My "review" of the Essay, "Plural Marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"

9/7/17

So this is going to a bit different than what I have done before. I am wanting to tackle the Essays on the church website. This will be a trial run. Who knows, if it goes well and I enjoy it, I may go through all of them. So, here is the plan, I am going to copy the essay word for word, then interject throughout. I want to pay special attention to footnotes. So, the text of the Essay will be in blue, with my comments and notes found in the footnotes will be in green (for those who are color blind, I am sorry, the background of this blog setup doesn’t really allow for anything that much better). Something else I should note, sources will still be linked, but they won’t be the normal blue when they are found in my comments section. Instead, they will just have the underlined portion. As far as I can currently see, the formatting looks to be holding true of when I originally typed it up. If you happen to find any errors, please let me know in the comments, or via reddit @ https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/6ypcvr/my_latest_blog_post_tearing_into_the_churches/

The first Essay that I want to dive into is, “Plural Marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” Here we go.

Latter-day Saints believe that the marriage of one man and one woman is the Lord’s standing law of marriage. In biblical times, the Lord commanded some to practice plural marriage—the marriage of one man and more than one woman.¹

Our first footnote. Here it lists the following: Doctrine and Covenants 132:34–38; Jacob 2:30; see also Genesis 16. So, the essay says that the lord has commanded some to practice pleural marriage. Let’s look at the sources. D&C 132: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob of the bible “received concubines … they were given unto him, and he abode in my law.” It also talks about David and Solomon having many wives and concubines, and that this was all good until there was the Uriah and his wife with David.  OK, that source fits, other than the fact that it was written by Joseph Smith, not by those prophets of old. All of these prophets of old were allowed to have, and did not sin in having multiple wives and concubines, except for when David ended up hooking up with another man’s wife. At least that is what this scripture says, what about the rest?  

Now, Jacob: verse 30- says NOTHING about marriage! “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.” But it sure does in verse 24: “Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.” Wait! Isn’t that the EXACT opposite of what we just found in the D&C?!?! Yes, it sure is. So why would the church give this reference to explain pleural marriage? It literally says the exact opposite of what they are trying to point out. Sounds like a REALLY bad source to get to your stated conclusion.

Genesis 16 - Nowhere does it say that the Lord commanded Abraham to take Hagar as his wife. The closest we get to this is when an angel appears to Hagar after she fled. 16:9-10 "And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands. And the angel of the Lord said under her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude." This does not show that the Lord either condoned plural marriage, or commanded it. Hagar was already pregnant with Ishmael at this time and she was being commanded to go back. There is no record of any other children born of Hagar.

            So, of the 3 scriptures listed as sources, only 1 of them states anything close to what they are trying to say in the Essay. And that source is from the D&C, which I would not consider a great source to talk about Old Testament times. Back to the Essay.

By revelation, the Lord commanded Joseph Smith to institute the practice of plural marriage among Church members in the early 1840s. For more than half a century, plural marriage was practiced by some Latter-day Saints under the direction of the Church President.²

Footnote 2: The text of this footnote contradicts the scripture referenced again. The note on the footnote says “Doctrine and Covenants 132:7. The Church President periodically set apart others to perform plural marriages.” So when reading 132:7 we should find it saying something to state that was the case right? Let’s take a look:  

“And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.”

132:7 explicitly states that “there is but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred.” Why would the essay hide the truth (that other church leaders outside of the President approved plural marriage) in the footnote that links to a scripture that argues against the truth that was buried? It doesn’t seem like they thought many people would dig into the footnotes now does it?

Something else that I want to bring up at this point. Whenever they currently teach about the “New and everlasting covenant” they ALWAYS refer to it being about temple marriage and the sealing powers. But here in D&C 132:4, where we first hear of the “New and everlasting covenant”, we find out that it has nothing to do with the sealing power and refers to pleural marriage.

Latter-day Saints do not understand all of God’s purposes in instituting, through His prophets, the practice of plural marriage. The Book of Mormon identifies one reason for God to command it: to increase the number of children born in the gospel covenant in order to “raise up seed unto [the Lord].”³

Footnote 3 says to look at Jacob 2:30. But wait, haven’t we already looked there and found that it says nothing about marriage? Yes, yes we have. So, it dose talk about “raising up seed,” what else does it say?

“30 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.

31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.

32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.”

It is saying that the men in that time were screwing up by having multiple wives and concubines! It is saying that the Lord of Hosts will come against the men of his people and then replace them with those who are will no cause sorrow among the Lords daughters! IT IS LITTERALLY SAYING THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT THEY CLAIM IN THE ESSAY! I am livid here! They are picking and choosing key lines out of the scriptures to fit what they want. This chapter in Jacob says that it is ABOMINABLE to have multiple wives (verse 24)! Yet they are finding 5 words that are in the right order to try and prove the EXACT OPPOSITE point! This is downright offensive that they are claiming this crap.

Plural marriage did result in the birth of large numbers of children within faithful Latter-day Saint homes. It also shaped 19^th-century Mormon society in many ways: marriage became available to virtually all who desired it; per-capita inequality of wealth was diminished as economically disadvantaged women married into more financially stable households; and ethnic intermarriages were increased*, which helped to unite a diverse immigrant population. Plural marriage also helped create and strengthen a sense of cohesion and group identification among Latter-day Saints. Church members came to see themselves as a “peculiar people,” covenant-bound to carry out the commands of God despite outside opposition.⁴

I will get to Footnote 4 in a minute, first I want to address the * I placed in that paragraph. “Ethnic intermarriages were increased.” WHAT??? That sounds dangerous given what Brigham Young was teaching at that time period.

“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol.10, p.110). If there really were an increases in these Ethnic intermarriages, there would surely be an increase in people dropping “dead on the spot” then too.

So, I find it very hard to believe that there was any sort of increase in “Ethnic intermarriages” under teachings like that. Obviously this statement is full of crap, but still, if that is what your leader is telling you, do you really think a guy looking for another wife to add to his harem would go for an “ethnic” woman?

Footnote 4: The 3 scriptures referenced in the footnote are: 1 Peter 2:9, Jacob 1:8, and Acts 5:41

1 Peter 2:9  “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:”

The people Peter were talking about were peculiar in their belief in Christ. The early Saints were most definitely peculiar WITHOUT plural marriage. A new book of scripture? A modern day prophet? You can stop there and consider the Saints peculiar. Those core beliefs to the restoration should be more than enough to "help create and strengthen a sense of cohesion and group identification".

While reading this scripture in Peter, if you continue on just a bit you come across another very interesting bit of information. In 1 Peter 2:13-14 we read, "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well". So this falls in line with what we know as the Article of Faith number 12. Long story short, we believe in following the law. Of course, it should be noted that plural marriage was made illegal in Illinois in 1833. (Here's a PDF of "The Revised Law of Illinois" published in 1833. Read page 198) Of course Joseph and others kept it so quiet. It was illegal.

Ok, next scripture is Jacob 1:8. “Wherefore, we would to God that we could persuade all men not to rebel against God, to provoke him to anger, but that all men would believe in Christ, and view his death, and suffer his cross and bear the shame of the world; wherefore, I, Jacob, take it upon me to fulfil the commandment of my brother Nephi.”

OK, so here is the leap that I think they are trying to make here is that we should not “rebel against God” and just do what he says and have multiple wives. Yet again, this is contrary to what is taught (look again at Jacob 2:30) as well as being against the law, yet we claim that we should be a law abiding people. So this “reference” is worthless, next.

Acts 5:41 “And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name.”

Peter and John were arrested for testifying of Christ. We read in 5:40 (the verse before the footnote reference), “…when they had called the apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.” The “shame” they suffered was being arrested and the beaten for teaching and preaching of Christ. I guess that this fits as the reference from the essay to, “carry out the commands of God despite outside opposition.”

The Beginnings of Plural Marriage in the Church

Polygamy had been permitted for millennia in many cultures and religions, but, with few exceptions, it was rejected in Western cultures. In Joseph Smith’s time, monogamy was the only legal form of marriage in the United States.

Again we come up against the issue of it being illegal to have multiple wives. It just said so, right in the essay! So how can Joseph Smith write the Articles of Faith that clearly state we should be, “… obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law” while he himself is not???

The revelation on plural marriage, recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 132, emerged partly from Joseph Smith’s study of the Old Testament in 1831. Latter-day Saints understood that they were living in the latter days, in what the revelations called the “dispensation of the fulness of times.”⁵

The 3 scriptures referenced in footnote 5 are D&C 112:30, D&C 124:41 and D&C 128:18.

All 3 scriptures mention the "dispensation of fulness of times." As part of this dispensation, ancient principles would be restored to the earth. The next section and footnote aim to show that plural marriage is one of these principles that needed to be restored, so let’s go there, since this is pointless.

Ancient principles—such as prophets, priesthood, and temples—would be restored to the earth. Plural marriage, practiced by ancient patriarchs like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses, was one of those ancient principles.⁶

Alright, now we are finally talking about prophets of old who practiced and taught about pleural marriage, thus making it a principle of the gospel that was practiced back in their day(s) and thus being brought back. Wait, the only scripture listed is D&C 132: 1, 34-38 are referenced.

Verse 1- “Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—“

OK, essay says Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses, D&C covers all of those, while adding David and Solomon. Something that should have probably been brought up by now, these guys were all Old Testament times, like, Law of Moses. So it only seems logical to look that direction for instruction as to what was the law for them.

So, what does the Mosaic Law say about plural marriage? Deuteronomy 17:17- "Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.”

I don’t know about you, but this seems rather clear to me. The law these prophets of old were to follow commanded them NOT to have many wives.

Just for the fun of it, let’s do just a bit of digging on each of these guys.

Abraham: Already discussed above from Genesis 16, recap- nothing about a commandment from God, or saying that having multiple wives was a good thing.

Isaac: So, I am having a really hard time finding any record that Isaac had any wife beyond Rebekah. Similar to Abraham and Sarah, Rebekah was barren. But Isaac didn't take another wife. Genesis 25:21 says, "And Isaac entreated the Lord for his wife, because she was barren: and the Lord was entreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived.” So another wife wasn’t needed, he got his lineage through his first (and only) wife.

Jacob: Anyone who knows the story of Jacob knows that his “love life” was “messed up” to say the least. If you want to read it all, here you go, Genesis 29, otherwise I’ll try and sum it up. So, Jacob falls for Rachel. The deal he strikes with her father Laban is that he will serve Laban for seven years to marry her. He works his seven years. At the end of the seven years, there is a marriage. Long story short Laban tricked Jacob and gave him his elder daughter, Leah. Jacob, maybe not being the brightest guy, didn't realize it wasn't Rachel until the morning (you know, after the honeymoon night). So he went back to Laban and basically says, “What the crap dude? We had a deal?! To which Laban replies that his eldest daughter had to be married first (stupid old tradition that bit Jacob in the butt). Jacob could marry Rachel as well, but he would have to work another seven years to do so. Jacob is REALLY into Rachel, so he agrees. Laban must have figured it was a low blow to trick Jacob into taking Leah, so he lets Jacob marry her early, but still has to work the 7 years (dessert first this time). OK, Jacob has some sons with Leah, Rachel starts getting nervous that she hasn't had any kids yet (Gen 30:1). Jacob gets ticked at Rachel about that as well (Gen. 30:2). Rachel takes a page out of Jacob's grandma's book and tells him to take her handmaid Bilhah to have son kids (Gen 30:4). Not to be outdone, Leah gives Jacob her handmaid Zilpah to have some kids; and she does. Rachel finally gets pregnant herself, and has Joseph, at which time Jacob goes to Laban and asks him permission to leave his services.

OK, why did I just walk through that whole story? For one, I find it to be classic, messed up Old Testament teaching. But the main purpose is to show the complete lack of a commandment from God to take multiple wives. Jacob was initially duped by his father in law to take both of his daughters as wives, then the daughters gave their handmaids to him. God never gave him any extra wives, nor did he state he was pleased, and most of all, he never commanded Jacob to take multiple wives.

Moses: Moses married Zipporah (Exodus 2). Much later, like when Moses was 80 years old, we find in Numbers 12:1-2 that Aaron and Miriam are ticked that Moses took another wife, "And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman." Now, it should be said that we don't know if Zipporah was alive at this time. But even if she still is, there is nothing saying that God commanded Moses to marry another woman. It does say that God gets mad at Aaron and Miriam for speaking against Moses (it should be noted that some biblical scholars believe this is a racial issue, not the fact that he has another wife), and God wasn't happy that they objected due to where she was from (being the lineage of Cain).

David & Solomon: 1 Kings 11:1-4, “But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites; 2 Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love. 3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart. 4 For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father.” OK, again, it doesn’t say anything about God commanding the multiple wives. It even says in verse 6, “And Solomon did evil in the sight of the Lord, and went not fully after the Lord, as did David his father.” So it seems that this was a bad thing according to God. So, another prophet of old, this time in trouble for having multiple wives, definitely not being commanded by God to do it.

So there you have it. D&C 132:1 points to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David and Solomon as examples of the principle and doctrine of plural marriage, but NONE of them show that God commanded it. In Isaac's case, he never had another wife that we have record of. In David and Solomon's case, their plural marriages were actually condemned by God in the Old Testament.

Ok, back to the footnote, D&C 132: 34-38: “34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises. 

35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it. 

36 Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertheless, it was written: Thou shalt not kill. Abraham, however, did not refuse, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness. 

37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods. 

38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.”

We just got done looking at all of these prophets in the Bible, none of what Joseph claims here appears in the Bible. There doesn’t appear to be any recording of God having commanded, or allowed plural marriage, but instead there are a few places where he instead, condemns it.

The same revelation that taught of plural marriage was embedded within a revelation about eternal marriage—the teaching that marriage could last beyond death. Monogamous and plural marriages performed by priesthood power could seal loved ones to each other for eternity, on condition of righteousness.⁷

Footnote 7 references D&C 132:7 and 131:2-3. We've already talked about 132:7 previously, so let’s skip that. D&C 131:2-3 seems to only cause more troubles than it does comfort, for me at least. 2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; 

3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.” 

The issue here, in D&C 132:4 we read that this, “new and everlasting covenant” is pleural marriage. But that sure isn’t what they teach today. Today they say that this “new and everlasting covenant is temple marriage. But that sure was not the case back then.  

Just for the fun of it, let’s check out this quote by Brigham Young about plural marriage: "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them." 

This sure makes it look that if you want to be the top of the Celestial Kingdom, you better be polygamous. So with that said, I guess we can move on.

The revelation on marriage stated general principles; it did not explain how to implement plural marriage in all its particulars. In Nauvoo, Joseph Smith married additional wives and authorized other Latter-day Saints to practice plural marriage. The practice was introduced carefully and incrementally, and participants vowed to keep their participation confidential, anticipating a time when husbands and wives could acknowledge one another publicly.

Joseph Smith was married to Fanny Alger in 1833. The sealing power was delivered in April of 1836. And of course D&C 132, with the rules and orders to live this way, was recorded in 1843. Now, it does say in the chapter heading that there was, “evidence indicates that some of the principles involved in this revelation were known by the Prophet as early as 1831.” So what was the point of plural marriage? If it was for raising up seed, Joseph Smith failed, since we have no record of children with any of his 40+ wives, other than Emma. If it was to seal families together, why was Joseph marrying other women prior to the sealing power being back on the Earth? There is a lot not answered; besides the fact that Joseph lied during his lifetime, saying that he only had one wife.

Plural Marriage and Families in 19th-Century Utah

Between 1852 and 1890, Latter-day Saints openly practiced plural marriage. Most plural families lived in Utah. Women and men who lived within plural marriage attested to challenges and difficulties but also to the love and joy they found within their families. They believed it was a commandment of God at that time and that obedience would bring great blessings to them and their posterity. Church leaders taught that participants in plural marriages should seek to develop a generous spirit of unselfishness and the pure love of Christ for everyone involved.

Again, just want to point out that Polygamy is against the law at this time. But, in 1847, the area that became Utah was part of the Mexican territory that didn’t become part of the United States until 1852.

Although some leaders had large polygamous families, two-thirds of polygamist men had only two wives at a time. Church leaders recognized that plural marriages could be particularly difficult for women. Divorce was therefore available to women who were unhappy in their marriages; remarriage was also readily available. Women sometimes married at young ages in the first decade of Utah settlement, which was typical of women living in frontier areas at the time. At its peak in 1857, perhaps one half of all Utah Latter-day Saints experienced plural marriage as a husband, wife, or child. The percentage of those involved in plural marriage steadily declined over the next three decades.

This just sounds a bit crazy by itself. Why did it seem that the leaders (all male leadership mind you) seem to have the “large polygamous families”? If it was truly a commandment, and the only way for men to become Gods, then why would any man not have multiple wives?

During the years that plural marriage was publicly taught, not all Latter-day Saints were expected to live the principle, though all were expected to accept it as a revelation from God. Indeed, this system of marriage could not have been universal due to the ratio of men to women. Women were free to choose their spouses, whether to enter into a polygamous or a monogamous union, or whether to marry at all. Some men entered plural marriage because they were asked to do so by Church leaders, while others initiated the process themselves; all were required to obtain the approval of Church leaders before entering a plural marriage.

Again, per Brigham Young: "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them." If this is what was taught, then how can the Essay say that not all the saints were expected to live it? They only had to live it if they wanted to attain the highest place of glory in the life after this.

Anti-polygamy Legislation and the End of Plural Marriage

Beginning in 1862, the U.S. government passed laws against the practice of plural marriage. After the U.S. Supreme Court found the anti-polygamy laws to be constitutional in 1879, federal officials began prosecuting polygamous husbands and wives during the 1880s. Believing these laws to be unjust, Latter-day Saints engaged in civil disobedience by continuing to practice plural marriage and by attempting to avoid arrest by moving to the homes of friends or family or by hiding under assumed names. When convicted, they paid fines and submitted to jail time.

OK, state law of Illinois says that it was illegal, so what to the saints do? That’s right, ignore it. They do keep it on the down-low so that they don’t have all of their learders getting carried off to jail, but they just ignore the law. Why would we think anything different would happen if it were now a federal law? But wait, don’t we believe in the institution of government? And also that we should follow the laws of that government? Article of Faith number 12, written by Joseph Smith says, “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” Again, this is supposed to represent a CORE belief for this church, that we obey the law. In the U.S., if the Supreme Court upholds a law, that is basically the end all of any discussion, if they say it is “constitutional”, there is no more argument. But the leaders of the church blow it off, and keep on going.

One of the anti-polygamy laws permitted the U.S. government to seize Church property. Federal officers soon threatened to take Latter-day Saint temples. The work of salvation for both the living and the dead was now in jeopardy. In September 1890, Church President Wilford Woodruff felt inspired to issue the Manifesto. “Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages,” President Woodruff explained, “I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.”⁸

The footnote 8 references Official Declaration 1. Nuts and bolts version of this “Declaration;” “I, therefore, as President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, do hereby, in the most solemn manner, declare that these charges are false. We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice, and I deny that either forty or any other number of plural marriages have during that period been solemnized in our Temples or in any other place in the Territory.”  

He also makes sure to specify that he intends to follow those laws (as is mentioned in the essay itself). But I think that this is the part that I find most interesting, right at the end of Woodruff’s portion; “There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of my associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy; and when any Elder of the Church has used language which appeared to convey any such teaching, he has been promptly reproved.” There is a few key words right there, “during the time specified.” This “time specified refers specifically to “Last June, or during the past year,” being the year prior to Oct 6^th, 1890. It says nothing prior to that point (Oct 1889), only since that time.

The full implications of the document were not apparent at first. The Lord’s way is to speak “line upon line; here a little, there a little.”⁹ Like the beginning of plural marriage in the Church, the end of the practice was gradual and incremental, a process filled with difficulties and uncertainties.

OK, footnote 9 lists a handful of different scriptures: Isaiah 28:10, 13; 2 Nephi 28:30; Doctrine and Covenants 98:12. They all basically hit the same thing, that God gives information bit by bit. But I don’t see how that fits in this case. I can understand the fact that maybe there was some “line upon line” action with the start of polygamy, but that is not the same situation we have here. There is one issue here, stopping. It is not the same issue we find with the word of wisdom that was an addiction principle, that forcing every leader of the church to stop drinking/chewing at the same time would not work (even Joseph Smith was drinking while he was in Carthage Jail). This is something that can be stopped “cold turkey” as it were. You just stopped marrying guys to multiple wives, right then, done. But even here in the next paragraph of the Essay we find that this was not the case.

The Manifesto declared President Woodruff’s intention to submit to the laws of the United States, and new plural marriages within that jurisdiction largely came to an end. But a small number of plural marriages continued to be performed in Mexico and Canada, under the sanction of some Church leaders. As a rule, these marriages were not promoted by Church leaders and were difficult to get approved. Either one or both of the spouses who entered into these unions typically had to agree to remain in Canada or Mexico. On an exceptional basis, a smaller number of plural marriages were performed within the United States between the years 1890 and 1904.

The message President Woodruff gives in the 1st declaration does not sit well with me after reading the church essay. For example, President Woodruff states, "We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice."

Then why in the essay does it state, "The Manifesto declared President Woodruff’s intention to submit to the laws of the United States, and new plural marriages within that jurisdiction largely came to an end. But a small number of plural marriages continued to be performed in Mexico and Canada, under the sanction of some Church leaders." The essay admits that plural marriage continued after the issuance of Official Declaration 1, it just says that they only did it in Canada and Mexico, away from the U.S. Government. This makes it seem that they had no intention to stop this practice. The only thing that made them was the threat of losing the temple. If not for that fact, would the “revelation” that became Declaration 1 ever have actually taken place? This is all just too fishy for me, the timing aspect of this “revelation” happening just after the laws are passed and the U.S. Government looking into going after the church as a whole instead of individual members. Yet they continued to practice in Canada and Mexico! So what was stated in Official Declaration 1 is bogus! He didn’t do it over the “members of the Church which” he presides over, only those in the U.S. and not outside those boundaries. It should be noted, the practice of polygamy was illegal in Mexico this entire time as well, only their government wasn’t threatening to take away the temple for it.

The Church’s role in these marriages became a subject of intense public debate after Reed Smoot, an Apostle, was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1903. At the April 1904 general conference, Church President Joseph F. Smith issued a forceful statement, known as the Second Manifesto, making new plural marriages punishable by excommunication.¹⁰ Since President Smith’s day, Church Presidents have repeatedly emphasized that the Church and its members are no longer authorized to enter into plural marriage and have underscored the sincerity of their words by urging local leaders to bring noncompliant members before Church disciplinary councils.

So wait, we had to have another “Manifesto”? The first one was worded so that it should leave no question, the church was against pleural marriages. Then again, that magically only included those taking place in the U.S. territory, it even says so here in the Essay. OK, let’s look at #2.

Footnote 10 references (but no link is provided) the second manifesto. OK, this one took me a while to find. Thanks to Google, a lot of time, and some key word tweaking, I finally found a copy of the “Improvement Era” that originally published it in May of 1904. Here we go:

"Official Statement by President Joseph F. Smith.

Inasmuch as there are numerous reports in circulation that plural marriages have been entered into, contrary to the official declaration of President Woodruff of September 24, 1890, commonly called the manifesto, which was issued by President Woodruff, and adopted by the Church at its general conference, October 6, 1890, which forbade any marriages violative of the law of the land, I Joseph F Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, hereby affirm and declare that no such marriages have been solemnized with the sanction, consent or knowledge of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

And I hereby announce that all such marriages are prohibited, and if any officer or member of the Church shall assume to solemnize or enter into any such marriage, he will be deemed in transgression against the Church, and will be liable to be dealt with according to the rules and regulations thereof and excommunicated therefrom.

Joseph F. Smith President"

Long story short, the first manifesto didn't do the trick. So finally, after 14 years of practicing plural marriage after the Manifesto, it was finally banned by the church in 1904. I find it very interesting that they had to finally use such strong wording as they did here in this statement by Joseph F. Another quick question comes up, why is it that Manifesto is found very easily in the D&C, why not also have this in the D&C? Why is it that this was only printed in the Improvement Era, or in the Deseret News? Probably because the church didn’t want to admit that they had members still practicing for a lot longer than “legally allowed”. This is evident even when President Joseph F Smith himself testified under oath to the US Senate ion March 1904 that he "… had cohabited with his wives and fathered children with them since 1890."

It's easier to feel more separated from the times of polygamy to say, "Oh, polygamy was a church practice back in the 19th century …that's so long ago!" than it is to admit that the church continued to practice it into the 20th century, barely yes; but that has always been a marketing practice, the same as why so many things cost X-dollars, and 99-cents.

If you would like to learn more about the end of plural marriage in the Church, click here.

Conclusion

Plural marriage was among the most challenging aspects of the Restoration. For many who practiced it, plural marriage was a trial of faith. It violated both cultural and legal norms, leading to persecution and revilement. Despite these hardships, plural marriage benefited the Church in innumerable ways. Through the lineage of these 19th-century Saints have come many Latter-day Saints who have been faithful to their gospel covenants as righteous mothers and fathers; loyal disciples of Jesus Christ; devoted Church members, leaders, and missionaries; and good citizens and prominent public officials. Modern Latter-day Saints honor and respect these faithful pioneers who gave so much for their faith, families, and community.

You know what, I’m going to just let it end there as well. Bottom line: The Church did practice it, as we have seen this occurred prior to the revelation in D&C 132, and continued for another 14 years after the Manifesto. This alone should stand as to an issue with how the church has always handled this particular part of its history.