonder if she knows Rachel Whitney?

Well, what does that prove. Prove to me that's not her stage name. How do you know that she might not spell it the same way. Maybe she has dual personality disorders. Prove to me that Carol Lea McGhghy does not mean Rachel Whitney in reformed egyptian. I never said I translated it from papyri, it was from divine intervention. Besides, prove to me we have all the papyri relating to Carol Lea McGhghy. I don't care if she doesnt know Rachel Whitney, what does that prove anyway. I know what I said is true.

Funny though how City Hall is listed at 60 N Bluff Street, and not 712 Commerce Street. Is there a Commerce St. in Nauvoo?

Where did I ever say the city clerks office was in City Hall? Can you prove to me there was never a Commerce St. in Nauvoo. Besides, 712 is the same as 60. (7+1-2=6) (6-0=6) See, I proved they are the same. Prove to me I'm wrong. You say Bluff Street. How do we know you don't mean Bluff Street in St. George, Utah. They're spelled the same. Prove to me my thinking is wrong.

On second thought, I think one of the members of FAIR lives in Nauvoo, maybe he could walk over on his lunch break one day this week and look her up?

How can you have a second thought when you never said what your first thought was. Sounds like you keep changing your story. How do you know he still lives in Nauvoo, maybe they changed the city limits. Archeology is finding new things all the time. Prove to me he can walk. Maybe it's not really walking but some sort movement caused by his feet. Besides, we have no proof he will ever talk to Rachel. What good will his visit be then. Prove to me that he will be able to communicate when he gets there. How do we know he won't get into an accident first or become ill.

Anyway, I prayed about my answer and testify to you that it is true.

Boy, it's good to give, just once in a while, what you so often get!

Moderator: The mockery and derision is becoming uncomfortable.

March 2, 2005

Thank you all for your responses.

I am happy to see my topic to be of great interest!

We have witnessed the mental gymnastics that we must go through to excuse it from our minds. This was my purpose of this thread.

There is no simple answer to this is there? It is a twisted mangled mess of history, doctrines, opinions and apologetics.

If we modern members cannot answer this straight forward question, how do you think the early members did?

Again, I believe Brigham's current teaching of their day trumped what was contained in the church's canon.

We should evaluate the importantace of the D&C to the early saints. Of course it is very important to the modern members today. Perhaps it was not as important back then? However, this does not explain it away though.

In the LDS church everything is black and white, for it is taught this way. The LDS scriptures read this way.

The issue I have raised as the subject of this thread is black and white. The canon stated that they DID NOT accept the practice of polygamy, and yet they did.

Is there an offical response from the LDS church on this? Yes most members WILL NOT line things up like this, but I am a member and I have. I would like an answer. Is that too much to ask?

pseudogratix · March 2, 2005

There is no simple answer to this is there? It is a twisted mangled mess of history, doctrines, opinions and apologetics....

Well, that is one way to ignore just about everything that has been posted, go on a rhetoric rampage and derail your own thread.

Benjamin McGuire · March 2, 2005

JLH writes:

We have the words of Joseph Smith ratifying it's inclusion in the D&C's as provided above. We have Smith qualifying it as a rule of the church. We have Smith stating that the D&C contains the principals of church regulation as recieved from revelations. What more do we need? I think you are trying to read into things statements of facts that are not there.

Where does Joseph Smith ratify it's inclusion in the D&C?

Tell you what. Rather than continuing with all this nonsense, why don't you provide an actual reference which specifically calls the Article on Marriage "revelation" or "Scripture". I don't want a statement which includes it within the umbrella of a standard work. I want a statement similar to what we can find for other sections of the D&C or individual texts.

Rather than telling me how you perceive this, and how you interpret these texts (since obviously we aren't going to come to any agreement over them), why don't you provide some examples of how the Article on Marriage was considered scripture in practice.

Seems pretty clear that it was accepted and adopted. Where does it say it was not official doctrine. Where in the minutes does it say it was not approved or received by revelation from Smith? Don't you think that Smith had plenty of time (almost ten years) to remove it from the D&C's if it was as you claim it to be? Why did Smith make public statements including it in the D&C's for years to come? Don't you think BY had virtually his entire adult life as a prophet to remove it from your doctrine if it was not supposed to be there?

There is a big difference between scripture/revelation and "offical doctrine".

One of the issues here is that the formative LDS church actually lived by the notion of common consent. The people voted it in. Who was Joseph Smith to take it out. By the time the Saints were established out west, this notion had faded (among other things, most members could not attend general conferences).

Going back to my earlier comments, despite the continued publication of the articles and the Lectures on Faith in subsequent editions of the D&C, there is no indication that these were believed to be sacred scripture, or revelations. And there is a great deal of evidence to suggest otherwise. For example, from this hostile witness -

In John Hanson Beadle's Life in Utah; or Mystery and Crimes of Mormonism, p. 319, 1870:

They are explained at great length in the "Doctrines and Covenants," the New Testament of Mormonism. This book is made up of revelations, "selected(!) from those of Joseph Smith," and the doctrinal lectures of various elders, particularly Sidney Rigdon, with an addition containing the rules and discipline of the Church. The "Lectures on faith and repentance" contains nothing more than is familiar to every attendan on the worship of Arminian sects.

Section 132 was of course first revealed to the church as a whole by Brigham Young in 1852. It would not be added to the D&C until the next major edition was published in 1876 (when the Article on Marriage was removed).

We have, of course some statements made by church leaders during that period. From Joseph F. Smith's journal entry dated Oct. 9, 1869, we have a record of Brigham Young telling General Authorities that Oliver "incisted on it

John Corrill · March 2, 2005

[edited by moderator]

Whoa! How cool was that? My statement that was NOT a revelation is scratched from the historical record...just like the ones at church

I'm beginning to see a pattern [Twilight Zone music heard in the background]

BTW, I get heartsick thinking about the European and English converts who came to Nauvoo and Utah, believing what the Article on Marriage said, only to later find out it was bogus

Dunamis · March 2, 2005

This is my first visit to this thread and the sarcasm and disdain is virtually oozing from my screen. My first impression is that those who are resorting to this as a defense (or offense) must not have much of a defense or offense. My second impression is that I don't like the building disrespect and the complaints that are starting to come in. Clean it up.

JLH · March 2, 2005

Boy, it's good to give, just once in a while, what you so often get!
Moderator: The mockery and derision is becoming uncomfortable.

I agree.

We should also get a "standards of reason" cop on patrol around here.

March 3, 2005

BTW, I get heartsick thinking about the European and English converts who came to Nauvoo and Utah, believing what the Article on Marriage said, only to later find out it was bogus

I am disturbed by this as well.

This piece of information is very interesting. Not specifically about polygamy but about the growth of the church in Utah.

How many members do you hear ask about the growth of the church? It grew because people were told to relocate to Zion. This would be a difficult trek for most, a one way trip with no way back out.

English and European converts living in their birth country typically did not own any land. Once they were converted(or was it part of the discussion from the missionaries?) they realized that they could finally own land and that the church would help them come to Zion.

These people gave up everything to come to Zion/Utah. Once they arrived on the coast they would be given meager assistance to make the journey over the wilds of the US to arrive in Zion. Many suffered along the way with handcarts, many suffered through the cold of winter, and many died as well.

Once they finally arrive into virtually the middle of nowhere(Zion) they buckle down into the theocratic rule under Brigham Young. Perhaps they soon realized many of the bizarre doctrines like polygamy, Adam God, blood atonement, etc, etc.. and wanted to leave?

Soon they realize they have nowhere to go, they would give up their land. Some where even frightened to leave. So they learned to live in Zion.

The members in Utah were commanded to bear many children. Polygamy help boost the numbers of children born into the church, this was important as they make the best members.

tapped · March 3, 2005

to many of us today, much of LDS history STINKS... if not from the double-talk, cover-ups, and half-truths that are both Taught & Understood by many who care to look into things...BUT; the story about (possibly) deceived emigrants was a touch of Class, it brought that BIZARRE practice down to a level most of us could understand. Thanks, joep, and JohnC!! thanks to all the other contributors to this thread; Good Work, keep it up!!

Corky Wallace:
REPENT, BRACKITE, REPENT!!! You certainly have sinned and are not seeing the text as the Lord intended it!
Q: what gives CWallace the authority to decide/announce how 'the Lord intended' things????
When the church was mostly Utah-Idaho oriented, some of the saints could go to General Conference... Q: was the 'revelation' regarding Blacks/Priesthood presented in wards & stakes outside Utah for sustaining/ratification, as we are told the word of wisdom was (in general conference?)?
With the inet/web... some members could access communication to sustaining votes in a new way not possible before, couldn't they? But; that would open up dissenting 'votes' to people who might not want to do so in public... nonetheless, it will be interesting to observe how the church handles 'common consent' in the future. I notice that the term 'things' (as opposed to people-personalities) is mentioned in the D&C...

March 3, 2005

When the church was mostly Utah-Idaho oriented, some of the saints could go to General Conference... Q: was the 'revelation' regarding Blacks/Priesthood presented in wards & stakes outside Utah for sustaining/ratification, as we are told the word of wisdom was (in general conference?)?

Who told you the word of wisdom was "ratified" in general conference? This statement has no basis in fact.

Benjamin McGuire · March 3, 2005

johnny_cat writes:

Who told you the word of wisdom was "ratified" in general conference? This statement has no basis in fact.

It occured in 1851 when Brigham Young proposed before the body of the church that the church recognize the stipulations of the Word of Wisdom as binding on the body of the church.

Ben

March 3, 2005

It occured in 1851 when Brigham Young proposed before the body of the church that the church recognize the stipulations of the Word of Wisdom as binding on the body of the church.

Actually, Brigham Young asked those present (under age 90) in a conference at Winter Quarters to covenant to live the Word of Wisdom. There was no mention of it being binding on the body of the church, nor were its stipulations specified. I have seen the minutes from the meeting at the church historical library in the Office Building.. The history of how the church interpreted and required obedience to the Word of Wisdom is complicated.

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism's Word of Wisdom entry is an accurate description.

Nighthawke · March 3, 2005

It occured in 1851 when Brigham Young proposed before the body of the church that the church recognize the stipulations of the Word of Wisdom as binding on the body of the church.
Actually, Brigham Young asked those present (under age 90) in a conference at Winter Quarters to covenant to live the Word of Wisdom. There was no mention of it being binding on the body of the church, nor were its stipulations specified. I have seen the minutes from the meeting at the church historical library in the Office Building.. The history of how the church interpreted and required obedience to the Word of Wisdom is complicated.

The Word of Wisdom was canonized in August 1835. It became a commandment in September 1851:

Word of Wisdom a commandment:
Although the revelation of the Word of Wisdom was received on 27 February 1833, its acceptance by the individual members of the Church was gradual. On 9 September 1851, some eighteen years after it was given, the Patriarch to the Church, John Smith, delivered a talk to the Saints on the Word of Wisdom. Following his address, President Brigham Young arose and proposed to the general conference that all Saints formally covenant to abstain from tea, coffee, tobacco, whiskey, and "all things mentioned in the Word of Wisdom" ("Minutes of the General Conference," Millennial Star, 1 Feb. 1852, p.35). The motion was accepted unanimously and became binding as a commandment for all Church members thereafter.
Doctrine & Covenants, Student Manual (Institute), p. 207

Sign In

D&C 101:4. 1835 - 1876 forbade polygamy

Recommended Posts

pseudogratix

Brackite

JLH

pseudogratix

Corky Wallace

Brackite

Nighthawke

pseudogratix

Brackite

JLH

Guest joepalmeto

pseudogratix

Benjamin McGuire

John Corrill

Dunamis

JLH

Guest joepalmeto

tapped

Guest johnny_cat

Benjamin McGuire

Guest johnny_cat

Nighthawke

enummaelish

Nighthawke

Guest johnny_cat

Archived

Recently Browsing 0 members

Activity

Browse