Come Follow Me (April 1-7) - Talk about chastity, no mention of polygamy

[ZealouslyStriving]

5 minutes ago, PortalToParis said:

Nope, I am a life-long (and current) LDS member.

You believe in eternal marriage?

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, PortalToParis said:

Nope, I am a life-long (and current) LDS member.

It seems a massive obstacle to me to get past Brigham and other church leaders (at least Heber C Kimball) being such massive liars, claiming false revelations, etc. and to see the Church as still the true and living one in which God is well pleased (though perhaps you don’t) when current leaders and the vast majority of faithful believers believe the false history and false revelations.

[PortalToParis]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you believe this was written by Joseph or it was written by Oliver and published by Joseph?

It wouldn't matter to me if someone had co-written it with Joseph, because Joseph Smith had it voted on by assent as official doctrine, had it included in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine & Covenants, and kept it in the selection of sections for the 1844 edition of the Doctrine & Covenants too. It is also consistent with the other denunciations of polygamy that Joseph Smith makes, so it checks out to me as having his blessing on it whether it was by his pen or by another's. (Oliver Cowdery penned Joseph's dictation of The Book of Mormon, so I don't see why it would change my mind if you were to tell me that the original document is all in Oliver Cowdery's handwriting, but maybe you just using him as an example?)

Edited April 6, 2024 by PortalToParis

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

"And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them. 5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me."  (Doctrine and Covenants 98)

*The constitutionality of anti-polygamy laws had not yet been established by the court of last resort (Supreme). When it was the Church, eventually, complied.

So Mormonism is truly an American religion?

[PortalToParis]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Often people only agree with part of what they link to, so I was asking to clarify your position.  Do you differ with anything presented on that website?  Just want to be clear on context to better understand your comments.

I was studying the topic before that website came out, but it's the one I always recommend because it's a (relatively) short two-hour read whereas the other literature on it is way more extensive and much longer to get through. It doesn't have all the info on it but I think it's great as an introduction. I don't differ in a big way with anything on there, it's definitely standard with the views of most other faithful LDS anti-polygamists.

[ZealouslyStriving]

3 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

So Mormonism is truly an American religion?

"1 We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.

2 We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life." (Doctrine and Covenants 134)

[PortalToParis]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

It seems a massive obstacle to me to get past Brigham and other church leaders (at least Heber C Kimball) being such massive liars, claiming false revelations, etc. and to see the Church as still the true and living one in which God is well pleased (though perhaps you don’t) when current leaders and the vast majority of faithful believers believe the false history and false revelations.

I think this comes from the (I believe false) logic of "if they didn't use their priesthood worthily, then their priesthood is invalid and the LDS church is nothing". But the HMD website uses the idea of validity of priesthood ordination being separate from worthiness, and uses the example of Alma being ordained to the priesthood by King Noah's wicked priests but afterwards still using his same priesthood keys to illustrate this: 

93. 'What about the keys of the priesthood? If you think the church to be wrong about this, then you must be denouncing the validity of the church's priesthood keys.'

Under church doctrine, legitimacy of performed priesthood ordinances is contingent upon the validity of the ordination of the priesthood holder, not the worthiness of the priesthood holder — if a bishop is found to be engaging in wrongdoing, even the most serious wrongdoing, his authorization to perform further ordinances is removed, but any ordinances he has already performed are not re-done. This was the case during Joseph Smith’s lifetime as well, and is the same for any other priesthood position besides only a bishop. Denouncing wrongdoing and unworthiness in past leaders does not, under the doctrine established by Joseph Smith, call any later priesthood holder's keys into question. This also aligns with Book of Mormon accounts of priesthood ordination, as Alma the Elder, despite having been ordained as a priest by the other wicked priests of King Noah, afterwards continued to exercise his same priesthood keys. 

John the Baptist, in his conferring of the Aaronic priesthood on Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, is quoted as saying, "this shall never be taken again from the earth", [a] (as it had been when Christ's disciples were all killed.) Many have taken this to believe that the church Joseph established would never fall into serious wrongdoing — but those are two different things.

[PortalToParis]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

...and to see the Church as still the true and living one in which God is well pleased (though perhaps you don’t) when current leaders and the vast majority of faithful believers believe the false history and false revelations.

I align with the HMD website in which it argues that false traditions do inhibit greater knowledge and spiritual blessings from being received, but that rooting out those false traditions and beliefs releases us from that condemnation. I think this already happened to an extent when the priesthood and temple bans were lifted.

 

[The Nehor]

14 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

"1 We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.

2 We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life." (Doctrine and Covenants 134)

Section 134 is not a revelation. It was added to the church’s quasi-canon along with Oliver Cowdery’s article on marriage condemning polygamy. Also had this fun gem in it:

“We believe that it is not right to prohibit members of this church from marrying out of the church, if it be their determination so to do, but such persons will be considered weak in the faith of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”

[manol]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

It doesn’t seem that way.  

I don’t believe Joseph lied about it being from God, though I think he made plenty of mistakes….just so my bias is clear...

I think there was something very compelling and probably from God that motivated Joseph Smith to be sealed to multiple women (and to some men, from what I understand, but I haven't and probably won't research that). I do not think that something was polygamy as it was later taught and practiced by and under Brigham Young.

 

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Do they believe that polygamy is a commandment but that a wife has the right to keep her husband from following it?

(That probably sounds like a backhanded way to defend those verses in the D&C but I don't mean it like that.  I'm sincerely curious if their view of it is comparable to the situation with JS we are discussing or if they believe God condones choosing to stay monogamous.  If they do believe it's a commandment from God and not one they can refuse to obey without consequence, how does their doctrine say to handle it when one of them finds themselves in JS's predicament, having to choose between what they believe God says they have to do and what their wife will allow?)

Oboy, it's complicated. Short version: I don't think one man marrying multiple women was supposed to be a commandment, so by implication, I think the coercive language in Section 132 is man-made. I can go into detail about what I think Joseph was up to if you'd like, but it would just be speculation by a former member.

 

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I'm not agreeing with zealously or defending the actions of JS, but in terms of the idea that 'God's words and actions will always be consistent with our mortal idea of a good, fair, and loving God' having merit as its own principle, I don't think that really works.

There are too many babies born into circumstances that I cannot conceive of a loving God allowing to happen for me to use that as my standard for deciding what God will do and what He won't.  I cannot be a judge of what is good, and fair, and loving.  Otherwise I just create a god after my own image with my own sense of morality.

Even Christ taught some things that don't seem loving or fair to me, but His ways are not my ways so it makes sense that He and I will not always immediately see eye to eye on everything.

Short version: I differentiate between teachings from God and events that are allowed to happen on earth (and I don't believe that every teaching attributed to Christ in the New Testament was necessarily what he said or taught).  Again I can go into more detail if you'd like, with the same caveat.

 

1 hour ago, PortalToParis said:

Joseph Smith was also sealed to more people than just Emma. But the sealings were familial adoption sealings, not "permission to have illegal sex with" sealings. It was revealed to Joseph Smith that the sealing power was to bind everyone together in the priesthood...  Sealings did not originally have anything to do with sex or marriage.

This is in the same ballpark as my current views, which I arrived at via a different path, one less informed by an examination of the history than what you are describing. (I did investigate the subject in some depth starting thirty-something years ago, including looking into such historical sources as I had access to and living among polygamists, but did not find what I was looking for, which was a satisfactory explanation of "WHY".)

 

1 hour ago, PortalToParis said:

The sealing ordinance was later conflated by polygamists to be the plural marriage ordinance. When affidavits from women were collected for the Temple Lot trial, the question asked of them was, "Were you married or sealed to Joseph Smith?". They were only able to answer "Yes" or "No" in swearing answer to the affidavit, which is problematic if sealings and polygamy were never originally intended to be the same thing. It doesn't mean all, or most, of those women were lying.

Very interesting!

 

Edited April 6, 2024 by manol

[webbles]

2 hours ago, PortalToParis said:

These are really great questions you came up with, I'm impressed. You've managed to find a few things inconsistent about polygamy and concubinage being commanded by God. On the Historical Monogamy Doctrine website (https://historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/evidenceofdoctrine) there are a lot more inconsistencies that are explored, as well as an alternate narrative put forward of early Mormon polygamy. It touches on each of the points that you've brought up, so I recommend you read through it. If you do, I hope you reply about what you think of it.

Peace.

A big problem I have with the narrative of that site is it doesn't seem to deal with the aspect that we have all of these people that were taught the "true" process of eternal sealings and then within a few years, they all appear to switch to the "wrong" process of eternal marriage.  Almost all of the wives of Joseph Smith became wives of an apostle (or another man) within the first year or two after his death.  And many of these wives were not just sealings.  It just seems to gloss over what happened in those few years between Joseph's death and the exodus, when the doctrine supposedly changed.

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, PortalToParis said:

Nope, I am a life-long (and current) LDS member.

You must have missed my first response to this post. So I will respond again under the assumption you believe in the teaching of eternal marriage. With that in mind let us examine the verses you used to counter plural marriage:

"Marriage should be celebrated with prayer and thanksgiving; and at the solemnization, the persons to be married, standing together, the man on the right, and the woman on the left, shall be addressed, by the person officiating, as he shall be directed by the holy Spirit; and if there be no legal objections, he shall say, calling each by their names: “You both mutually agree to be each other’s companion, husband and wife, observing the legal rights belonging to this condition; that is, keeping yourselves wholly for each other, and from all others, during your lives.” And when they have answered “Yes,” he shall pronounce them “husband and wife” in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and by virtue of the laws of the country and authority vested in him: “may God add his blessings and keep you to fulfil [fulfill] your covenants from henceforth and forever. Amen.” 

*If this is the absolute and final word on marriage, it throws out the whole notion of temple marriage in which the couple kneels across from each other and are married for time and all eternity.

Why remain a "Utah Mormon" if Joseph III and the RLDS people were right the entire time?? *

[PortalToParis]

7 minutes ago, webbles said:

A big problem I have with the narrative of that site is it doesn't seem to deal with the aspect that we have all of these people that were taught the "true" process of eternal sealings and then within a few years, they all appear to switch to the "wrong" process of eternal marriage.  Almost all of the wives of Joseph Smith became wives of an apostle (or another man) within the first year or two after his death.  And many of these wives were not just sealings.  It just seems to gloss over what happened in those few years between Joseph's death and the exodus, when the doctrine supposedly changed.

Since the website is so short (only about two hours) it doesn't go into detail of any period of early Church history. But it does mention Hyrum's brother-in-law's (Joseph Fielding's) post-martyrdom account that the women's voices against polygamy had "risen to a very high pitch, saying it is abomination, whoredom, etc. A passage in the Book of Mormon is quoted in opposition to this Doctrine where it is said that a man should have but one Wife and no concubines." It also makes reference to William Smith's (Joseph and Hyrum's brother's) published post-martyrdom denunciation of polygamy, 

"That the church funds have been misapplied, I have no hesitation in asserting, for of necessity I have been made acquainted with the fact, that several houses have been filled up with women who have been secretly married to Brigham Young, H. C. Kimble [Heber C. Kimball], and Willard Richards—women with little children in their arms, who had no means of support except from the tithing funds."

On the "Sources" page of the website, it mentions the post-martyrdom disbanding of the Relief Society:

"I say I will curse every man that lets his wife or daughters meet again—until I tell them—What are relief societies for? To relieve us of our best men—They relieved us of Joseph and Hyrum." - Brigham Young

"When I want Sisters or the Wives of the members of this church to get up Relief Society I will summon them to my aid but until that time let them stay at home & if you see Females huddling together veto the concern." - Brigham Young

“Sister Emma... made use of the position she held to try to pervert the minds of the sisters” and “taught the Sisters that the principle of Celestial [Plural] Marriage as taught and practiced by Joseph Smith the prophet was not of God.” This, he [Brigham Young] says, was “the reason why the Relief Society did not continue.” - John Taylor

All this happened less than 18 months after the martyrdom. But there isn't much written about it from that time because polygamy wasn't openly acknowledged by the leaders and their wives until 1852.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, PortalToParis said:

It wouldn't matter to me if someone had co-written it with Joseph, because Joseph Smith had it voted on by assent as official doctrine, had it included in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine & Covenants, and kept it in the selection of sections for the 1844 edition of the Doctrine & Covenants too. It is also consistent with the other denunciations of polygamy that Joseph Smith makes, so it checks out to me as having his blessing on it whether it was by his pen or by another's. (Oliver Cowdery penned Joseph's dictation of The Book of Mormon, so I don't see why it would change my mind if you were to tell me that the original document is all in Oliver Cowdery's handwriting, but maybe you just using him as an example?)

I have just heard it was Oliver who had written it the Article. (Nehor mentioned it too, so it just isn’t my less than reliable memory). Can’t remember the original source or evidence given as it was 50 years ago or so.  I remember it was claimed by someone that he and others snuck it in while Joseph wasn’t in town and then he couldn’t remove it for some reason after he got back, but if it was published with his name and he was aware of it, I don’t buy it was forced on him.

The JSP says that most scholars believe Rigdon wrote the Lectures.  The Gospel Topics section also states this, adding it appears Joseph approved of the content.  OTOH, FAIR has Oliver authoring the marriage one, but not a source.  Elsewhere we repeat the scholars see it likely to be Rigdon.  I will check with others why we have that conflict. (Added:  my bad, I am conflating the 7 lectures on Faith with the Article of Marriage, not the same, no conflict exists

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/lectures-on-faith?lang=eng

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/doctrine-and-covenants-1835/259

 

Quote

Lecture one was contemporaneously published as a broadsideand lectures five and six were published in the May 1835 issue of the Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate,

13

 but there is no known manuscript copy of any of the lectures. Although no JS-era published version states who authored the lectures, they were traditionally attributed to JS. Modern scholars, however, largely agree that Rigdon authored most or all of the lectures.

14

Edited April 6, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, PortalToParis said:

I was studying the topic before that website came out, but it's the one I always recommend because it's a (relatively) short two-hour read whereas the other literature on it is way more extensive and much longer to get through. It doesn't have all the info on it but I think it's great as an introduction. I don't differ in a big way with anything on there, it's definitely standard with the views of most other faithful LDS anti-polygamists.

Do you have another website that collects the objections in a similar way?  It is very useful in summarizing the arguments.  I prefer to use a couple to be sure the majority of the arguments are covered.

Edited April 6, 2024 by Calm

[PortalToParis]

14 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

You must have missed my first response to this post. So I will respond again under the assumption you believe in the teaching of eternal marriage. With that in mind let us examine the verses you used to counter plural marriage:

*If this is the absolute and final word on marriage, it throws out the whole notion of temple marriage in which the couple kneels across from each other and are married for time and all eternity.

I do believe in marriage extending beyond this life, through the sealing ordinance as Joseph Smith later extended its use for. Maybe this passage would answer your question, in terms of helping you understand how I see things:

58 ~ None of the first sealings were between a married couple ~

Another factor that those espousing the established narrative have a difficult time explaining is the fact that Emma was not recorded to have been sealed to Joseph until 28 May 1843 [a] — after he is recorded to have been first sealed to twenty other women. [a] In fact, up until that time no man or woman had been sealed to their actual spouse.

This can also be better understood under an alternate narrative. It was within the same two-month period of Joseph being sealed to Emma (12 July 1843) that we have this entry in Joseph's office journal, scribed by Willard Richards,

            Received a revelation in the office in presence of Hyrum & W[illia]m Clayton

Four days later on 16 July 1843 Willard Richards scribed,

            No man can obtain an eternal Blessing unless the contract or covenant be made in view of Eternity.

            All contracts in view of this Life only terminate with this Life.

It was during this season then that Joseph first received revelation that the sealing power was not only to seal two families for eternity, but also to seal married couples together that their marital unions might last through eternity. On 29 May, the morning after Joseph and Emma were sealed, Brigham & Mary Ann Young and Willard & Jennetta Richards gathered above the store to have their legal marriages sealed. Hyrum & Mary Fielding Smith were also there, and Mary Fielding acted as proxy for Hyrum to be sealed to his first wife, Jerusha.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, PortalToParis said:

I think this comes from the (I believe false) logic of "if they didn't use their priesthood worthily, then their priesthood is invalid and the LDS church is nothing". But the HMD website uses the idea of validity of priesthood ordination being separate from worthiness, and uses the example of Alma being ordained to the priesthood by King Noah's wicked priests but afterwards still using his same priesthood keys to illustrate this: 

93. 'What about the keys of the priesthood? If you think the church to be wrong about this, then you must be denouncing the validity of the church's priesthood keys.'

Under church doctrine, legitimacy of performed priesthood ordinances is contingent upon the validity of the ordination of the priesthood holder, not the worthiness of the priesthood holder — if a bishop is found to be engaging in wrongdoing, even the most serious wrongdoing, his authorization to perform further ordinances is removed, but any ordinances he has already performed are not re-done. This was the case during Joseph Smith’s lifetime as well, and is the same for any other priesthood position besides only a bishop. Denouncing wrongdoing and unworthiness in past leaders does not, under the doctrine established by Joseph Smith, call any later priesthood holder's keys into question. This also aligns with Book of Mormon accounts of priesthood ordination, as Alma the Elder, despite having been ordained as a priest by the other wicked priests of King Noah, afterwards continued to exercise his same priesthood keys. 

John the Baptist, in his conferring of the Aaronic priesthood on Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, is quoted as saying, "this shall never be taken again from the earth", [a] (as it had been when Christ's disciples were all killed.) Many have taken this to believe that the church Joseph established would never fall into serious wrongdoing — but those are two different things.

And I can see this for a short period of time….but the Church has been teaching a pretty massive false doctrine for the majority of its existence and Brigham Young didn’t just lie if this is true, he married a number of women and caused a good percentage of the Church to sin and not just a little inconvenience, but massive harm if it wasn’t truly a sacrifice ordered by God for some purpose of his.

plus there is the whole “amen to his priesthood” for anyone who uses it in unrighteous domination of others.

Quote

37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

I definitely don’t want to argue you should leave the Church as false, I am glad you can reconcile the conflict,  I just like to hear people’s thought process.  Contrast it with my own.  Lots of times I change how I think myself when I hear striking ideas.  Other times it illuminates why I think a certain way, but mostly it is just interesting seeing how different we all are in how we approach things.

Edited April 6, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, PortalToParis said:

do believe in marriage extending beyond this life, through the sealing ordinance as Joseph Smith later extended its use for.

How do you address those who were married to more than one person due to death or divorce?  First come, first served?  (Not a challenge, I like to hear different ideas on how the future looks to people.)

For example:

Quote

Hyrum & Mary Fielding Smith were also there, and Mary Fielding acted as proxy for Hyrum to be sealed to his first wife, Jerusha.

Was Mary also sealed to Hyrum?

Edited April 6, 2024 by Calm

[PortalToParis]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you have another website that collects the objections in a similar way?  It is very useful in summarizing the arguments.  I prefer to use a couple to be sure the majority of the arguments are covered.

The HMD website is the only one I know of that segments each argument of the topic by an LDS member. There is also the https://www.salemthoughts.com/Topics/JosephSmith-Honest_Seer.shtml web page, which segments all of its points, but I believe that to be done by a now-Snufferite, and it isn't as extensive (but still interesting to read if you want to compare the two sites and perspectives.)

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, manol said:

.

 

Oboy, it's complicated. Short version: I don't think one man marrying multiple women was supposed to be a commandment, so by implication, I think the coercive language in Section 132 is man-made. I can go into detail about what I think Joseph was up to if you'd like, but it would just be speculation by a former member.

 

 

I was asking about the polygamists you said you lived with and their beliefs.  Sorry for the confusion.

[PortalToParis]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

How do you address those who were married to more than one person due to death or divorce?  First come, first served?  (Not a challenge, I like to hear different ideas on how the future looks to people.)

Different people believe differently on this. Some believe that post-mortality there could be some form of consensual non-monogamy for a select few people who have had more than one marriage partner/child-bearing partner (but not mass polygyny in heaven, see point #28 of the site). Hyrum Smith, in one of his anti-polygamy sermons, states his belief that he will be with both of his wives after death.

Others believe that we will become a God/Goddess pair with only one other person, and it will be with whatever person we progressed furthest with spiritually, or whichever one we are sealed to that we are most compatible to become a God/Goddess pair with -- but that any righteous spouse who gets "left out" will, under the principle of eternal progression, have eternal opportunity to be paired with someone who is more compatible for them.

Edited April 6, 2024 by PortalToParis

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, PortalToParis said:

select few people who have had more than one marriage partner/child-bearing partner

There are tons of these couples over the existence of humanity though due to high mortality in childbirth as well as all the men that died and women needing to remarry to be able to be financially stable.

But I was more interested in how you see it because I can pick your brain for nuances and can’t others not here.  .:) 

Edited April 6, 2024 by Calm

[PortalToParis]

34 minutes ago, Calm said:

Was Mary also sealed to Hyrum?

Yes, otherwise their children wouldn't have been sealed to anyone.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, PortalToParis said:

Yes, otherwise their children wouldn't have been sealed to anyone.

So what is the problem than with polygyny if serial polygyny is righteous?

[Calm]

Found this on authorship of 101…which likely is where I got the idea of blaming Oliver, etc (this stuff was repeated to me)

Quote

A key to resolving the accusations surrounding Oliver’s purported plural marriage activity in the early 1830s is the publication of his article on marriage, which he wrote sometime prior to August 17, 1835. The article was first published in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants as section 101 and remained there until 1876. It was issued in part as a response to accusations of polygamy, a charge first leveled against Church members in 1831 according to popular belief that the law of consecration included a “community of wives.”[29] Note the following statement: “Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.”[30] This statement appears to plainly reflect Oliver’s personal views and position on the practice.

Critics of polygamy during the decades before 1876 would often refer to the article to demonstrate that Church members did not follow their own scriptures and laws. The RLDS Church was also aggressive, referring to the marriage article as “Joseph Smith’s marital standard,” proclaiming polygamy was Brigham Young’s creation.[31] Over time the article on marriage became a small embarrassment to Church leaders who were openly practicing plural marriage between 1852 and 1890. It appears that they sought to place some distance between it and Joseph Smith.[32] Starting in 1869 with the visit of Joseph Smith’s sons David and Alexander to Salt Lake City, President Brigham Young reported to the Prophet’s sons that the article was written by Oliver Cowdery without Joseph’s approval or as an attempt to quell rumors that Oliver himself had started through his own polygamous activity.[33] President Wilford Woodruff recalled in 1892: “I have heard representations that the doctrine [on marriage] as put into the book of doctrine and covenants . . . by Oliver Cowdery . . . was represented as being contrary to the wishes of Joseph smith, but I couldn’t swear that that was the fact.”[34]

Concerning the possibility of Cowdery practicing plural marriage, Todd Compton summarized, “Evidence of a plural marriage for Cowdery in Kirtland is not persuasive.” [35] A review of contemporary documents regarding Oliver’s personal views and behavior is less than conclusive regarding any possible involvement in or acceptance of plural marriage at any time. In short, to assert that Oliver Cowdery ever accepted or practiced polygamy is a conclusion that goes beyond available evidence.