Conference tecrus::mormonism

    Didn't Congress force the Mormon church to renounce polygamy as
    a condition for Utah being admitted to the Union?
    

    
    
    "That guy in Utah" (the Singer family) is not a Mormon.  He was
    excommunicated from the church for his unlawful polygamy practices.
    The church changed its doctrine on polygamy as it did its beliefs
    that blacks were unworthy of the kingdom of God.

    OK so the LDS church no longer accepts the official practice of
    polygamy. It also stopped discrimination against blacks (which is
    another good topic to start up).  However, these things were at
    one time official things.  Right???
    
    If my memory serves me right, Joseph S. and Brigham Y. not only
    were polygamists, but actively encouraged the practice of it to
    the Mormon congregation.  These two men are the cornerstones of
    Mormon theology whose teachings (and revelations) are tenaciously
    clung to by the LDS church today.  
    
    In my book, polygamy is an outrageous sin.  It's tantamount to 
    adultery, and is rooted in perverted thinking.  
    
    The Mormon church was basically forced to give it up by the United
    States.  However, there were reports of polygamy continuing on,
    and sanctioned, even after the church changed it's official position.
    Sort of like Digital neither confirming nor denying the presence
    of an unannounced product.
    
    Doesn't this make any Mormons wonder if there is something amiss
    in the LDS church, whose infrastructure is based on J.S. & B.Y.

          Several Old Testament prophets practiced polygamy, including
          Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and Solomon.  Let's see why David
          practiced polygamy.

              And Nathan said to David, Thou are the man.  Thus saith the
              LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I
              delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

              And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives
              into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of
              Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have
              given unto thee such and such things.  (2 Samuel 12:7-8)

          Thus, we see that David practiced polygamy because of obedience
          to God!  His wives were given to him by Nathan the prophet and
          thus by God.  Nathan went on in verse 9 to explain that David had
          "despised the commandment of the LORD" by killing Uriah and
          committing adultery with his wife.  David didn't commit adultery
          with the wives given to him by Nathan, but he did commit adultery
          with the woman whom he took on his own.

          With Solomon, however, we have a different story.

              But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the
              daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites,
              Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;

              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.
              (1 Kings 11:1)

          Solomon practiced polygamy without the Lord's consent and thus
          was disobedient to God.

    Although Joseph Smith received the revelation, he never participated
    as a polygamist, being killed before he had the opportunity.  Bro.
    Young, on the other hand, did.
    
    The Church did not just dive into polygamy.  It was a slow process
    and was not for all members.  Only the strongest of the members
    were encouraged.  I view it as a time when the church had limited
    external growth and great internal growth from the strongest sources.
    Many of the children from those families became the strength of the
    church.

�    < Note 25.5 by CACHE::LEIGH >
�          Thus, we see that David practiced polygamy because of obedience
�          to God!  His wives were given to him by Nathan the prophet and
�          thus by God.  
    
    I thought prophets were only human and not perfect and not 100%
    God inspired!  You are supporting my argument in IOSG::CHRISTIAN
    Note 242.* and defeating your own!
        

Re < Note 25.7 by CHUNGA::HEISER "Arizona Wildcats #1 !!!" >

>�    < Note 25.5 by CACHE::LEIGH >
>�          Thus, we see that David practiced polygamy because of obedience
>�          to God!  His wives were given to him by Nathan the prophet and
>�          thus by God.  
>    
>    I thought prophets were only human and not perfect and not 100%
>    God inspired!  You are supporting my argument in IOSG::CHRISTIAN
>    Note 242.* and defeating your own!
        
Mike,

Are you actually admitting that prophets are human, not perfect, and not
necessarly inspired 100% of the time?

Allen

>    < Note 25.8 by CACHE::LEIGH >
>    Are you actually admitting that prophets are human, not perfect, and not
>necessarly inspired 100% of the time?

   Hi Allen,
    
    Sarcasm is hard to express in Notes.  We can use smiles :-) but
    I don't have one for sarcasm.  
    
�    < Note 25.5 by CACHE::LEIGH >
�          Thus, we see that David practiced polygamy because of obedience
�          to God!  His wives were given to him by Nathan the prophet and
�          thus by God.  
    
    Question still stands.  Given your view on prophets, how is the
    above from God??  You seem to support my view with the above statement.
    
    Mike
    

Re .9

Hi Mike,

I apologize for being sarcastic.  I felt that you were being sarcastic in
asking your question, and I decided to return the sarcasm to you.

>�    < Note 25.5 by CACHE::LEIGH >
>�          Thus, we see that David practiced polygamy because of obedience
>�          to God!  His wives were given to him by Nathan the prophet and
>�          thus by God.  
>    
>    Question still stands.  Given your view on prophets, how is the
>    above from God??  You seem to support my view with the above statement.
    
In the discussions that you and I had in CHRISTIAN note 242, you presented
your position as believing that prophets are 100% inspired in everything they
do and even though they are human they make no mistakes; one mistake is
sufficient to prove a person to be a false prophet.  On the other hand, I
presented my position as believing that prophets are not necessarily 100%
inspired in everything they do, that is they may do things of their own
decision without being inspired of God while at other times they do things
due to inspiration; also, because they are human they may not always follow
the inspiration and thus make mistakes; such mistakes do not make them a false
prophet.

Now let us look at the case of Nathan giving multiple wives to David.  From
your viewpoint you either have to say that Nathan was not doing God's will
in giving the wives to David and therefore Nathan is a false prophet, or
Nathan was doing God's will and therefore David was obeying God in having
multiple wives.

From my viewpoint, I have to say that either Nathan was inspired in giving
multiple wives to David and that David's polygamy was of God, or Nathan
was not inspired and gave the wives as his own decision.  In either case, he
would be a true prophet.  Nathan claimed to be speaking for God, and I see
no reason to doubt him.

      And Nathan said to David, Thou are the man.  Thus saith the
      LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I
      delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

      And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives
      into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of
      Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have
      given unto thee such and such things.  (2 Samuel 12:7-8)


Allen

    
    Excuse me, gentlemen, but may I make a point here?
    
    Allen, how in the world do you read from this passage that it is
    Nathan giving anything at all to David? It is very plain that Nathan
    is speaking on behalf of God. He is saying "God says... " and procedes
    to deliver the message to David. You cannot even read into the passage
    that God did these things through Nathan, since the passage includes
    annointing him king over Israel (Samuel did that) and delivering
    him from the hand of Saul (God did that directly). 
    
    Really, Allen, I must again object to your careless handling of these
    passages. We went over this once before in the Christian conference,
    somewhere around note 242.300, and yet you still put that same teaching
    in here word for word. You are entitled to believe what you wish,
    and assert what you wish, of course, but it is plain to anyone with
    even a superficial understanding of the life of David that you are
    promoting a distortion.
    
    The only other possibility is that it is not your teaching at all,
    but rather a teaching of your church, perhaps even of one of your
    "prophets". In that case you would certainly not be free to see
    it any other way...
    
    Ed
    

Re .11

Hi Ed,

>    Allen, how in the world do you read from this passage that it is
>    Nathan giving anything at all to David? It is very plain that Nathan
>    is speaking on behalf of God. He is saying "God says... " and procedes
>    to deliver the message to David. You cannot even read into the passage
>    that God did these things through Nathan, since the passage includes
>    annointing him king over Israel (Samuel did that) and delivering
>    him from the hand of Saul (God did that directly). 

You're right, Ed.  The passage is clear that it was God who gave the wives
to David.

     Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I [God] anointed thee king over
     Israel, and I [God] delivered thee out of the hand of Saul.  And
     I [God] gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into
     thy bosom....

Nathan, in those verses, is only the messenger telling David that God had
given him those things and he [David] despised God by killing Uriah and
taking Bathsheba as wife.


>    Really, Allen, I must again object to your careless handling of these
>    passages. We went over this once before in the Christian conference,
>    somewhere around note 242.300, and yet you still put that same teaching
>    in here word for word. You are entitled to believe what you wish,
>    and assert what you wish, of course, but it is plain to anyone with
>    even a superficial understanding of the life of David that you are
>    promoting a distortion.

I'm not sure if by "a distortion" and "that same teaching" you are referring
to me saying Nathan gave the wives when it was really God who gave them or to
me saying that David practiced polygamy in obedience to God.

    
>    The only other possibility is that it is not your teaching at all,
>    but rather a teaching of your church, perhaps even of one of your
>    "prophets". In that case you would certainly not be free to see
>    it any other way...

I make no claims that things I write in this conference are doctrine of the
LDS Church.  My knowledge and understanding of the scriptures is limited, and
I'm sure I make mistakes in interpreting and explaining the scriptures and the
teachings of the Church.  Please don't flame me on this, because I do say "The
LDS Church teaches this, the Mormon church teaches that", etc.  What I mean by
such statements is that this is Allen Leigh's understanding of what the
Church teaches.

The only authoritative sources of teachings of the Mormon church are our
"standard works", the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine & Covenants, and
the Pearl of Great Price.

Allen
    

    

Allen, my intention is not to "flame" you, but I was very surprised to
see that, after going over the same passages in note 242.30* in the 
Christian notes conference, you still feel that it is not inaccurate
to make the same statements in 25.5:

>     Thus, we see that David practiced polygamy because of obedience
>     to God!  His wives were given to him by Nathan the prophet and
>     thus by God... 

>     David didn't commit adultery with the wives given to him by Nathan

The "distortion" I referred to was the clear implication that Nathan gave
wives to David. If Nathan, a prophet, actually *gave* Saul's wives to David,
then that lends credence to the idea that God *commanded* polygamy to be
practiced by his people, which He did not. He apparently tolerated the
practice, though his model has always been monogamy, starting with Adam and
Eve, and being clearly taught in the New Testament. When the necessity for
monogamy is mentioned, there is no qualification such as "unless God commands".

I feel that trying to read such things into the scriptures is only an 
attempt to give credibility to un-Biblical teachings.

If David was practicing polygamy because of obedience to God in receiving
his multiple wives via Nathan, then he must have been practicing polygamy
in *disobedience* to God before that, because he already had at least three
wives when he took Saul's place as king of Israel.

Like I said, God apparently tolerated the practice of polygamy, in spite of
His warning against it in Deuteronomy 17:17, "Neither shall he multiply
wives unto himself, lest his heart turn away". David experienced great 
difficulties and sorrows as a result of his polygamy, and Solomon's downfall
was directly attibuted to his many wives. Both good examples of why polygamy
was never God's intention at any time.

>I make no claims that things I write in this conference are doctrine of the
>LDS Church.  My knowledge and understanding of the scriptures is limited, and
>I'm sure I make mistakes in interpreting and explaining the scriptures and the
>teachings of the Church.  Please don't flame me on this, because I do say "The
>LDS Church teaches this, the Mormon church teaches that", etc.  What I mean by
>such statements is that this is Allen Leigh's understanding of what the
>Church teaches.

Fair enough, but is it too much for us to expect that we be able to learn
from this conference what the Mormon church teaches, or is it the case that 
the church has no clear teachings on topics like this?

Ed

    			
    "Behold David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which
    thing was abominable before me, thus saith the Lord."
    							Jacob 2:23-24
    
    "Wherefore my brethren, hear me and hearken to the Word of the Lord:
    For there shall not any man among you, save it be one wife, and
    concubines he shall have none."	Jacob 2:27
    
    NOW ACCORDING to the "Book of Mormon" was polygamy a sinful act
    and an abomination to God?

Re .14

In the Book of Mormon, the Lord taught his people about the law of Chastity
and included in his teachings the condition on which a person may practice
polygamy with the Lord's approval.

    But the word of God burdens me [Jacob] because of your grosser crimes.
    For behold, thus saith the Lord; This people begin to wax in iniquity;
    they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in
    committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning
    David, and Solomon his son.

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

    Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the
    land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto
    me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

    Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like
    unto them of old.

    Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord:
    For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and
    concubines he shall have none;

    For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women.  And whoredoms are
    an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

    Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of
    Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.

    For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will
    command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
    (Jacob 2:23-30)

In those verses, the Lord said the following:

      o  The Nephites were committing sin and excusing themselves because of
         David and Solomon.

      o  The wives and concubines of David and Solomon were abominable.

      o  The Nephite men should have one wife and no concubines

      o  He delighted in the chastity of women and whoredoms are an
         abomination.

Let us briefly read from the Bible to see why David's and Solomon's wives
were an abomination.  The prophet Nathan came as a messenger to David.

    And Nathan said to David, Thou are the man.  Thus saith the LORD God of
    Israel, I [God] anointed thee king over Israel, and I [God] delivered
    thee out of the hand of Saul;

    And I [God] gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy
    bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had
    been too little, I [God] would moreover have given unto thee such and
    such things.  (2 Samuel 12:7-8)

Thus, we see that David practiced polygamy because of obedience to God!
Wives were given to him by God!

Nathan went on in verse 9 to explain that David had "despised the commandment
of the LORD" by killing Uriah and committing adultery with his wife.  David
didn't commit adultery with the wives given to him by God, but he did commit
adultery with the woman whom he took on his own.

With Solomon, however, we have a different story.

    But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of
    Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and
    Hittites;

    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.  (1 Kings 11:1)

Solomon practiced polygamy without the Lord's consent and thus was
disobedient to God.

Because many of David's wives were given to him by God, the statement of the
Lord to the Nephite prophet Jacob that the wives and concubines of David were
abominable did not refer to those wives.

In those verses, the Lord told Jacob that for those people (the Nephites) at
that period of time, it was abominable to have more than one wife.  It is
clear that the Lord was speaking about that group of people at that time,
because God gave Saul's wives to David; having one wife was not a universal
condition for all persons at all ages.

In verse 30, the Lord said that if he would raise up seed to him, he would
command his people to practice polygamy, otherwise they should hearken unto
the things he had just told them which was to have one wife.

    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.

By looking at David, Solomon, and the Nephites, we can understand the Lord's
attitude toward polygamy:  If the Lord commands it, we must be obedient to
that command and practice it, but if the Lord does not command it, polygamy
is a sin and abominable to God.

    Note: After I had this written, I saw Allen's reply. Perhaps this
          will also be of interest.
    
    Re: Note 25.14 by GENRAL::RINESMITH
    
    I'm afraid you left out a very important verse of Jacob chapter 2,
    in the Book of Mormon:
    
         "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."  Jacob 2:30
         
    Thus, Jacob teaches that plural marriage *is* an abomination to God, if
    man decides to do it on his own, and is not commanded to do so by God
    to raise up seed to him. 
    
    What is the LDS View of Plural Marriage?
    ----------------------------------------
                                            
    We believe that plural marriage *is* an abomination, unless God
    commands it to accomplish His purposes. We believe that Abraham, Jacob
    and others did as God commanded them in having multiple wives. 
    
    We believe that David was righteous in the wives he had, until he
    sinned in the case of Uriah and his wife. This was an abomination to
    God. The Lord had given David his other wives by the hand of Nathan the
    prophet, but not Uriah's wife. Solomon took unto himself many wives,
    and some of these were from other nations. Again, it was an abomination
    that Solomon took wives that the Lord had not given him. 
    
    Joseph Smith received a revelation in which the Lord revealed that this
    practice was sanctioned by Him to those so commanded, including the
    great Biblical prophets, and that it was to be instituted again in the
    church, "to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my
    commandment". However, for a man to practice plural marriage, the first
    wife's consent was required, and the approval of the church was
    required. 
    
    The church never did advocate a system of general polygamy. As B.H.
    Roberts put it in his book, "A Comprehensive History of The Church of
    Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints": 
    
         "The principle of plural marriage was to be limited to
         persons of high character, approved lives, and living under
         the most sacred obligations to chastity, and granted the
         permission of the church, amounting to divine sanction." 
    
         "It was a principle of religion to the Latter-day Saints, a
         holy sacrament, and not at all designed to become a general
         practice under merely human laws." (Vol 2, pg 97-98) 

    As it turns out, only two percent of the population of the church
    practiced plural marriage.
    
    A small percentage of the Latter-day Saints was thus commanded to
    practice plural marriage. Did it serve a purpose? I think so.
    Unrighteous mobs had murdered in cold blood many of the Mormon men.
    There were many women left with no support. Some of these women found
    shelter, love, and family life in the unforgiving frontier from
    husbands who had other wives. Righteous families were raised. Was
    plural marriage ever practiced in the church to satisfy the lusts of
    these men? History indicates otherwise. Was plural marriage an easy
    thing for the saints? No. It brought many new challenges. But the Lord
    had commanded them, and they above all sought to obey the Lord. 
    
    The time came that the Lord commanded that this practice be followed no
    more. Its purpose was accomplished and the laws of the land had been
    confirmed by the Supreme Court, in spite of appeals by the church to
    have freedom of religion. The church was faced with confiscation of its
    property, imprisonment of its leaders and of the fathers of the
    families who practiced this principle. Citizenship was denied to those
    who refused to sign an affidavit that they did not practice polygamy. 
    
    The Lord revealed to the prophet, Wilford Woodruff, who said he was
    willing to let all of that happen to be obedient to God, that the time
    had come for the practice to be ended. After the practice was ended,
    there were hearings about the confiscated property, at which the US
    district attorney passionately exclaimed, after the testimony of
    President Woodruff: 
    
         "They [the Latter-day Saints] are not obeying the law of the
         land at all, but the counsel of the head of the church. The
         law of the land, with all its mighty power, and all the
         terrible pressure it was enabled to bring with its iron heel
         upon this people crushing them to powder, was unable to bring
         about what this man did in an hour in the assembled
         conference of this people. They were willing to go to prison;
         I doubt not some of them were willing to go to the gallows,
         to the tomb of the martyr, before they would have yielded one
         single iota."  Deseret News Oct 33, 1891 
         
    Thus we see that, in this matter, the saints obeyed God and not man. 
    
    Today plural marriage is strictly prohibited in the church. To practice
    plural marriage is to be excommunicated from the church. Just as Jacob
    taught in the Book of Mormon, this is abominable to God, if He has not
    commanded it. 
    
    Scriptures dealing with plural marriage
    ---------------------------------------
    
    Bible Scriptures
    
    Genesis 16:1-11	Abraham practices practices plural marriage
    
    Genesis 25:1	Abraham takes another wife
    
    Genesis 25:28	Jacob practices plural marriage
    
    Genesis 30:4,9,26	Jacob has other wives
    
    Exodus 21:10	The Lord's law to a man who takes another wife
    
    Deut. 17:15-17	Kings are not to multiply wives to themselves
    
    Deut. 21:15-17	If a man has two wives, how he is to treat the
			children and their inheritance
    
    2 Sam 2:2		David practices plural marriage
    
    2 Sam 5:13		David takes additional wives
    
    2 Sam 12:7-14	Nathan testifies to David that the Lord gave
    			him his wives, and chastises him for killing
    			Uriah and taking his wife, David is to be 
    			punished for his sin.
                 
    1 Kings 11:1-8	Solomon does evil in the sight of the Lord by
    			taking hundreds of strange wives, who turn his
    			heart away from God.
    
    2 Chron. 13:21	Abijah, who rallies Isreal to rely on the Lord,
    			practices plural marriage.
    
    2 Chron. 24:2-3,	Jehoida, who was a righteous priest, practiced plural
                15-16	marriage.
    
    Isaiah 4:1		Isaiah prophesies that seven women shall take
			hold of one man, to take away their reproach
                    
    1 Timothy 3:2	Bishops are to be the husband of one wife
    
    Book of Mormon Scriptures
    
    Jacob 2:22-35	Jacob teaches the people that plural marriage
    			is an abomination to God, unless He commands,
    			to raise up seed unto Him. Jacob reminds them
    			that his father, Lehi, clearly taught them
                        that *they* were commanded not to live
                        in plural marriage.
    
    Ether 10:5		Riplakish sinned in having many wives
    
    Doctrine & Covenants Scriptures
    
    Section 132:34-39   Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Solomon, and "many
    			others of my servants" received multiple wives
    			from God, "and in nothing did they sin save
   			in those things which they received not of me".
    			David's wives were given him by the hand of
                        Nathan, who had the keys of this power, but
    			in the case of Uriah and his wife, David sinned.
    			                       
    Section 132:61-63   For a man to take a second wife, the first wife
    		     	must give her consent. This principle is so
			they can "multiply and replenish the earth".
    
    Official Declaration - 1
    
                        The practice of plural marriage is discontinued by
                        the statement of the prophet of the church, who was
                        Wilford Woodruff. The membership attending the
                        general conference of the church vote unanimously
                        to sustain this action. 
    
    Excerpts from Addresses by President Wilford Woodruff
                        
                        President Wilford Woodruff clearly taught that
                        he received revelation from God that the practice
                        of plural marriages should be stopped.
                       
    
    Conclusion
    ----------
                        
    Plural marriage was practiced righteously by many in the Bible.
    Some in the Bible sinned when they received wives not given to them
    by the Lord. The Lord reinstituted this practice through revelation
    to Joseph Smith, and it was practiced by a very limited number of
    members of the church who were found worthy to do so. The practice
    was discontinued by revelation from the Lord.
    
    The key question is, "Was Joseph Smith a prophet of God?" If he
    was, and if the Lord revealed this to him, then the practice was
    justified, in the eyes of God. If he was not a prophet of God, then
    this practice was an abomination before God. I bear witness that
    Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.
    
    Rich
    

    re: .15 & 16
    
    	Thanks for pointing out Jacob 2:30 and thanks for pointing
    out some additional scriptures.
    
    Now I am really confused:
    
    D & C 132:1-4
    
    "Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch
    as you have inquired of my khand to know and understand wherin I,
    the Lord, justified my servants...as touching the principle and
    doctrine of their having many wives and concubines-Behold, and lo,
    I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter."
    
    "For behold, I reveal unto you a new and EVERLASTING COVENANT and
    if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for NO ONE can
    reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory."
    
    
   So hear is my question:  What does EVERLASTING mean and what does
    NO ONE mean?

    Thanks to Rich Kotter for a very comprehensive and understandable
    discussion of polygamy!
    
    

    Re: Note 25.17 by GENRAL::RINESMITH 
    
>   Now I am really confused:
>   
>   D & C 132:1-4
>   
>   "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...as touching the principle and
>   doctrine of their having many wives and concubines-Behold, and lo,
>   I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter."
>   
>   "For behold, I reveal unto you a new and EVERLASTING COVENANT and
>   if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for NO ONE can
>   reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory."
>   
>   
>  So hear is my question:  What does EVERLASTING mean and what does
>   NO ONE mean?

    Good questions!

    What is the New and Everlasting Covenant?
    -----------------------------------------
        
    The late Bruce R. McConkie sheds some light on this:
    
    "The Gospel is the *everlasting* covenant, because it is ordained by
    Him who is Everlasting and also because it is everlastingly the same.
    In all past ages salvation was gained by adherence to its terms and
    conditions, and that same compliance will bring the same reward in all
    future ages. Each time this everlasting covenant is revealed it is
    *new* to those of that dispensation. Hence the gospel is the NEW AND
    EVERLASTING COVENANT. 
    
    "All covenants between God and man are part of the new and everlasting
    covenant (D&C 22: 132:6-7). Thus celestial marriage is "*a* new and
    *an* everlasting covenant" (D&C 132:4) or the new and everlasting
    covenant of *marriage* (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 152-166.)
    Some covenants, however, have force and validity in all dispensations;
    baptism is one of these. (D&C 22) Other covenants are made for special
    purposes in particular dispensations; circumcision is this type of
    covenant. (Gen. 17:9-14)"  Mormon Doctrine, pp. 529-530 
    
    Thus, we see that the New and Everlasting Covenant is the Gospel, and
    includes all covenants made between God and Man. The passage you refer
    to specifically refers to the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage,
    which is part of the gospel. 
    
    In Section 132, the Lord reveals more than just the principle of plural
    marriage, and why the Lord justified his servants in having multiple
    wives, He also reveals the principle of Celestial Marriage, or the New
    and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage. 
    
    Celestial Marriage does not mean plural marriage. It means that, given
    the proper "sealing" authority from God, marriages can be performed
    which remain in force after death. Only worthy individuals can receive
    this Celestial Marriage, in the sacred temples of God. 
                                                                   
    Peter, the apostle was given this sealing authority, as the Lord said:
    "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and
    whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and
    whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matt
    16:19). 
    
    In contrast, marriage is commonly thought of as "till death do us
    part", at which time the marriage covenant is dissolved. The Lord
    reveals that any oath not sealed by this authority is void upon death: 
    
         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 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. D&C
         132:7 
    
         And verily, verily, I say unto you, that whatsoever you seal
         on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever you bind
         on earth, in my name and by my word, saith the Lord, it shall
         be eternally bound in the heavens; D&C 132:46 
              
    Thus we see that, just as Peter was given these keys anciently, Joseph
    Smith was given the keys to this sealing power in our day. 
         
    When the Lord says "no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to
    enter into my glory", it means that, if we hope to enter into God's
    glory, we must not reject the covenant of Celestial Marriage, *not*
    that we must practice plural marriage. 
         
    Latter-day Saints believe families can be together forever, with God,
    if sealed by this covenant, and if the members of the family live
    worthily. 
    
    Rich
              

    First, in reply to 25.6:
    
    Joseph Smith did NOT die before he had the chance to practice polygamy.
    
    In my note 38.3, in 1835 the D & C stated that one man
    was to have one wife - unless one of them died, then they were free
    to marry someone else.  Then in 1843, we have a "new" revelation
    (from an ever changing Mormon god) that polygamy is a requirement
    for celestial glory.  The 1835 statement had been removed. (WHY?)
    
    Joseph Smith, it has been discovered, was married to many
    women between the dates of 1835 and 1843 - before the revelation
    was given!  And he must have been practicing polygamy, otherwise,
    why would god give Emma (his wife) a stern reproach, saying she
    should accept the new wives of Joseph, or be damned?  (You can't
    damn a person if there is no reason for her to be upset)
    
    Brigham Youngs last wife, Ann Eliza, wrote that many of the influential
    men (including her father) were forced by Joseph and Brigham to
    take additional wives.  In Ann's diary, she repeatedly told of how
    horrible it was for her mother to accept (although she did) this
    new doctrine.  She hated seeing the affection of her beloved husband
    being placed onto another woman.
    
    In 25.16:  only 2% of the mormons accepted polygamy because many
    hated it, but really only a few could afford it.  Having many wives
    ment having a bigger place to live, more clothes, more food, more
    everything!  Only the wealthier mormons could handle it.
    
    But the questions still remain:
    
    1.  the bible teaches church leaders (bishop also means pastor)
        should be the husband of one wife (Joseph and Brigham would 
        fall under this)
    
    2.  God told Joseph in 1835, that one man should only have one wife.
    
    3.  In 1843, God NOW tells Joseph you have to have more than one
        wife to obtain celestial glory (but this wasn't published until
        187??)  The 1835 command is now missing.
    
    4.  Joseph practiced polygamy at least five years before the new
        revelation was given.  WHY?  Infact, he had 27 offical wives total.
    	(Some of those women were already married to other men.  Those
    	men were told to share!)
        
    And what about the women who had to suffer polygamy?  To see the
    men they loved, go to bed with another woman - and have to accept
    it?  As Ann Eliza Young said, there was nothing more cruel than
    polygamy!
    
    I bear witness that Joseph Smith made up this rule of polygamy to
    justify what he was already doing - commiting adultary.  He found
    a way to justify it by the old testiment leaders.  Which makes no
    sense because we, as Christians, are to live by the New Testiment
    and it says for leaders of the church to have one wife.
    
    But as Joseph Smith himself said, "Whenever I see a pretty woman
    I have to pray for grace."
    
    Leza
    
    
    

    Leza,
    
    You've made a lot of claims and thrown around a lot of stats.  When
    you cool down a bit, would you mind posting a few sources?  By the
    way, the approaches you use are logically sound in that you usually
    have a source to back up your statements.  I might mention, however,
    that one must expect to find some lies documented since there were
    a lot of false stories going around about Joseph Smith and the Mormons.
    I was born and raised in Missouri.  While at the State Historical
    Society office on the campus of the University of Missouri I had
    a chance to go over a newspaper that circulated in the area about
    the time that the Mormons were in Missouri.  This was called the
    Missouri Intelligencer, I believe, and was about four pages.  In
    a few issues were 'witnessed' accounts of atrocities committed by
    the Mormons including:
    
    Insanity in one household after two Mormon missionaries visited
    resulting in the members of the household tearing things up. (My
    personal suspicion is that the members of the household were not
    the ones who tore things up.)
    
    Tales of Mormons executing enemies of the Church by disembowelment
    in a boat on the Missouri river.

    I didn't keep copies, but this kind of thing can be verified.  I
    seriously doubt there is anything to these, but they show that people
    were certainly willing to lie in print about the Mormons.

    And, thanks, Leza for adding some spark to the notes file!
    
    
    Steve

Okay, now that I'm home and have some books around,

>    First, in reply to 25.6:
>    
>    Joseph Smith did NOT die before he had the chance to practice polygamy.

Agreed.

>    In my note 38.3, in 1835 the D & C stated that one man
>    was to have one wife - unless one of them died, then they were free
>    to marry someone else.  Then in 1843, we have a "new" revelation
>    (from an ever changing Mormon god) that polygamy is a requirement
>    for celestial glory.  The 1835 statement had been removed. (WHY?)

History of the Church Vol. 5:XXXI points out that the plural marriage was
revealed as a correct principle as early as 1831.  As to one man having one
wife, this is stated rather clearly in Jacob 2:27.  With it (verse 30), the 
Lord reserves the right to command His people to practice plural marriage
to serve His purposes.  You are correct in asserting that God does not
change, and this is not in conflict.

>    Joseph Smith, it has been discovered, was married to many
>    women between the dates of 1835 and 1843 - before the revelation
>    was given!  

As indicated above, the implication of impropriety is incorrect.

>    Brigham Youngs last wife, Ann Eliza, wrote that many of the influential
>    men (including her father) were forced by Joseph and Brigham to
>    take additional wives.  In Ann's diary, she repeatedly told of how
>    horrible it was for her mother to accept (although she did) this
>    new doctrine.  She hated seeing the affection of her beloved husband
>    being placed onto another woman.

I have not seen the diary, yet.  But, I can empathize.  However, the
premise is that the marriages were by command of the Lord.

>    In 25.16:  only 2% of the mormons accepted polygamy because many
>    hated it, but really only a few could afford it.  Having many wives
>    ment having a bigger place to live, more clothes, more food, more
>    everything!  Only the wealthier mormons could handle it.

Couldn't it be that only about 2% were commanded to practice it?  It was not 
a voluntary commandment.

>    2.  God told Joseph in 1835, that one man should only have one wife.

This is not in conflict as indicated above.

>    3.  In 1843, God NOW tells Joseph you have to have more than one
>        wife to obtain celestial glory (but this wasn't published until
>        187??)  The 1835 command is now missing.

The 1835 command is consistent with what was revealed in 1831 and what is
in Jacob.  The 1843 revelation contains more details of what appears to 
me to be consistent doctrine.

>    
>    4.  Joseph practiced polygamy at least five years before the new
>        revelation was given.  WHY?  Infact, he had 27 offical wives total.
>    	(Some of those women were already married to other men.  Those
>    	men were told to share!)

As mentioned above, the assertion that revelation regarding the correctness of 
plural marriage was given in 1843 is incorrect.  As to the men were commanded 
to share, this would certainly be a conflict with what is written in Jacob 
and the other revelations, so I would be interested in the source.

This is getting pretty interesting.  It's good to dig into the books
and find out about this stuff.  I don't mind (too much) that Leza or
anybody else doesn't like Mormonism, but I feel better when they have an 
accurate understanding.  It hurts when somebody doesn't like Mormonism
because of misconceptions.  Leza, I honestly appreciate your frankness
and your earnest efforts to be logical and reasonable.  The fact that
you are willing to put up with us speaks well of you.  

    
    Steve

    Hi Leza,
    
    I want to thank you for your participation here and for pointing
    out the misconception I had about JS.  Somehow when I first joined
    the Church I got the impression that JS did not have more than one
    wife, I always thought that was strange, but never did much research
    into Church history.
    
    In fact I have been so busy for the last 10 years with school and
    kids and church callings that I have not really taken much chance
    to study the gospel.  I read the BOM a few times, read gospel doctrine
    with my kids, and a few other things, but I have not really studied.
    Your input here has got me interested in doing that.  It has pointed
    out to me that I have been to complacent in the knowledge that I
    once had back when I first joined the Church.  Recently my bishop
    has been after all us leaders to study the Scriptures daily.  I
    found an old two volume study guide for the D&C that has helped
    me answer several questions raised in this file.  The readings included
    in the study guide along with the responses here have been great.
    
    BTW, your point about one of Bro. Young's children not liking the
    fact that her mother was forced to be BY wife.  I'm sure that if
    you looked around you could find numerous examples on the other
    side.  Wives who lost their husband on the trek and didn't have
    anyone to care for them or their children.  Sisters that were able
    to share the responsibilities, or pick up the slack when one got
    sick, or take over child rearing when one died from flu without
    major disruption in a child's life.  But that wouldn't prove anything,
    would it?

Re 38.3

>section 132 
>was added saying you had to be married to more than one wife to obtain the 
>everlasting covenant.

In Section 132, the Lord explained what the everlasting covenant is, and it
is *not* polygamy.

    For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye
    abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this 
    covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory....

    And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted
    for the fullness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fullness thereof must
    and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.

    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...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.  (D & C 132:4,6-7)

The Holy Spirit of promise is the Holy Ghost, and one function He performs is
to seal or make binding in heaven covenants made here on earth.  Unless the
covenants are sealed in heaven by the Holy Ghost they become void at death.

As Rich explained in 25.19, *the* new and everlasting covenant is the
Gospel of Jesus Christ and all covenants made with God are part of *the*
everlasting covenant *if* they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise.

Allen

A bit more detail about the 1836 statement on marriage.  The reference for this
is Volume II of the History of the Church, Chapter XVIII.

A conference of the Church was held on August 17, 1835 to decide what
writings would go into the Doctrine & Covenants.  W. W. Phelps submitted an
article on marriage that included the statement on polygamy that Leza quoted.
(that statement was just one small part of the article).  The article was
accepted by the group and was placed in the 1835 edition of the D & C.  The
statement was not presented as revelation, nor was it accepted by the group as
such.  The statement on polygamy represented the views of the Church members at
that time and was an honest statement by them to that effect.

Joseph Smith was not present due to visiting the Saints and preaching in
Michigan.  We can only speculate on whether he would have agreed with the
statement or not.  I personally think he would, because he had not given the
principle of polygamy to the Church as a whole, even though the Lord had
revealed it to him a few years earlier.  When Joseph gave the principle of
polygamy to the Church in 1843, the 1835 statement was removed.

The principle involved is that the Lord may reveal commandments to his prophet
which are not to be given at that time to the Church.  I think it is
presumptuous of us to assume that everything revealed by the Lord to his prophet
is immediately given to the Church.  I would expect that the Lord would teach
and counsel his prophet through revelation and prepare him for his role as
prophet and that those revelations would be private communications between
him and the Lord.  Joseph Smith indicated this happens, for in his 1838
description of the First vision he said, "and many other things did he say into
me, which I cannot write at this time." 

Another principle involved is that because we have living prophets and actual
revelation from God, this is a dynamic church.  The Lord reveals doctrine and
policy according to the needs of the people, and as conditions and needs change
the policies change.  Thus, we have polygamy being given by the Lord and later
taken away by Him.  We have the Law of Consecration being given and later taken
away.  From the Bible, we have the Law of Moses being given to prepare the
Hebrews for the coming of the Messiah and the replacement of it by the Gospel.
Also the Law of Circumcision being given and then taken away.  The basic
principles are eternal but the application of them to the Church and the ability
of the people to live them are not eternal.

This dynamism is one of the characteristics of Christ's true church.

Allen

>    Brigham Youngs last wife, Ann Eliza, wrote that many of the influential
>    men (including her father) were forced by Joseph and Brigham to
>    take additional wives.  In Ann's diary, she repeatedly told of how
>    horrible it was for her mother to accept (although she did) this
>    new doctrine.  She hated seeing the affection of her beloved husband
>    being placed onto another woman.

Yes, Ann Eliza did not have a happy relationship with Brigham.  I'm not
familiar with the details of her life, but I do know she was unhappy.  My wife
has a book called "The 27th Wife" by Irving Wallace that describes her marriage.
I haven't read it and do not know if it is historically accurate, but as soon
as I can dig it out of storage, I'll skim it and report on it.

Her relationship with Brigham was the exception.  One of Brigham's daughters,
Clarissa Young Spencer, wrote a book called "Brigham Young at Home" (Deseret
Book Company, Salt Lake City, 1940) that describes family life with Brigham
Young.

    I believe that a finer group of women never lived together than my
    father's wives.  They co-operated with one another to a remarkable degree,
    and to each one of us children the "aunts" were almost as dear as our
    own mothers were.  I loved them all with good reason, for they all treated
    me with the greatest affection.

    Much has been said and written about the great ingenuity my father displayed
    in organizing and directing the migration of the Mormon pioneers to the
    Rocky Mountains--the greatest trek of its kind ever undertaken in this
    country.  I believe that he displayed a resourcefulness almost as great
    in keeping contented and happy more than twelve wives under one roof.  For
    happy they really were.  Undoubtedly at times there were small frictions
    and jealousies, but they very seldom showed on the surface, and our home
    was as peaceful and serene as any home could be.

    They cared for one another's children, they gathered together to sew rags
    for the carpet which one of them might be in need of, they shared their
    joys and sorrows with each other.  Where one was weak, another was strong
    and gladly gave of her strength to the weaker one....

    The harmony that existed in the Lion House, however, could only have been
    brought about by very careful planning and directing.  All the wives had
    equal rights and privileges and each was, in turn, expected to do her
    share in keeping the establishment running smoothly.  Each wife took
    care of her own apartment and her own children and assisted in doing other
    necessary work around the place.

    Those who had no children--of whom there were several--naturally took a
    heavier part in the running of the entire establishment, such as
    supervising the cooking or working in the weaving and spinning rooms.
    Each one worked, also, according to her talents.  While Aunt Zina and
    Aunt Eliza gave much of their time toward building up the church, Aunt
    Twiss was queen of the kitchen in the Lion House and Aunt Susan Snively
    managed the home at dear old Forest Farm.

    For this reason it is very difficult to attempt to write impartially
    of Father's wives, for while some of them were energetic in doing public
    and church work, others were very quiet and retiring, and I cannot hope
    to do justice to this latter group.  All of them had many fine
    characteristics and sterling qualities.

    While I knew all of the nineteen wives who survived at Father's death, space
    will permit my giving sketches of only a few of them. (Chapter 3)

Clarissa then goes on to talk about several of the wives.

Brigham Young is often portrayed as a man of lust.  However Clarissa gives a
different perspective of the man.

    Mary Ann Angell [Brigham's wife at the time polygamy was introduced] came
    of the strictest Puritan parentage, and naturally the introduction of
    polygamy was a great trial to her, as it was to my father.  He tells of
    standing by the grave of one of the departed brethren and wishing that
    the lot of the dead man were his own.  The burden of polygamy seemed
    harder than the hand of death.  Nevertheless, they both accepted the
    principle as coming from a prophet of God, and when Father was married to
    the other women who became his wives before the journey west, it was with
    the full consent of Mother [Mary Ann] Young. (Chapter 3)

Clarissa described her own mothers relationship with Brigham.

    Mother [Lucy Decker] became Father's first plural wife when she was
    married to him in June, 1842, four years before the journey to the West
    was begun....

    Sometimes I was amazed at the things Mother was called upon to do in the
    way of managing the home and preparing big suppers for Father's guests.
    When I said something of this to her one day she replied, "If your father
    wasn't the most wonderful man in the world, I couldn't do it."  She
    adored Father, but there wasn't a jealous hair in her head.  Some of the
    other wives undoubtedly were jealous at times, although they had no
    reason to be, for Father treated them all just as much alike as he possibly
    could, but Mother never was.  She had previously made a most unhappy
    marriage, and the contrast between that and her later happiness was so great
    that she appreciated it to the fullest extent. (Chapter 3)

I wish I could manage my home and relationship with one wife as well as Brigham
managed his with his wives.

Allen

>    But as Joseph Smith himself said, "Whenever I see a pretty woman
>    I have to pray for grace."
    
Leza, would you please post your reference for that statement so I can
check it out?

Allen    
    

    Did not Brigham Young say that the only men who became gods, even the
    sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.
    

Re .28

If you can give us a source, we can check it out.

Allen

    Brigham said that "the only men who become gods, even the sons of
    God, are those who enter into pplygamy" (JoD V11/269)

Lets read from the Journal of Discourses to get the context in which
Brigham Young made his statement.

    I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of
    this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to
    wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us.
    It may be hard for many, and especially for the ladies, yet it is no
    harder for them than it is for the gentlemen.  It is the word of the
    Lord, and I wish to say to you, and to all the world, that if you desire
    with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained,
    you will be polygamists *at least in your faith*, or you will come short
    of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained.
    This is as true as that God lives.  You who wish that there were no such
    thing in existence, if you have in hour hearts to say: "We will pass along
    in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or
    believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may
    be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will
    not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some
    earthly honor, character and office, etc,"--the man that has that in his
    heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come
    short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial
    glory.  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.
    (Journal of Discourses, pp. 268-269, emphasis mine)

What Brigham Young said was that polygamy (at that time) was a commandment of
God and that people had to accept it as such if they were to receive the full
blessings of God.  The key phrase to understanding the context is "you will
be polygamists at least in your faith".

Approximately 97% of the men in Brigham Young's time did not practice polygamy,
and I don't think Brigham was saying that they were automatically removed from
any possibility of receiving the full blessings of God.  He was saying that
those 97% had to believe in polygamy even if they didn't practice it.

Allen

The LDS church has been criticized because the practice of polygamy was stopped.
The critics say that if polygamy were really a commandment of God, then it would
still be in force today since God is consistent and does not change.  In making
this criticism, those people do not understand that polygamy was a practice not
a principle.  Please read note 88 if you are not sure what I mean by practices
or policies and principle.

The principle involved, as given in D & C 132 is that unless contracts and
agreements are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, they are dissolved at
death.

    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...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.
    (D & C 132:7)

This is the principle.  Polygamy as was practiced in the previous century was
an application of that principle to the Church at that time.  Temple marriage
as we practice it today is another application.  That is, both polygamy and
temple marriage are "policies" or practices *not* principles.  Behind both
practices is the principle that *if* the marriages are (were for polygamy)
performed under the conditions and limitations given by the Lord, they will
be binding in the next life, but if such marriages are performed under
different conditions, they will not be in force in that life.

Once we understand that polygamy is a practice not a principle, then our
concern for the change in 1890 vanishes because we realize that the Lord
always changes the practices of the Church as the conditions and needs of
the people change.

Allen

   RE: Note 25.4 by MANILA::DEERE "Micro Empire" 

  Hi,

  I've been meaning to send this reply for quite awhile, but {mumble,mumble,
  excuses, excuses...} Well, I finally made the time, so here goes. Quite some
  time ago, this person made a statement that I think warrants a response:
    
   .4>In my book, polygamy is an outrageous sin.  It's tantamount to 
   .4>adultery, and is rooted in perverted thinking.  
    
  In my attempt to rebut this statement, I will reason from the Bible. Please
  know that this is a sincere attempt to express my personal beliefs and what
  I understand the teachings of the church to be; it is not an effort to stir
  up any bad feelings.

  First of all, adultery is sin. Always has been, always will be. God has
  never condoned adultery. He never will. Our church teaches that adultery
  is one of the most serious transgressions that man can commit, next to
  murder in the eyes of God.

  Now, if you had added one phrase in the statement above, it would be correct
  and would agree exactly with the teaching of the church:

       ....polygamy [if not sanctioned by God] is an outrageous sin, is
       tantamount to adultery, and is rooted in perverted thinking.

  You may have heard of some "Mormon" polygamist groups still thriving in the
  west--Colorado City (which, incidentally, is on the Utah-Arizona border--never
  could figure that one out) is one I'm familiar with. Actually, though many
  people believe these groups to be Mormon, they have long since been excommun-
  icated from the church for the practice of polygamy. As Allen Leigh has
  explained in .32 and note 88, the *practice* has been discontinued in
  the church by revelation, but the principle is still a true principle.

  In Genesis 17:1-14, God appears to Abram and says some interesting things:
  1) I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.
  2) Neither shall thy name anymore be called Abram, but thy name shall be
     Abraham [that is, Father of a great multitude]; for a father of many
     nations have I made thee.
  3) And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after
     thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto
     thee, and to thy seed after thee.
  4) And I will give unto thee....the land wherein thou art a stranger, all
     the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession....
  5) [God then proceeds to explain the covenant of circumcision to Abraham]
                                                        (--wording is KJV)

  A very interesting thing about this covenant that God established with
  Abraham is that Abraham was, at the time, and had been, for the previous
  thirteen years, practicing polygamy. Nowhere in God's exchange with Abraham,
  even in the command that he be perfect, was the subject of polygamy brought
  up. Certainly, if Abraham was living in outrageous sin, God would make sure
  that situation was rectified before proceeding to establish an everlasting
  covenant and bestowing on him the land of Canaan as an everlasting possession.
  Someone mentioned a few replies back that God "condoned" polygamy at times.  
  The thought that God would condone unrighteous behavior, especially behavior
  as grievously sinful as adultery is totally ludicrous and is not founded
  in scripture. It is much more reasonable to assume that perhaps the Bible    
  does not contain a full accounting of the principle of polygamy and that  
  some modern-day revelation on the matter through a living prophet would
  help out a bit (smiley face goes here--I'm serious, but not contentious).
  The covenant that God made with Abraham was one of righteousness and purity,
  not one of wickedness and sin. I believe that Abraham was already very close
  to fulfilling the command "be thou perfect". Jesus himself testifies that
  Abraham was righteous, was in the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 8:11), and even
  referred to heaven as "Abraham's Bosom." (Luke 16:22).

  Jacob also was a practicing polygamist when God appeared unto him as recorded
  in Gen. 32:24-30. It was during this visitation that Jacob was instructed to
  change his name to Israel (meaning, a prince of God). All of Israel is named
  for this man. He also was reported by the savior in Matt. 8:11 to be in the
  kingdom of heaven. I Cor. 6:9 is very emphatic that unrepentant adulterers
  will not inherit the kingdom of God. Jacob then, was not an adulterer. Nor
  was he a perverted thinker.

  David was a polygamist whose wives were given to him *by* God (II Sam. 8).
  Yet, he did commit adultery--not with his wives, but with someone else's wife.
  He is another example of a polygamist to whom God made promises (II Sam. 7).
  In his case however, due to his sinning (adultery and murder), some of the
  promises that the Lord made to him were not fulfilled (for example, that David
  would build a house to the Name of the Lord--II Sam. 7:13).

  This has been kind of a disjointed presentation, I readily admit, but I hope
  you can see my point. Polygamy is not meant for any but a holy people under
  the direction of God. Those who practiced it in holiness and faith before the
  Lord were blessed and strengthened for doing so. The principle is always in
  force; the *practice* may be instituted and revoked according to the will of
  God through His authorized servants.
  
  Be happy.

  Dave H.

    Whilst reading this notesfile, I have come to the conclusion that
    anybody who isn't a member of the church of Jesus chrict of Latter-day
    Saints, has go it in for those who are.  Is there any reason why
    you people can't discuss the church reasonably without flying at
    each other every spare minute you get?
    
    I see no point in arguing about religion at all, it only breeds
    contention.  Referring to Ed and Leza in this particular note, why
    do you seem to hate us so much?  Are we so different from other
    people?  As far as I can see we just follow what our Saviour has
    asked us to do.  Is that so difficult to do?  We owe everything
    we have to him, everything we can do, in return he doesn't ask for
    much.  He certainly doesn't ask us to argue over him!
    
     
        

On October 5, 1843 Joseph Smith wrote in his diary (History of the Church,
Volume 6, page 46):

	In the afternoon rode to the prairie to show some of the 
	brethren some land.  Evening, at home, and walked up and
	down the streets with my scribe.  Gave instructions to try
	those persons who were preaching, teaching, or practicing
	the doctrine of plurality of wives; for, according to the
	law, I hold the keys of this power in the last days; for
	there is never but one on earth at a time on whom the
	power and its keys are conferred; and I have constantly
	said no man shall have but one wife at a time, unless the 
	Lord directs otherwise.

The index in listing this reference indicates that Joseph Smith held the
keys to such a power, but that plural marriage had not yet been practiced
by faithful Church members, if I understand it correctly.  This is in contrast 
with the book "No Man Knows My History" which indicates that Joseph Smith may 
have been married to as many as 48 wives while living.  So far, I am
aware of no other references indicating that Joseph Smith had plural
marriages while living.  I don't have the book, so I would be interested
in what the book actually says and in what the references are.

Does anyone have other reputable references about the wives that Joseph Smith 
may have been married to while living?  I'm thinking of checking in the 
Church genealogical records to see if there is anything there.  The History of 
the Church seems to neither confirm nor deny that Joseph Smith had more than 
one wife while living.  And, if he did have more than one wife, it is not clear 
that such marriages were consumated.

By the way, I'm not looking for dirt here.  I believe that polygamy is a sin
unless commanded of the Lord.  I also believe that since Joseph Smith was a
prophet called of God and given the keys to authority, he could have received
command from God to perform plural marriages.  I am mostly wanting to check on
this for a friend who is investigating the Church and who is concerned.  


Steve

    I just read a book that I enjoyed dealing with this issue. It is
    a novel. It is not a history book.
    
    It tells the story of a woman, "Dinah Kirkham" and her family
    (parents and two brothers) in Manchester England.
    
    There are some really good insights into personalities and family
    realtionships, and live at different levels among the English culture.
    Dinah herself is a very strong person that bows to no one. 
    
    This story follows as Dinah marries and then later joins the Mormons
    and eventually moves to Nauvoo, becomes a part of polygamy and even
    a strong supporter of "The Principle".
    
    The book does a nice job of showing inside the people's minds and
    hearts as they address this issue.
    
    I recommend it to give one insights as to what people might have
    felt that embraced polygamy in those days.
    
    Of course it is based on many diaries and journals and the person
    Dinah is really a composite of more than one actual person. So it
    should not be read to deal with issues of FACTS but rather to search
    for feelings and insights. In that context I recommend it highly.
    
    the book is "Saints" by Orson Scott Card. Published by Tor books.
    It may be at any book store, I have found other Card book in various
    local book stores. It certainly could be ordered by a bookstore.
    Or those that know me might borrow it from me. It is 709 pages long
    but is fast reading as a good novel should be.
    
    Enjoy,
    
    Len
    

    re: .35
    
    Steve,
    
    Just a note here concerning the request on info. Have you received
    the info yet on the plural marriage of Joseph to Sarah Ann Whitney,
    sometime after 27 July 1842, as per the revelation through the prophet
    to Newel K. Whitney? One comment on dates; I haven't determined
    the actual date of marriage, so it could have been after the 
    martyrdom of the prophet, but it is more likely to have been earlier.
    
    Kevin
     

    I haven't gotten the information, yet.  But, is this the reference
    from the 'Latter-Day Saints Biographical Encyclopedia', Vol. 1,
    p. 226?  Fawn Brodie quotes Orson F. Whitney as writing,
    'The revelation commanding and consecrating this union is in existence,
    though it has never been published.  It bears the date July 27,
    1842, and was given through the Prophet to the writer's grandfather,
    Newel K. Whitney.'  So, I'm interested because Fawn Brodie was
    apparently unable to obtain a copy of the revelation itself but
    instead found a reference to it.  I would be interested in seeing
    the copy of the revelation because it would probably shed more light
    on the marriage as to whether it was 'for time' as well as 'for
    eternity'.  I'll keep watching my mail, though.  And, I appreciate
    the sources that you and others bring forth to this conference.

    The more I learn, the more I ponder and pray, the more I know that 
    the Gospel is true. 
    
    Steve

    Steve,
    
    What I sent you is the actual revelation which has surfaced in recent
    years and appears to be the primary document which the biographical
    encyclopedia makes reference to.  As I have mentioned in other note
    entries, this comes from "Unpublished Revelations of the Prophets
    and Presidents of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints".
    The book has been of immense help to me in corroborating various
    secondary references, for this contains the primary documents and
    where they are sourced. The revelations are usually in "Thus saith
    the Lord" fashion, so you can go from there in determining the 
    validity of such. Appears here that I've got what you may be looking
    for. BTW, what is your wife's genealogy back to the plural marriage
    you mentioned? 
    
    Kevin
    

    Steve,
    
    Sorry, I might have your wife mixed up with another notesfile person.
    I went back to check and didn't see any entry that mentioned anything
    in the family tree about plural marriage
    
    Kevin
    

    No excuse necessary!  Actually, my wife's genealogy dates back
    through a plural marriage and eventually traces back to Orson Pratt.
    
    Steve

re: .35
    
    Steve,
    
    I recently purchased a book, Plural Marriage Limited, by Paul Reimann.
    Pgs. 92-94 0f this book covers the subject of plural wives of Joseph.
    It lists the wives of Joseph through ecclesiastical marriage covenants
    between 1841 and 1843. They are:
    
    Louisa Beman   		5  Apr 1841
    Zina D Huntington   	27 Oct 1841
    Presinda L Huntington       11 Dec 1841
    Eliza R Snow		29 Jun 1842	Brigham Young officiating
    Sarah A Whitney		27 Jul 1842
    Lucy Walker			 1 May 1843	William Clayton officiating
    Eliza D Partridge	        11 May 1843
    Emily D Partridge		11 May 1843
    Elmira Johnson	        date not given
    
    It needs to be noted that the above mentioned wives were sealed
    for eternity and NOT for time. The State of Illinois had an anti-
    bigamy statute that made plural marriages which resulted in co-
    habitation illegal. There is no evidence to suggest that the ceremonies
    were performed for the purpose of cohabitation; the intent was to
    seal these women to Joseph for eternity. So any statements to 
    the effect that Joseph practised polygamy in a civil, legal sense,
    through cohabitation is simply wrong. He practised polygamy in an
    ecclesiastical sense only.
    
    I hope this helps to bring to light the info you requested. I hope
    that it sets the Prophet in the proper light in regards to these
    matters.
    
    Kevin
    
            

    Thanks, Kevin!  I got the article you sent and am in the process of
    getting a copy of the book on unpublished revelations.  It is apparent
    that Ms. Brodie did not have access to these materials or that she
    did not make effort to obtain them.  At this point, I don't know
    through these findings whether Joseph Smith practiced poligamy or
    not.  It is certain that he was sealed for eternity to several women 
    during his lifetime, but not certain how many were married to him for 
    time.  And, I have found no firm evidence that any of the marriages
    were consummated.  My own belief is that none of the marriages were 
    consummated.  My testimony is that he did only that which was pleasing
    to God concerning this.
    
    Steve

>    entries, this comes from "Unpublished Revelations of the Prophets
>    and Presidents of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints".
 
    Kevin,
    
    Where and how did you get this book?  Who publishes it?  I'm curious
    because our just recently released stake president mentioned that
    the information published in this book was smuggled out of the church
    archives.  I don't know how true that is and want to know if it
    is true.
    
    scott

    
    Scott,
    
    I ordered this book out of Sam Weller's Zion Bookstore in Salt Lake
    City last fall.  This book is the 2nd edition and has been out since
    1981 or so.  I don't have the background the process that Fred Collier
    had gathered this info, but much had come out of church archives,
    photocopies,etc, and  from microfilm. This info was compiled over
    a period of years, well back into the early 1970's, as far as smuggling
    documents, I would hope the historical dept would have better control
    than that; the statement assumes that Collier had somehow done
    something illegal, which I haven't heard any word of. I did, find
    in one of Collier's works that one of his assistants were doing
    research in the historical dept and brought the info to the first
    pres. of the church, (something about the no. of wives sealed to
    Joseph). They (1st Presidency) weren't too pleased, and when they
    found the assistant was working for Collier, he was prohibited from
    coming back to the hist. dept. to do work. There has been various
    rumors concerning Collier and his research findings.  I haven't
    been able to substantiate them. However, I have checked some of
    these "revelations" he published and indeed, they exist and Collier
    is accurately reproducing them. BTW, this book is available at
    "This is the Place" in Kensington, Md. next to the Washington Temple.
    I saw it there 3 wks. ago when I spent a week at the Temple.
                                                                
    The book has the lectures on faith in it, as well as some revelations
    that have been incorporated into Doctrine and Covenants. The Lecture
    at the Veil is in it, as well as Pres. John Taylor's vision of the
    Holocaust. Revelations of Joseph concerning The Council of Fifty
    are there and some that various apostate groups have used to "validate"
    their various claims, or beliefs.  One that I have never mentioned
    but feel is the appropriate place and time to mention is 
    Pres. John Taylor'salleged revelation of 1886 which has been 
    used by some to justify plural marriage, indeed, his own 
    son, Apostle John W. Taylor was excommunicated later for using this 
    revelation to justify the plural marriages he authorized up to 1905,
    in Canada and Mexico. the Smith Manifesto of 1904, (think that's
    the year) announced that plural marriages were no longer santioned
    in Canada and Mexico, or anywhere in the church. I have seen this
    revelation brought up in 3 different places so far, one being the
    court proceedings against John W. Taylor by the council of the
    Twelve. 
    
    I found the book as a valuable resource in refuting claims of apostate
    groups, when read in the proper light, and in shedding some historical
    light on the early church.
    
    Kevin
    
      

    
    re: .43
    
    Steve,
    
    I have acquired a book titled "The Life and Thought of Orson Pratt",
    by Breck England. It is an excellent book, well written and documented.
    Breck's wife, Valerie, is a great-great granddaughter of Orson, and
    no doubt served to motivate Breck in this work.  The book has added
    a new dimension to my understanding of one the original 12 apostles
    of this dispensation, his trials, and accomplishments as the "Guage
    of Philosophy" of our church. I heartily recommend it to all who
    wish to understand more of the early history of the church, as well 
    as a study on Pratt. There's a good bit of info on the wives of
    Orson Pratt here that you might be interested in. 
    
    Kevin
    
     

    
    Seein's how my wife traces her lineage through polygamist lines
    to Orson Pratt, looks like I *will* have to add that one to
    my list!
        :-)
        
        Steve

    re: .42
    
    Hi folks,
    
    I need to revise my earlier statement concerning Joseph Smith and
    his Polygamous wives. There is evidence that he may have cohabitated with
    them. In fact, I have, found several references from different sources
    that indicate that cohabitation may have existed. One particular
    individual he may have been involved with was Maria Lawrence. In this 
    case Joseph was formally charged with adultery and fornication by the 
    grand jury of the Hancock County circuit court. The charges were brought 
    forth by William Law. The indictment was filed 23 May 1844 before the May 
    term of the circuit court. I do not know of the disposition of the case, 
    only that he was charged. I wish to bring this out to correct some in-
    correct info that I posted earlier. The info I am working with now
    is much more recent and up to date, and I believe, more accurate. The
    info stated above comes from "Joseph Smith's Introduction of Temple
    Ordinances and The 1844 Mormon Succession Question, Pg.132, Andrew F.
    Ehat, December 1982".
    
    
    Kevin

    I've been reading in Unpublished Prophecies (finally got my copy).
    It seems to me plausible that Joseph Smith may have been a practicing
    polygamist.  Besides the reference to one such polygamist marriage
    previously discussed, the book includes some of the details of how a 
    polygamist marriage was supposedly sealed.  (I was reading this
    last night.)
    
    Part of the marriage ceremony involves the voluntary consent of the 
    present wife, who plays a key role in the ceremony, giving the bride
    to the husband.  As such, I would expect that Joseph Smith's first
    wife would have played a part in each of these.  But, I've no
    information about any of her comments or feelings regarding this.
    I also don't know how reliable the account of the ceremony is.
    
    I've been asking myself why this was.  I suppose that the law
    of polygamy was part of the Restoration that is not currently
    practiced.  I've asked myself why the Lord would have Joseph practice
    polygamy, especially so close before his death.  I suppose that
    the answer has to do with the need we have for example.  Not that
    we should all have polygamist marriages, of course.  Rather, if
    polygamy involved a command of the Lord and part of the Restoration,
    would it not have made sense to require that Joseph show an example?
    I think that had Joseph not shown that example, this issue may have
    become something to further shake the foundation of the Church later 
    on.  
    
    The other entries in the book that I have read by folks like Parley
    Pratt, Orson Hyde, Oliver Cowdery and others indicate that these men 
    knew Joseph intimately.  They revered the character and integrity of 
    Joseph Smith.  Polygamy seems contrary to that character unless its
    true and proper practice within the limits the Lord has set is
    understood.  I suspect that these men and other leaders understood 
    polygamy as the Lord intended and understood Joseph Smith's marriages.
    I suspect that it was that understanding that helped to fulfill this 
    commandment later on.  But, I've no direct sources to back that up.
    
    
    Steve

>for eternity and NOT for time. The State of Illinois had an anti-
>bigamy statute that made plural marriages which resulted in co-
>habitation illegal. 

    Kevin,
    
    Would you mind elaborating on this?  How long had such a law been
    in effect?  Was it being enforced, or was it inactive (like the
    Missouri Extermination Order, cancelled in 1978 if I recall
    correctly)?  Thanks!
    
    Steve

    
    Steve,
    
    I'll be happy to! Give me a day to see if I can find the statute
    or a reference to it. 
    
    One other thing. I've been looking into this question of Josephs
    polygamy for the past year. The earlier info I gathered (last
    spring indicated that he did not actively practice it (cohabitation).
    However, more recent material, indicates that indeed he did. Earlier
    writings, such as Brodie's just didn't have as complete a picture
    as we now have. Much of the background on the 1843 revelation (sec 132)
    dealt with Emma and her feelings and attitude towards plural marriage.
    She consented to let Joseph have at least 2 women live at their home
    (Emily and Eliza Partridge). The whole situation was complex. Joseph
    knew of the necessity of this practice, yet it wasn't Joseph's manner
    press people on these matters. He delayed introducing publicly the
    principle, and seemed to use plural marriage as a qualification of
    the highest blessings ie. fullness of the priesthood. For a husband
    and wife, who loved one another deeply, to agree to such a thing
    showed a deep felt testimony of Joseph's divine calling, and showed
    a great sense of obedience. BTW, Emma was the person who picked 
    the Partridge sisters as Plural wives of Joseph. 
    
    I feel sad in a sense in reading the history of Joseph in this regard.
    It was in part, the polygamist practices that led to the martyrdom
    of Joseph and Hyrum. If any of this was made public, the public outrage
    would be predictable. That's what William Law and others threatened, to
    do. The Nauvoo charter would have been revoked and the Saints would
    have been at the mercy of the mobs again. 
    
    I suggest that anyone interested in this topic take the time to obtain
    and read the Ehat paper on this. My testimony of the prophet has cer-
    tainly been deepened by what I have learned.
    
    Kevin
      
    

    Where may I locate the Ehat paper?  Thanks!
    
    Steve

    
    
    Steve,
    
    I got mine out of a bookstore in Provo. The number I called to 
    order was 1-800-456-0333. The paper was called "Joseph Smith's
    Introduction of Temple Ordinances and The 1844 Mormon Succession
    Question" by Andrew F. Ehat, Dec. 1982. Master's Thesis at  BYU.
    
    I'm sure there's other places that carried it, and I don't want to
    be seen as endorsing one particular business. 
    
    I checked my info on the Illinois statute on bigamy and I didn't have 
    the date of it; only the fact that it was on the books in the 1840's.
    I thought about this statute and the effect on the prophet's teachings.
    I recalled some earlier readings where Joseph had difficulties with 
    Ohio authorities due to the refusal of Ohio to recognise Mormon Elders
    as being qualified to perform marriage ceremonies. Joseph went ahead
    and married people anyway. His thoughts were that authority from God
    superceded civil authority; that civil contracts were not binding.
    He allegedly married some whose civil divorces had not been finalized,
    (Lydia Bailey to Newel Knight). If he did not recognise civil marriage
    as being binding, then the thought might carry over into his attitude
    toward the Illinois statutes. 
    
    Cohabitation of Joseph's plural wives with him has been a touchy issue
    with many. Emma did give him plural wives, and permitted some of them 
    to live under the same roof. I have some references that indicate that
    some were wives "in deed" but I dare not use this forum to speculate on
    it. Suffice it to say that Joseph, in what he did was inspired by the 
    Lord in doing His will.
    
    Kevin   
    

    Thanks!  I'll give 'em a call ...

    Part of the reason I asked about the Illinois law was that in
    Unpublished Revelations I recently read some reference to movements 
    within the federal government years later to take steps against
    polygamy.  My recollection is that though polygamy laws existed on the 
    books, they were seldom enforced.  In the official declaration near
    the end of the D. & C., Wilford Woodruff, then President of the Church, 
    implies that at that time (1890) the federal courts had recently ruled 
    that anti-polygamy laws were contitutional.  To me, this seems to
    add up to some question for a period in excess of 50 years as to
    whether polygamy was a legal practice in this country.
    
    I believe the basis for the laws is well-founded in that polygamy as 
    practiced by the world is unholy and reprehensible.  But, as practiced
    the way the Lord has determined is documented as being just the
    opposite (referring here to Biblical accounts of Abraham and others).
    
    
    
    Steve

There was a book published within the past year that discussed the legal
aspects of polygamy.  It went into great detail about the various laws that
were passed to prohibit polygamy during the mid-late 1800's.  I don't
remember the name of it or the publisher.

Allen

    
    Hi!
    
    For those who want to do any further reading on Polygamy, the book,
    "MORMON POLYGAMY, A HISTORY", 2nd ed. 1989, by Richard S. Van Wagoner,
    Signature Books, is a very informative study and history on the subject. 
    It tells of the early history, and developments in the practice. It 
    covers church santioned post manifesto polygamy during the years 
    1890-1904, and efforts by the church to eradicate the practice and 
    assist gov't authorities in locating/prosecuting offenders during this 
    century. It mentions the laws, however not in great detail. 
    It also covers the practice of polyandry, and it's practice by early
    leaders. 
    
    
    Kevin