Related Information to Plural Marriage: In That Day Seven Women Shall...

Plural Marriage: In That Day Seven Women Shall... - Page 52

I accept that it is canonized and part of the Doctrine and Covenants. From all that I have read, it seems very clear that it was intended to be just a political document. I don't know the history of it, when it was added to the scriptures.

I have just been looking for some information on the Manifesto, Official Declaration-1. I can't find anywhere that indicates it was ever canonized. I know that Official Declaration-2 was not, it was just added. It appears to me that the Manifesto went through the same process.

Thanks for pointing this out. It clears up my thoughts on the Manifesto. It was, and is, a political document.

Shall Women Day That Marriage Plural

Your welcome I guess, however you do realize that the manifesto is regarded by the Church as scripture. Keep in mind the definition of scripture that is located in the LDS Dictionary basically says that any statement can be scripture so long as the Church recognizes it as such.

Plural Marriage: In That Day Seven Women Shall... Studies Doctrine Mormon

Interesting discussion, I would like to add a couple of points.

First of all, members of the Church wonder why Joseph Smith and some few Brethren were practising Plural marriage in secret prior to the 1852 announcement of it to the General Church Membership. We also think about Post-Manifesto marriages in Mexico and Canada because it was "legal" on those lands.

Well, polygamy was never legal in the US as far as I am concerned neither in Mexico. Bigamy was already illegal in the state of Illinois in 1830 and these marriages were only "spiritual" because they were not accepted by the law. There are several wives of Brigham Young who tried to "divorce" him but it was not possible because those marriages were never legal in the first place.

(Revised Laws of Illinois, 1833, p.198-99)

The 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants specifically prohibits Plural Marriage:

(History of the Church, vol. 2, pg. 247)

This is interesting knowing that Joseph Smith himself had enter the practised a couple of years ago prior to this Doctrine and Covenants edition.

In "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith", p. 119. he is quoted to have said the following: "Do the Mormons believe in having more wives than one? No, not at the same time.But they believe that if their companion dies, they have a right to marry again."

Brigham Young tried to establish the Territory of Deseret when he reached Utah but the Congress rejected but he was appointed Governor to oversees the area and when Utah became officially US territory (three years later)all citizens living there became subject to the common laws of the nation, including marriage laws.

The reason for some of this information is to point out the fact that the reason for stopping Plural Marriage was NOT because it became "illegal" and the Saints needed to obey the laws of the land as stated in the Manifesto. The laws of the land clearly said that it was illegalfor over 40 years!

Now, if as JB said, the Manifesto is canonized Scripture and it was meant for ALL the Saints to obey, and it was revealed by God then why the same Prophet who received such revelation from God and issued the Manifesto entered new Plural Marriages after the Manifesto? Why the following Prophets entered new Plural Marriages too?

So what the heck is going on here? What was the REAL reason for the Manifesto? When I read it, I have the impression I am reading a "press release" than anything else to calm down the athmosphere of hate towards the Saints because of this practise AND the fact that the Prophet himself that issued it and other leaders entered new marriages is a proof in itself that it was NOT meant to be biding to the Saints. If it was, then (with all due respect) we had a bunch of hypocrites leading the Church.

We STILL have Doctrine and Covenants 132 which contains the "revelation on celestial marriage", which CLEARLY sanctions plural marriage. Yet, President Gordon B Hinckley in an interview with Larry King said that Polygamy is not "doctrinal". How is that possible when it is canonized in our Scriptures? He went further saying it is not "legal" and that we believe in obeying the laws of the land.

Beautiful...then what would be the excuse if Plural Marriage becomes legal in the USA?

Edited: LDS_forever on 7th Sep, 2006 - 2:39pm

Page 52 Shall Women Day That Marriage Plural

I asked a fundamentalist friend for a little clarification concerning the Manifesto. The only "vote" on it came in the October 1890 General Conference. At that time, it had already been sent to the President of the United States, as well as other political officials.

When it was voted upon in General Conference, to add it to the scriptures, less than 1/2 of the people present voted for it. Almost none of the people who had risked their liberty and even their lives to live the law of Plural Marriage were in attendance.

Based on that ONE vote, it became "scripture".

Once again. I don't accept the Manifesto as scripture. The Church, under Heber J. Grant, MADE it binding upon the Saints. But, even then, nobody called it scripture. The closest that anyone can claim towards revelation concerning the halting of this Principle is the statement that Wilford Woodruff added to it, a year after it was included in the D&C, that the Lord showed him what would happen to the Church.

I don't recall if this has been brought up before in this subject. But the anti-Mormons love to quote Joseph Smith's statement that he would see the Lord, face-to-face, by the time he was 85 years old. That year would have been 1890. So, my question is, would Joseph Smith have succumbed to the political pressures and halted this practice, or would he have left it up to the Lord to save the Church? Considering the fact that pretty much all the changes to the doctrines, ordinances, and practices of the Church have come since 1890, I truly believe that that was our last chance to truly trust in the Lord.

As I said before, no Prophet since Joseph F. Smith has reported any sort of detailed visionary revelation. Joseph F. Smith was the last Prophet who lived the Principle of Celestial Plural Marriage, while President of the Church.

I have an electronic copy of Ogden Kraut's booklet outlining a century of changes, listing all the changes made since the Manifesto was published. They include extensive changes in:
1. The political Kingdom of God
2. The economic plan of God
3. The religious structure of the Church.

The political and economic structures were completely eliminated (the Council of 50, the United Order). We have been discussing the single most visible change within the Church, but there are many, many more.

The reason I bring this up is that there are a lot of people who believe that Francis M. Lyman, and others, entered into an "unholy alliance" with the political arms of the US to bring about the downfall of the Kingdom of God. Since all of the existing structures of the Kingdom of God disappeared at the same time, I have to seriously consider the same thing.

Yes, I realize that. But not all "scripture" in the scriptures actually is true scripture. Just remember that the Song of Songs also meets that definition. If it doesn't represent the Will and Word of the Lord, then it isn't scripture, no matter what the majority of the members of the Church may think.

Shall Women Day That Marriage Plural

You are talking about the Songs of Solomon? The Church made a statement on that... it is not inspired and is only there as part of the King James Bible.

I understand what you are saying, but weary of the sources you are using to provide your information. Here is a thought... a 'What If' situation if you like...

Suppose the Lord in his infinite wisdom allowed the practise to be stopped or should I say, did not insist in it being practised for the sake of keeping His Church 'around'? In other words, His flock was not worthy enough so why insist on something they cannot abide?

As an ensample... many times in the Book of Mormon I read where a righteous people had to uproot themselves in order to escape an enemy (usually the Lamanites) and many times I wondered... why didn't the Lord just protect them? It seems the Lord not only uses divine power to save, but also withholds to test.

It could be that not willing to fight against the US government may have been a test they failed and according to the Lord they would have lost.

Really, we are dwelling in the past here. I have a much bigger question that I feel the focus really should be on... and that is... if the the US Supreme court allows all kinds of marriage (including Plural), will the Church still try to stop having Celestial Plural Marriage? Probably so, because they are fighting it now - tooth and nail.

Plural Marriage: In That Day Seven Women Shall...

I am almost positive that the Church will still forbid it. I believe that the Church has thoroughly rejected this principle, to the point that the Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve no longer have the authority. In fact, I believe that only Patriarch Smith has the authority right now, within the Church.

Besides, there is now over 100 years of denying the principle. If they suddenly allowed it again just because it was legal, they would be admitting that that they allowed the world to overcome the Kingdom of God.

Plural Marriage That Day Women Shall... - Page 52

Reverting back to past for a bit... this goes to show that if Joseph did this while hiding then he knew what would happen if he made it public. I honestly feel that there probably never was an intention to broadcast this doctrine really to the public, but dissenters did it for the Church, and in a negative light at that.

It is also interesting to note that Joseph was willing to live this despite the law, even til death (which is the reason I think they killed him: jealousy / fear for these marriages and their wives being taken). Keep in mind that not all Saints were like Joseph, the price was just too high. Could you have done it?

Here is another 'What If' situation...

Pres. Hinckley prays to the Lord... "Should we institute Plural Marriage"?

Answer: "No, I had since removed this blessing from among you until such time that the Saints become worthy of this covenant."

What if this were true Nighthawk then what would be your response?

Plural Marriage That Day Women Shall... Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 52

I would seriously pray about it. But first, I would have to see where President Hinckley actually used specific words about it. There have never been such specific wording used, only vague references, contradictory statements, and lots and lots of speculation.

In fact, the very words you used in your scenario only come from speculation. There are no clear, unambiguous statements from any unimpeachable source stating that the blessing has been removed until the Saints are worthy for it. At least as far as I know.