…
As the LDS church sends missionaries out to the field they will be assaulted with information from all different sources. They should know the facts from official church sources in order to respond honestly.
Honesty Defined
LDS members are instructed in honesty from the Gospel Principles manual as follows:
” When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest. The Lord is not pleased with such dishonesty, and we will have to account for our lies. Satan would have us believe it is all right to lie. He says, “Yea, lie a little; … there is no harm in this” (2 Nephi 28:8). Satan encourages us to justify our lies to ourselves. Honest people will recognize Satan’s temptations and will speak the whole truth, even if it seems to be to their disadvantage.” (LDS.org)
This is a universal principle and no exception or caveat is provided for persons of rank or privilege. The history of the Church in relation to the practice of plural marriage, as documented by official church sources, provides a challenging contrast to this powerful statement of honesty. What follows is a timeline of events gathered only from official church websites which is relevant to the Church and its attitude towards honesty with members and the public.
Original Scripture on Monogamy
The original 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants included a section 101 that made an official statement on the church’s policy regarding marriage stating:
“Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.” (JosephSmithPapers.org)
Revelation on Polygamy
On 12 July 1843 a revelation is recorded relating to plural marriage (LDS.org) In this revelation it is made clear that Joseph has already been practicing polygamy. Emma Smith, Joseph’s 1st wife, is commanded to accept plural wives that have been given or will be given to Joseph, being told in verse 52 to “receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph” The revelation is not publicly revealed to the general membership but will later be canonized as D&C 132.
Dissidents Excommunicated
On 18 April 1844 the 2nd Counselor of the First Presidency, William Law, was excommunicated on grounds of unchristian-like conduct.(byu.edu). With other dissidents he formed and became president of an offshoot church – the True Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
Polygamy Denied
On 26 May 1844 Joseph Smith publicly denied polygamy in a speech in Nauvoo stating:
“I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made on proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives. This new holy prophet [William Law] has gone to Carthage and swore that I had told him that I was guilty of adultery. This spiritual wifeism! Why, a man dares not speak or wink, for fear of being accused of this… What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago.” (byu.edu)
Freedom of the Press
Law and his associates acquired a printing press and published a single issue of a periodical called the Nauvoo Expositor on June 7 1844. In it he accuses Joseph Smith of practicing polygamy (among other things). The issue included affidavits describing a revelation that Joseph Smith had given to Law and his wife and others regarding polygamy. (Since this is not a Church publication there is a non-LDS source of the original here: (archive.org) and a more legible reconstruction here. The descriptions given of the revelation in the affidavits match the revelation that was ultimately canonized as D&C 132 – but this was not known by the membership of the church at the time.
Freedom of the Press, Supressed
In response to the Nauvoo Expositors inflammatory accusations the Nauvoo City Council declared the paper to be a nuisance and ordered its abatement and, as mayor, Joseph Smith accordingly ordered the destruction of the printing press and all copies of the paper burned. It was this action which led to the Mayor/Prophet/General Joseph Smith’s arrest, incarceration and subsequent murder on 27 June 1844 (byu.edu).
Continued Denial
The Church continued to deny the practice of polygamy in its official publications:
“The law of the land and the rules of the church do not allow one man to have more than one wife alive at once.” (15 Nov 1844 Times and Seasons Vol 5 No. 21: byu.edu Page 715)
“The Latter-day Saints are charged by their enemies, with the blackest crimes. Treason, murder, theft, polygamy, and adultery, are among the many crimes laid to their charge… As to the charge of polygamy, I will quote from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, which is the subscribed faith of the church and is strictly enforced. Article Marriage, sec. 91, par. 4, says, “Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have BUT ONE WIFE, and one woman but one husband.” (1 May 1845 Times and Seasons Vol 6 No 8: byu.edu Page 894)
Polygamy Admitted
Finally on 14 September 1852, 11 years after the revelation was originally recorded, the Church publicly announces the revelation regarding polygamy. (byu.edu Page 26) However, it wasn’t until the 1876 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants that the original Section 101 which commanded monogamy was removed and the new revelation on polygamy was added as Section 132 (33 years after the revelation was recorded)
Honesty or Deception?
What does this all add up to? For 11 years the highest levels of Church General Authorities were aware of and practiced the principle of polygamy all the while publishing and stating publicly that the church was not involved in the practice. These facts are all documented on official church records. This cannot fall under any definition of “honesty” that bears scrutiny. There has never been an apology or explanation of this deception on the part of the Church Officials.
What Could it Mean Today?
As such, is there any guarantee that no similar deception is underway at any given time? Modern culture is becoming much more permissive of nontraditional marriage arrangements. The current Doctrine and Covenants Section 132 is still canon and permits plurality of wives (though a subsequent revelation stopped it in this life). As recently as 1943 a sitting Apostle was excommunicated for polygamy (Utah State University source: usu.edu page 173). Will there be a time in the future where we learn that the general authorities have re-instituted the practice and have been practicing it for years, while denying it to the world?
Conclusion
Missionaries going into the field should be aware of this record so that they can honestly address legitimate concerns on the part of investigators regarding the leaders to whom the investigators are being asked to give ecclesiastical submission. A frank and honest admission of the facts will prevent a sense of betrayal when converts ultimately discover the truth. The age of the internet will likely prove to be as difficult for the LDS church as the mass publication of the English Bible was to the Catholic church if it continues to ignore this and other challenging issues from its history and current practice. The only way for the church to maintain integrity in the eyes of an informed and inquisitive membership is with the sort of Honesty that the Gospel Principles manual advocates – speaking “the whole truth, even if it seems to be to their disadvantage.”
One thing you missed. You said…
“The current Doctrine and Covenants Section 132 is still canon and permits plurality of wives (though a subsequent revelation stopped it in this life).”
The first and second manifesto’s on Plural Marriage were not revelations. they were simply statements of policy.
The manifestos are not ‘statements of policy’ They are Official Declarations made because of revelations received, and they are themselves scripture.
Given the circumstances of the day, I can understand the urge to publicly deny polygamy. They were not perfect and it doesn’t bother me to see their flaws. When you go and invite the same level of violence to come on yourself that an admission would have done back then, then you can point fingers.
The leaders have no answers for the churchers trouble past. They suppress it , but it’s not going away.
Two thoughts. First, don’t claim to want to help future missionaries if the only thing you end up doing is confusing them and half-accusing GAs of having secret plural wives. I mean… what? How did you ever come to that conclusion?
But my real reason for commenting is this… “It’s” only means “it is.” If you’re talking about the Church and “it’s attitude towards honesty,” you already don’t have much credit in my eyes because if you’re not willing to listen to your 5th grade teacher teach you grammar, you probably wouldn’t listen to someone give you a proper explanation of what really happened in the beginning days of the Church regarding polygamy, no matter how much sense it makes.
But anyway, “it’s” is always a conjunction. You’re looking for the word “its.”
Barlow,
Thanks for the comments. You bring up some good points.
First, I agree that the suggestion that the current GA’s are secretly practicing polygamy is completely outrageous. The leaders of the church have made numerous public statements to the press and church members about how the church has absolutely nothing to do with the earthly practice of polygamy. One example is found at the Mormon Newsroom in the form of a request to the news media about the use of the term ‘mormon’ when discussing polygamist groups in news reports. (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/use-of-the-word-mormon-in-news-reports)
In this request the church clarifies that “…the Church teaches that marriage must be monogamous and does not accept into its membership those practicing plural marriage.” The statement goes on to explain that anyone discovered to be practicing polygamy is excommunicated.
To a member today, the idea that a high level church official would be practicing polygamy is inconceivable.
Now put yourself in the place of an early member of the church. There had been accusations that Joseph Smith and other high level church officials were engaging in polygamy – despite the Section 101 of the Doctrine and Covenants that I cited in the original post, which decreed monogamy to be the rule among mormons.
In response to some of these accusations, the Presidency of the Relief Society itself, headed by Joseph Smith’s own wife Emma published a statement denying the practice of polygamy. The denial was published in the official church periodical “Times and Seasons” in October, 1842 (http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu//utils/getfile/collection/NCMP1820-1846/id/9966/filename/5058.pdf page 940). It was signed by the Relief Society President, Emma, and her counselors.
The statement included:
“We the undersigned members of the ladies’ relief society, and married females do certify and declare that we know of no system of marriage being practiced in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints save the one contained within the Book of Doctrine and Covenants…”
The remarkable thing about the statement is that it was signed by people who were later revealed to already be familiar with or practicing pleural marriage with Joseph Smith – including both counselors and the secretary – without Emma’s knowledge of it!
– Elizabeth Ann Whitney (1st counselor): mother to Sarah Ann Whitney, 16th wife of Joseph Smith, witnessed their wedding in July 1842.
– Sarah M Cleveland (2nd counselor): married Joseph Smith in June 1842
– Eliza R Snow (secretary): married Joseph Smith on June 29, 1842
Given the strong language used in statements such as these by the highest levels of church leadership, I believe it is safe to say that the church members at the time would consider the idea that their general authorities were secretly engaging in a practice which they denounced so vehemently ludicrous as well.
As I outlined in the original posting, It was later revealed that all of these pronouncements were contrary to the reality of the ongoing practice of polygamy by Joseph Smith. By asking whether we, today, could be sure that such a deception was not being practiced right now – I was not making an accusation about GA’s practicing polygamy. I was making an observation that the history record shows that such a deception had been perpetrated upon the church members in the past by leaders who claimed the exact same divine authority and demanded the same degree of trust from the members.
When someone discovers that this deception has occurred in the past from an office of prophetic authority – it calls into question the integrity of any subsequent leaders who rely upon that same authority.
I apologize for the length of this response.
Second, I thank you for the correction of my use of the word “it’s” I would frankly be embarrased if my middle school grammar teachers were to take a red pen to most of my internet musings. I tend to write stream of consciousness and have diminishing patience to nit-pick about grammar. I will make the correction.
I do note, however, that I make no claims of divine guidance in my choice of words, grammar or spelling. In describing how the translation of the Book of Mormon took place, Apostle Russell M Nelson quoted David Whitmer’s first hand account stating:
“One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (http://bit.ly/1drS4Of)
With such a divinely ordered method of proofreading, errors such as replacing “it’s” for “its” may be permissible as they would be difficult to convey linguistically. Other types of grammatical errors, however, would be less easy to dismiss and one would think that such an inspired method of checks would catch them. Here are a few of the grammatical errors discovered in the original publication of the Book of Mormon in 1930, subsequently corrected:
– “Adam and Eve, which was our first parents…,” (1 Nephi 5:11)
– “…that there might not be no more sorrow” (Alma 29:2)
– “I Moroni have written the words which was commanded” (Ether 5:1)
– “And it came to pass that there was certain men passing by” (Helaman 7:11)
– “They did not fight against God no more” (Alma 23:7)
– “I were about to write to them” (3 Nephi 26:11)
Feel free to confirm these at the online version of the 1830 Book of Mormon available at the Church Joseph Smith Papers website (http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/book-of-mormon-1830)
Imagine if people starting to read the Book of Mormon at the time saw such grammatical errors and then completely dismissed the whole text, as you appear to have done with my essay.
If God’s own system of proofreading will let such errors pass, then I believe I may be allowed a little leeway for such errors. I am, after all, just a guy with a blog.
Well said Thinker
So the author of this article is an offender for a word? Really? I advise you against reading the original “inspired”, “truest book on earth” Book of Mormon. You will have a whale of a time putting “credit” in the person who wrote it!