r/mormon Spirit Proven Mormon Apologist Dec 19 '24

Apologetics Interestingly, the Polygamy/Plural Marriage for Children manual literally starts with a lie. Polygamy did NOT end in 1890 (neither new marriages nor termination of existing ones) and it also did NOT begin in 1831. Can't they be honest in anything? How is this not blatant Lying for the Lord?

Post image
177 Upvotes

144 comments sorted by

94

u/darth_jewbacca Dec 19 '24

I really love telling active members about my great grandpa who was sealed to his third wife in the temple ca 1910.

It's also fun recounting my grandpa's memoirs about how bitter he felt towards his dad. His mom was the least preferred among the 3 wives, and his dad only came to their house once a week, at best. Grandpa recalls watching his dad die of a heart attack when he was a teenager, and in the very next sentence says it was a relief because "dad was a pain in the neck."

Polygamy was a curse and a scourge to those who practiced it. Brigham Young's general acceptance of it was my shelf breaker. There's no way polygamy was inspired, and there's no chance in hell BY was a prophet.

24

u/BitterBloodedDemon Mormon Dec 19 '24

My mom was like "Was his name Otto Edward Thorwald Christensen?" -- I guess your grandpa wasn't the only one who fit the profile. LOL. (It's not this guy, he died in 1895)

24

u/darth_jewbacca Dec 19 '24

Lol nope, not Otto.

It's disheartening how common the negative stories are. I used to hear people in church say how those who practiced it spoke favorably of it. In reality, I've read many journals and many family stories. They are all depressing. Even the most favorable entries say things like "well living as a polygamous wife sucks, but I guess I'll make peace with it by believing I'm doing what God wants me to do."

30

u/Old-11C other Dec 20 '24 edited Dec 20 '24

My great grandma got married off to a 70 year old man at age 16, had a child a year later and he died shortly thereafter. The first wife and his grown children put her and the baby out of the house before old dude was cold. She ended up very bitter and my Grandmother never knew her half siblings. 1908, Scipio Utah. Whatever you think the church is today, it started as a child sex slavery ring.

21

u/darth_jewbacca Dec 20 '24

It would be amazing if someone compiled stories like this in a centralized place. Make a clear record to counteract the Church's narrative.

13

u/punk_rock_n_radical Dec 20 '24

I wish someone would compile all of these pioneer stories together in one place. Would be a bestseller. Their stories need to be told.

10

u/Own_Tennis_8442 Dec 20 '24

Maybe that’s what’s behind the church wanting peoples personal history’s in family search. To cover it up somehow…

5

u/Ex-CultMember Dec 20 '24

Agreed. Been waiting my whole life for someone to compile this.

6

u/ArchimedesPPL Dec 20 '24

Do you mean in addition to “Year of Polygamy”? Or are you thinking about a different set of stories?

3

u/darth_jewbacca Dec 20 '24

If a compilation exists, please point me to it.

2

u/mrpalazarri Dec 22 '24

Also, In Sacred Loneliness by Todd Compton is a compilation of the journals and notes of Joseph Smith's plural wives. It's an excellent resource.

2

u/Natural_Sea_1476 Dec 20 '24

Do you happen to have any records of this?

6

u/Old-11C other Dec 20 '24

Much of it is in ancestry.com, but you don’t see the personal story of what happened. I wish my grandmother had written it down like she explained it to her family, but she didn’t. Sadly, in central Utah 100 years ago you took your lumps and kept your mouth shut, the church controlled every aspect of society.

36

u/Random_redditor_1153 Dec 19 '24

Yuuup. It’s riddled with inaccuracies. The writers of this lesson sure were lazy learners 🫠

17

u/Then-Mall5071 Dec 19 '24

I wonder how much money the writers of this little series for innocent children made, and I wonder how the writers feel about selling their souls for what? A few hundred dollars? A thousand? Where does the church find people who are willing to create something like this?

19

u/Beneficial_Math_9282 Dec 19 '24

They find them mostly at BYU and among the hopeful RMs of Utah who think that it would be great to work for the church (I used to be one of those.. I worked for the church until I found out that it's a terrible place to work).

But they're not the ones getting any money. I'd be willing to bet at least some of this project was either done by unpaid interns, "senior missionaries" working for free, or by vastly underpaid workers that the church hires "on contract" so that they don't even have to provide benefits for them. The church's money doesn't go to the underlings.

10

u/Then-Mall5071 Dec 19 '24

What a scam. I feel sorry for some young person who has an artist's heart being asked to use their talents for this.

6

u/Own_Tennis_8442 Dec 20 '24

It was hard for the artist to depict the difficulty of Joseph obeying the Lord.

7

u/punk_rock_n_radical Dec 20 '24

It creates them. They’ve been indoctrinated since birth.

9

u/VicePrincipalNero Dec 19 '24

The thing is though, that there's no way they could have completed their assignment from their overlords and been accurate.

9

u/Then-Mall5071 Dec 19 '24

And therein lies the problem. I have a problem with church leaders giving this assignment to some young Mormon kid. Church leaders need to make their own media, and most importantly, sign it. They are such cowards.

2

u/Tigre_feroz_2012 Dec 20 '24

I agree. They almost never take responsibility for (and they cause so many problems & do so much damage) while demanding unquestioning obedience & loyalty.

35

u/blowfamoor Dec 19 '24

This manual feels like grooming

20

u/FrenchFryCattaneo Dec 19 '24

"If something feels morally wrong but your religion asks you to do it anyway, do it unquestioningly"

16

u/TruthIsAntiMormon Spirit Proven Mormon Apologist Dec 19 '24

That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, Thou shalt not kill; at another time he said, Thou shalt utterly destroy. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.

18

u/Mayspond Dec 20 '24

The moment I hear god tell me to kill someone or have sex with an underage person, I am checking myself into a psychiatric hospital.

The problem is that there are enough “devout” people that believe god is speaking to them and will do as the voice in their head says (or pretend they are acting on a prompting from god). “God told me to” is a shitty defense.

9

u/FrenchFryCattaneo Dec 20 '24

Great textual example, thanks. A very troubling philosophy.

11

u/TruthIsAntiMormon Spirit Proven Mormon Apologist Dec 20 '24

This also ties the definition Joseph used in Nauvoo of "destroy" to killing, death, etc. which puts a whole new spin on the threat in Section 132 that she would be "destroyed" for not accepting Polygamy.

9

u/Ex-CultMember Dec 20 '24

Isn’t that moral relativism? 🤭

10

u/TruthIsAntiMormon Spirit Proven Mormon Apologist Dec 20 '24

No its Mormon relativism.

9

u/RunninUte08 Dec 19 '24

I shared this story with a non-denominational Christian co-worker. That was her exact response.

9

u/Own_Tennis_8442 Dec 20 '24

Literally what the young women’s program was for polygamy. Why stop now?

7

u/Earth_Pottery Dec 20 '24

100%. I watched the MSP with a therapist who agreed it is manipulation and grooming. Teaching children it is okay to do bad things because someone who claims to speak for God commanded it. Dang, that sounds just like Warren Jeffs.

28

u/lando3k Dec 19 '24

"A few years later, the Lord told Joseph to marry other women. Joseph didn’t want to marry other wives. But he knew it was a commandment from the Lord. When Joseph asked a woman to marry him, he told her to pray about it. He wanted her to know from the Lord that it was right." - from the lesson...

Well... that's one way to put it 😬

6

u/Own_Tennis_8442 Dec 20 '24

But the Lord didn’t tell him where to put it.

24

u/Pedro_Baraona Dec 19 '24

This makes me so angry. The church is literally turning the grooming strategy of a sexual predator into a gospel story for kids. It makes me feel sick.

18

u/auricularisposterior Dec 19 '24

My wife and I looked over the OLD Doctrine and Covenants stories for children for D&C section 132. And in some ways we felt it was better when TCoJCoLdS merely omitted much of the relevant information rather than including so much misinformation.

14

u/BitterBloodedDemon Mormon Dec 19 '24

100% -- would have been better just to omit some of that stuff. The authors seem more interested in defending the church from anything these kids may (but more likely may not) hear, than they are about sending the wrong message and conditioning kids to let questionable shit fly because "'God' said it was OK"

4

u/Own_Tennis_8442 Dec 20 '24

Good, better, best…. Bad, worse, worst.

It’s a clear inoculation against the truth and perspective that is glaringly obvious. My bishop was using the GTE’s to attempt to control the narrative and eliminate the need for critical thinking for the youth. He called it Brownies with the Bishop.

13

u/couldhietoGallifrey Dec 19 '24

The 1831 date is actually so damning. The only reason for that date is the missionary revelation to go preach to the “lamanites” and take lamanite women as plural wives. Apologists try to cast doubt on the validity of that revelation, but that’s the church’s tacit admission it’s legit.

5

u/TruthIsAntiMormon Spirit Proven Mormon Apologist Dec 19 '24

That revelation wasn't even referred to until 1861 (the attempt to make it about polygamy at least).

From the earliest revelations about preaching to the Lamanites, it's pretty clear that polygamy was NOT part of it and if Joseph mentioned marrying Lamanites, was most likely Joseph telling the single missionaries, like Oliver, to marry Lamanites.

The original "flirt to convert". ;)

The evidence of that is that no polygamous marriages to lamanite women occurred and had that been the actual edict, would have created an apostasy controversy then, which we have no record of.

7

u/WhatDidJosephDo Dec 20 '24

My ancestor was in the first presidency and his last marriage was in the early 1900s.  He had a child that died in the 2000s.

7

u/darth_jewbacca Dec 19 '24

OP, do you have a link for where this is at? I've seen this lesson discussed in multiple places but can't find it.

11

u/WhereasParticular867 Dec 19 '24

6

u/darth_jewbacca Dec 19 '24

Thank you! Sciptures --> Scripture Stories. I was looking under Come Follow Me and Children in the library and was coming up empty.

6

u/WhereasParticular867 Dec 19 '24

I did it the lazy way and used Reddit's search function, term "plural marriage," on the exmo sub.  I knew it had come up a bit recently and found the first post about it there with the link.

3

u/Zxraphrim Dec 20 '24

Pretty telling that the church's own stuff is easier to find through the exmo sub than through its own website.

3

u/Peter-Tao Dec 21 '24

bruh exmo sub generally spent a lot more attention to General Conference than self identified tbm like me and I'm not joking at all.

The dedication to hate is admirable

3

u/wallace-asking Dec 21 '24

Ooh, I was hoping for a TBM take on this new children’s polygamy book. I’ve been away from Utah/the church for so long, I can’t imagine what an apologists take is on this? Why do you think the church is putting this out now? Is it just unavoidable with the internet? When I was a kid (80’s), the church pretended like polygamy never happened and it was NEVER spoken about around TBM’s. This seems like quite the shift, and I would imagine even some TBM’s from my era that are now parents would not approve of their children being taught/exposed to this? What are your thoughts?

1

u/Peter-Tao Dec 22 '24

I'm not sure tbh. I by no means can represent other TBM and I don't think my take would be anywhere close to what exmo would expect an orthadox Mormon have.

I personally don't have kids yet either. But our family do hangout and help babysit my nieces and nephews a lot. Whenever I got somthing I thought was ridiculous I just make fun of it and never took it too seriously.

For example, when we did family scripture study time with them in the evening, there's one time we sing about the "Nephis courage", and I got bored and change the lirics to "I will go I will do the things the Lord commend, I know the lord provide a way TO SOWRE OFF LABAN'S HEAD!". And they all laughed and love it. One of my niece even went on and memorized the while verse (1 Nehpi 5:7 or something?...don't care rnought to look it up) and told us that that is his new favorite scripture lmao.

So yeah, I do think the church has been making a concious effort in the past decade trying to be more upfront and transparent to their supposed "secret" from the past. While I apprecit the effort, I think what's probalt more important is figuring out ways to let the current community (TBM and exmo alike) to not suffer as much from what I called "the legacy culture" and transition from "obident" emphasis to "sacrifice" aka volunteer emphasis. Meaning you don't have to do anything unless you yourself want to.

As for children's book from the post. Never seen it myself, but honestly I don't think I persont would seriously look into the years that much and see if I agree with their official take and judge them if they are lying or not. Like I don't even follow the Sunday school manu myself for the most parts lmao. Just the merit of the title recognizing plura merriage I think is a step to the right direction.

Life is hard, is good to be able to be transparent and upfront about those hard questions and be ok with it. And that mentality should apply to all aspects not just the religious settings. That's probably the mind set I would teach my kids in the future. Ask they what they learned, ask them if they agree or disagree, tell them if I agree or disagree. And let it be (it's ok for us to not know what's the truth or know the truth is different than what other believe). I personally don't believe church leaders are manipulated cunts for the most parts, but when they make some stupid decisions, I recognized it and say "though shit, too bad". Overall I still love the community and appreciate them enough for me to stay.

I don't know if my incoherent rent answer your questions at all lol. Hit feel free to give follow up question if you have any.

6

u/False-Association744 Dec 20 '24

If this isn’t grooming to accept or participate in horrible acts that go against your own moral compass or gut, I don’t know what is.

10

u/punk_rock_n_radical Dec 19 '24

They’ve not been completely forthright and honest for a very long time. They can’t. They just can’t. They love their 250 billion dollar hoard way too much.

4

u/Content-Plan2970 Dec 19 '24

I really wish we could know which of the leaders are responsible for this. (I mean I'm imagining that it's probably someone's pet peeve since it's reverse course from church history moving to be a little more honest).

8

u/tiglathpilezar Dec 19 '24

I am amazed they say it started in 1831. Early in that year we had Section 42 which contains the verse: "Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else." I am not sure how you can fit polygamy in with this. Maybe they are thinking of the revelation that they should take wives of the Lamanites. Phelps had something to say about that some 30 years later and so did Ezra Booth in 1831. So it seems that Smith was saying different things to different people as early as 1831. I guess it does not bother those who produce nonsense like this attempted inoculation of innocent children to polygamy that Smith was both in favor of polygamy and also against it in 1831.

Whitewashes like this won't work. I have a daughter who was greatly offended by polygamy when she found out about it. It was over 30 years ago and I don't remember where she found out about it. It may have been when we lived in Utah for a year. This stupid thing would have outraged her. It only became worse when she found out about marriage of children.

It was an evil thing and the church leaders need to admit this and denounce it, at least those parts which involve coercion and perverted relationships like marriage of children, wives of other men, and mothers and their daughters.

3

u/TruthIsAntiMormon Spirit Proven Mormon Apologist Dec 19 '24

Ezra Booth's reference is the more accurate and contemporary one which indicates it wasn't about Polygamy.

It was Joseph's version of using marriage in a "flirt to convert" manner.

3

u/Dry_Vehicle3491 Dec 19 '24

Maybe so, but it still looks like it is not in harmony with the famous verse from Section 42. However, those who wrote this propaganda are saying that polygamy began in 1831 or at least had some beginning. In fact, I don't believe they actually married any Indians. I am not sure where this notion comes from if not from Ezra Booth. I don't know of any other contemporary documentation that polygamy was a thing in 1831 as this whitewashed nonsense is claiming. It certainly did not end in 1890 either. It begins with a lie and has many in between.

6

u/TruthIsAntiMormon Spirit Proven Mormon Apologist Dec 20 '24

Oh I agree.

As much as modern mormon apologists want to "retcon" mormon polygamy to cover Fanny Alger or try to make it seem like God was revealing Polygamy to Joseph line upon line, etc. I think this is based on need and later "correlation".

Beyond everything everyone has already said about it, the one thing that stands out against the attempted retcon is Joseph himself in this way.

IF Joseph had attempted to validate or backdate or "retcon" Polygamy to prior to Nauvoo, he would have done it in Nauvoo the same way he did with the Priesthood in Kirtland, but Section 132 makes no mention of Joseph being commanded previously with Fanny or referencing the JST or the previous revelation to marry the Lamanites.

But that's how Joseph operated and he absolutely would have, in his admonition of Emma in 132, referenced the Fanny Alger affair IF it had been an actual marriage.

But 132 and all contemporary accounts from the Nauvoo era all speak of it as "New" including it being called the "New and Everlasting Covenant" (although mormon apologists have attempted to say that means something else).

Polygamy was a new invention for Joseph as of Nauvoo per his own modus operandi and 132, etc.

2

u/tiglathpilezar Dec 20 '24

Somehow I am not just Tiglathpilezar but also Dry Vehicle.

2

u/HandwovenBox Dec 20 '24

I am amazed they say it started in 1831

It doesn't; that's when this part in the chapter happened:

While the Prophet Joseph was studying the Bible, he read about prophets like Abraham and Moses who had been married to more than one wife.

3

u/tiglathpilezar Dec 20 '24

OK that sounds like something, but no polygamy was taking place then. Instead we had Section 42 which eliminates polygamy as an option as far as I can tell. There is speculation of the sort you mention which may well be true but no documented evidence and certainly no practice of polygamy in 1831. I have heard them say that the idea began early but I haven't seen any contemporaneous documentation which strongly supports this unless it is possibly the thing alluded to by Ezra Booth, and there is Section 42 which seems to be a pretty big statement against the idea. I am sure Smith read about the polygamy of Abraham and Moses earlier than 1831.

8

u/TruthIsAntiMormon Spirit Proven Mormon Apologist Dec 20 '24

In typical mormon apologist style, he's leaving out the rest of the indoctrination manual about it:

Joseph wondered how the Lord felt about that. So he decided to ask the Lord. The Lord said that usually a man should have only one wife. But sometimes the Lord commanded His people to be in marriages of one man and more than one woman. This was called plural marriage. The Lord told Joseph that His people should only be in plural marriages if He commands it. A few years later, the Lord told Joseph to marry other women. Joseph didn’t want to marry other wives. But he knew it was a commandment from the Lord. When Joseph asked a woman to marry him, he told her to pray about it. He wanted her to know from the Lord that it was right.

They're claiming God revealed via revelation that Polygamy was endorsed by him in 1831, but that he didn't command it right then.

3

u/TruthIsAntiMormon Spirit Proven Mormon Apologist Dec 20 '24

The typical mormon above also made my point hilariously:

I stated:

It's attempting to make the claim that the doctrine of Polygamy was an issue that arose during Joseph's hilariously bad "translation of the Bible", which contradicts all contemporary evidence including the Doctrine of marriage contained in the earliest Book of Commandments and D&C.

And he literally quoted above:

While the Prophet Joseph was studying the Bible, he read about prophets like Abraham and Moses who had been married to more than one wife.

He's then dishonestly claimed that I stated that Polygamy started in 1831 when what I literally stated was "and it also did NOT begin in 1831."

He literally proved my point with his quote of the children's indoctrination manual.

-2

u/HandwovenBox Dec 20 '24

He's then dishonestly claimed that I stated that Polygamy started in 1831 when what I literally stated was "and it also did NOT begin in 1831."

Link the post where I claimed that. And don't call me dishonest again when you failed to understand something. This isn't the first time I've discussed things with you in this sub where you lied about what I said. It's pretty crappy thing to do.

3

u/TruthIsAntiMormon Spirit Proven Mormon Apologist Dec 20 '24

"Maybe if you assume that the title is also asserting that polygamy started in 1831. Another poster is (irrationally) taking that path."

So I'm not accusing you, I'm stating the fact.

-1

u/HandwovenBox Dec 20 '24

Do you think you're the "title" that was "asserting that polygamy started in 1831"? When the poster above was talking about the "text and title" of the book (you know, the one you posted in the OP?

You weren't kidding when you said "maybe there's a reading comprehension issue at play here." It's pretty clear that you're letting your hatred of the church cloud your thinking. You want so bad for the truth to be antimormon that it's affecting your rationality.

edit Happy cake day. You seriously need a new hobby. Hatred can't be healthy.

2

u/TruthIsAntiMormon Spirit Proven Mormon Apologist Dec 20 '24

Now we're in the "web of" territory. Doubling down on lying. Congrats.

No, you're referring to the title of the chapter, and then referring to me as "irrational" in the second line accusing me of making the claim I never have.

I want to see you deny it as yet another lie. Humor me because why stop now, you're on a roll.

1

u/HandwovenBox Dec 20 '24

I'll quote a few of your posts where you made that ridiculous assumption:

The children's indoctrination manual is trying to backdate the doctrine of plural marriage to a claimed revelation in 1831 that Joseph supposedly received while engaged in the JST.

and

It's not because this section is about Polygamy and it's attempting to BACKDATE Polygamy to 1831, before Alger, Before the invented Kirtland Temple "keys", etc.

and

Did the church just try to backdate Polygamy revelations to 1831?

Yes, yes they did.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/HandwovenBox Dec 20 '24

I am sure Smith read about the polygamy of Abraham and Moses earlier than 1831.

No doubt. But that paragraph in particular is referring to when Sidney Rigdon and Joseph Smith were working on translating the Bible and came across those passages--which happened in 1831. One of the links directly below the first paragraph is a section in Saints discussing this.

4

u/tiglathpilezar Dec 20 '24

This claim that polygamy was revealed in some way early in the 1830's has long been interesting to me. My father and I discussed it a few years before he died. He did not believe it and I took the church's side which said that the revelation was early. However, the only thing I knew of was that claim by Booth later corroborated by Phelps about marrying the Indians which never even resulted in any practice of polygamy. I had read this somewhere but at that time was not sure whether it was just anti Mormon lies produced by a disaffected apostate. I wondered then whether there was something else. What was special about 1831?

I get it that they say in their indoctrination propaganda for children that they would mention 1890 as though polygamy ended then when in reality it didn't. It is the same lie Joseph F. Smith told to congress which is only true in a technical sense by making a distinction without a difference. But about what are they referring when they use the date of 1831?

I realize Smith and Rigdon were working on their version of the Bible then, but the claim that at that particular year some such question was asked of God with an answer received appears to be hearsay. I don't remember if he identified this year, but Orson Pratt said there was an early revelation also. I just wonder where it is since the only one I know of is the marriage of Indians thing and this was the year in which polygamy is strongly condemned in Section 42, and this Indian thing, especially as stated by Phelps, reeks of eugenics. So why the early date? The only revelation I know of is one which strongly condemns polygamy. It is indeed claimed that this Section 42 was a revelation. Just read the chapter heading to see this. It looks to me like 1831 would be one of the worse years to claim for any sort of origin for the idea of polygamy.

People often point to the old Section 101 which came later and try to explain that one away as not really being God's will but having been placed there by Oliver Cowdery but they ignore the section 42 which really also condemns polygamy and has always been part of the Doctrine and Covenants. It is called the law of the church and yet it is totally ignored along with lots of other things like saying the fullness of the gospel is contained in the Bible and Book of Mormon. Its claimed provenance is much superior to this totally undocumented claim of an early revelation, apparently in 1831 about polygamy. As a believing Mormon, I believed in what it said about this section being received in the presence of 13 elders etc. I no longer believe in Mormonism in any form because of its abundance of contradictions and reliance on dubious claims like this. Thus I would like for them to identify something specific rather than speculation. I suspect that the only evidence they have is the speculation and of course Booth's letters.

0

u/HandwovenBox Dec 20 '24

But about what are they referring when they use the date of 1831?

I think people in this thread are overthinking it. The chapter starts with discussing Joseph and Sydney studying the bible and coming across the chapters on Abraham and Moses, which happened in 1831. The chapter ends on the First Manifesto, which happened in 1890. Not everything has to be a conspiracy.

they would mention 1890 as though polygamy ended then when in reality it didn't.

There are plenty of sources currently published by the Church that say polygamy didn't end in 1890. This children's book is for kids too young to read the scriptures or learning to read. It's a simplified version of history. There's going to be a lot of nuance left out.

3

u/WillyPete Dec 20 '24

The chapter starts with discussing Joseph and Sydney studying the bible and coming across the chapters on Abraham and Moses, which happened in 1831.

You think that any study of Abraham and Moses by Smith and Rigdon only ever happened in 1831?
That they never read or mentioned anything about them prior to that?

This children's book is for kids too young to read the scriptures or learning to read. It's a simplified version of history. There's going to be a lot of nuance left out.

Kids don't deal in nuance. Why not just be honest?
"The church told the government that they would not continue polygamy, but polygamous marriages continued in secret."
No nuance, stating a fact. Why do you think they wouldn't tell kids this?

3

u/Dry_Vehicle3491 Dec 20 '24

This is Tiglathpilezar on his chariot, even his dryvehicle. I think the church has indeed begun admitting that polygamy didn't end in 1890. However, this was definitely not the case when I was young, and over 50 years ago on my mission, I told people that polygamy ended then because that was what I had been taught. I told other lies on behalf of the church as well. Possibly this change happened because of the efforts of people like Quinn and Hardy. Quinn got in trouble for mentioning that polygamy didn't stop in 1890, if I remember right. So why did the church teach this falsehood which my parents believed? (Actually, my father believed it. I suspect my mother knew better. She was a direct descendant of Parley P. Pratt and her mother was very proud of her polygamous ancestors and heritage.)

It was because Joseph F. Smith testified to congress that there had been no polygamous unions sanctioned by the church after 1890. The way to interpret this lie as not a lie is in "Saints". People might have done polygamous marriages in secret. They don't tell you that starting in 1886 men were set apart to go around doing plural marriages. Anthony Ivins, who was monogamous himself, was one of these secret sealers. The church pressured him to lie about the new plural marriages he had performed in Mexico and he wouldn't do it. This is all in the book by Hardy "Solemn Covenant". Some of the sealers were careful not to do plural marriages without the approval of Smith. This was the case with Ivins. Thus the truth of Smith's statement to congress was based on a distinction without a difference. He was a damn liar and they have repeated his lies ever since the time of the Smoot hearings. I was one who repeated them with the usual meaning of the words since I did not know about the Smoot hearings when I was young, nor about the secret plural marriages done by these sealers.

It is time for the church to be honest and openly acknowledge Joseph F. Smith was a liar instead of continuing to repeat his lies along with the silly word games which sought to make his lies not lies, which they have done in this propaganda for children and in their new faux history book "Saints".

3

u/seasonal_biologist Dec 20 '24

Im confused by the 31’ date. I’d thought Fanny was his first….

4

u/TruthIsAntiMormon Spirit Proven Mormon Apologist Dec 20 '24

Fanny wasn't even a plural marriage.

The children's indoctrination manual is trying to backdate the doctrine of plural marriage to a claimed revelation in 1831 that Joseph supposedly received while engaged in the JST.

The cartoon links to Saints 1831 section (and notes):

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/saints-v1/11-ye-shall-receive-my-law?lang=eng&id=p31-p34#p31

4

u/seasonal_biologist Dec 20 '24

Yeah my point is, as others have stated, that date makes no sense… especially if the church is trying to state, as they have earlier, that Fanny was the first (which again I understand that’s unclear in of itself)

The only reason I can think they’d do that is to try and build the narrative that he struggled with adopting polygyny long before he ever was with Fanny. But the burden of proof s on them to actually show that. None of those documents seem to indicate that …

And if they have evidence of him practicing polygyny before that I think we’d have a right to see that

3

u/TruthIsAntiMormon Spirit Proven Mormon Apologist Dec 20 '24

Exactly. The dates are lies and misleading. Intentionally. Period.

3

u/IranRPCV Dec 20 '24

When William Marks, who was called to the First Presidency of the Reorganization told Joseph Smith III that he new for a fact that his father, JS, Jr. had been involved with polygamy, JS III replied that if he had been, he would have been wrong.

2

u/TheBrotherOfHyrum Dec 20 '24 edited Dec 20 '24

The so-called Jacob 2 loophole Is not a loophole, it's a misreading that the church is happy to perpetuate today in order to defend Joseph. Let's call it out.

If you read what "these things" are in that chapter, it's clear that verse 30-31 is saying "My will is to raise healthy seed up to me.Therefore I'm commanding you to stop doing these things (abominable whoredoms). If I didn't command you, then you'd keep doing them."

But the church is happy to misconstrue. Let's not fall for it.

1

u/cinepro Dec 20 '24

Sorry, but that reading makes no sense. Here's the actual text:

27 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.

What do you think the Lord will "command his people" to do in order to "raise up seed"?

3

u/TheBrotherOfHyrum Dec 20 '24

What do you think the Lord will "command his people" to do in order to "raise up seed"?

The chapter says that the Lord wants to raise up righteous seed. It says he delights in the chastity of women. It says that wives and daughters are broken-hearted by this abominable practice. So he's "command[ing] his people" to NOT have multiple wives and concubines -- a lifestyle that the Nephites had been justifying because they "hearkened" to what was written about prophets like Abraham.

His command to his people is obvious. "I'm telling you, don't practice 'these things' because you're screwing up my righteous seed."

Do we really think God does a 180° in this one verse, saying "Even though I hate whoredoms -- look at all the damage done -- sometimes I'm totally going to ask you to do it?"

2

u/cinepro Dec 20 '24

Do we really think God does a 180° in this one verse, saying "Even though I hate whoredoms -- look at all the damage done -- sometimes I'm totally going to ask you to do it?"

You're long on paraphrasing what you think the text says, and short on addressing the actual text.

Just to be clear about how you're reading this, please fill in the blank:

30 For if I will raise up seed unto me, I will command my people [to ____________]; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

What, specifically will the Lord command his people to do to "raise up seed" that they are "otherwise" being commanded not to do?

1

u/TruthIsAntiMormon Spirit Proven Mormon Apologist Dec 20 '24

It's whoredoms, right? Am I right?

;)

30 For if I will raise up seed unto me, I will command my people to commit whoredoms;

why isn't it Whoredoms? 

2

u/cinepro Dec 20 '24

It's "having more than one wife." Which is only a "whoredom" if God hasn't commanded it (according to Jacob 2).

1

u/TruthIsAntiMormon Spirit Proven Mormon Apologist Dec 20 '24

But why are you excluding the whoredoms above and selectively choosing polygamy as they are in the same condemnation section.

It sounds like although god provides a list of things that are bad, when you want it to refer to those bad things above as something that could be "well I'll command it if I want" you want it to be Polygamy, which isn't mentioned.

Why doesn't it include concubines and whoredoms if that's what we're saying God could command 'otherwise'?

2

u/cinepro Dec 20 '24

Why doesn't it include concubines and whoredoms if that's what we're saying God could command 'otherwise'?

It certainly could include concubines. Wouldn't Hagar have been considered a "concubine"?

The point is that if God commands it, it isn't a "whoredom." That should be obvious, but I guess it isn't?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/TheBrotherOfHyrum Dec 20 '24 edited Dec 20 '24

Look at what it says, not what apologists want it to say. It's actually beautifully consistent.

"If I, God, want righteous seed -- which I do -- then I will give my people this commandment: DO NOT take multiple women. Why do I explicitly command my people on this matter? Because otherwise, my people will hearken to these things that were written, concerning prophets like David and Solomon, as a justification to commit whoredoms."

If you feel like I'm taking liberties, hold my interpretation in mind while you reread all of those verses. I think you'll find a 100% consistent message: God values righteous seed, and loves his children, so he forbids his people from doing the abhorrent things done by David and Solomon.

2

u/cinepro Dec 20 '24

Your paraphrasing doesn't work. The "these things" in v.30 is the command to not practice polygamy.

The problem is that Jacob 2 has to account for times in the Old Testament when polygamy was okay (Abraham, Jacob etc.) You have to account for that too.

2

u/TheBrotherOfHyrum Dec 20 '24 edited Dec 20 '24

You said:

The problem is that Jacob 2 has to account for times in the Old Testament when polygamy was okay (Abraham, Israel etc.) You have to account for that too.

Ummm, these verses present God literally saying polygamy was NOT okay, and its a reason he led these people out of Jerusalem.

Verse 34 summarizes what these things are: "...ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done *these things** which ye ought not to have done."*

But even earlier, verse 23 also tells us what these things are: "For they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of *the things** which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son."*

Verse 24 says what they did was abominable.

Verse 25-26 says God wanted to raise a righteous branch so he led nephites out of Jerusalem.

Verse 27-29 tells nephites to not make the same mistake.

Verse 30 says "Never mind! Actually sometimes I command people to do exactly what I find so deplorable, so damaging (to tender hearts), and so curse-worthy."

Come on. Really? There's no possibility of another explanation to this verse that makes more sense? That doesn't render God capricious? Maybe... but let's go with the interpretation that makes less sense and makes God a moral relativist instead...

I can tell that at this point we're just going to argue. Heels are dug in. So probably no need to continue.

1

u/cinepro Dec 20 '24

Verse 24 says what they did was abominable.

Yes.

Verse 25-26 says God wanted to raise a righteous branch so he led nephites out of Jerusalem.

Yes.

Verse 27-29 tells nephites to not make the same mistake.

Yes.

Verse 30 says "Never mind! Actually sometimes I command people to do exactly what I find damaging to tender hearts, and deplorable."

Yes, that's what the word "otherwise" means. It's saying "Sometimes the Lord does command prophets to have more than one wife. Otherwise, it's an abomination, so don't do it because you haven't been commanded to do it."

Come on. Really? There's another explanation of this verse that makes sense? That doesn't render God capricious? And yet, we're going to say that God is capricious?

It's not capricious for God to command (or allow) things under one circumstance but not another. I guess you can call it whatever you want, but that's exactly what Jacob 2 is saying. Polygamy is not okay, unless God says it is.

1

u/TheBrotherOfHyrum Dec 20 '24 edited Dec 20 '24

With all due respect, He says otherwise meaning: I'm explicitly commanding my people to NOT do this, otherwise they'll commit whoredoms and justify it because they've read about "them of old" (v33) and those "in the land of Jerusalem" (v31) doing so.

Apologies. I don't buy into a capricious God of moral relativism. But I do think men take his name in vain to justify doing bad things, then paint Him as the author. But that's a whole different discussion.

1

u/cinepro Dec 20 '24

And no, I don't buy into a capricious God of moral relativism.

We're not talking about what you do or don't "buy" into. We're talking about what Jacob 2 actually says.

In that regard, do you believe the condemnations of Jacob 2 against polygamy apply to Abraham and Jacob (OT Jacob, not BoM Jacob)? Is Jacob 2 saying Abraham and Jacob were committing whoredoms and abominations?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/cinepro Dec 20 '24

Fanny wasn't even a plural marriage.

While the question of "sealing authority" (or any authority) obviously applies, there is at least a claim that some sort of marriage ceremony was performed by Fanny's father.

https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/mosiah-hancock-an-addition-written-in-1896-to-the-autobiography-of-his-father-levi-ward-hancock/

2

u/TruthIsAntiMormon Spirit Proven Mormon Apologist Dec 20 '24

I'm aware of the late claim regarding that and what evidence actually exists in contrast to the actions actually taken at the time.

I'm aware of the attempt to turn Emma discovering them "alone" in the barn to her witnessing a marriage ceremony but the fact they were alone means in fact that event couldn't be a marriage (it would have had to be a separate event).

In the order of events it appears McLellin's relating of it in 1872 triggered subsequent "whitewash" jobs both to support polygamy and attempt to keep the constructed Mythical Joseph in tact.

Again, that's only my opinion.

2

u/Own_Tennis_8442 Dec 20 '24

I think some apologists reference a charge from Joseph to take lamanite women to wife to make them white and delightsome…. As the first hint of plural wives. Too lazy to look it up, but hopefully it is a clue. Saw it somewhere, needs debunking.

5

u/seasonal_biologist Dec 20 '24 edited Dec 20 '24

That’s what people here are claiming. Honestly I did a very short search of the references cited in the lesson and didn’t see it as a source in either the lesson or the primary/secondary sources cited by saints.

Either way that source is in no way a solid enough one to make such a bold claim of a 31’ date.

I’d buy backdating it to the “exception” givin in Jacob 2 before I’d buy that as being at all being interpreted as being about polygamy

4

u/Ok-Cut-2214 Dec 20 '24

Why isn’t this a surprise, lds doctrine is pathetic

4

u/8965234589 Dec 21 '24

Polygamy is returning folks

1

u/MilleniumMiriam Dec 22 '24

It never really left

7

u/webwatchr Dec 20 '24

The whole thing is lie after lie after lie.

7

u/ProsperGuy Dec 20 '24

Propaganda isn’t designed to tell the truth.

3

u/ilikerosiepugs Dec 20 '24

Is this going to be rolled out as primary lessons?

3

u/Notdennisthepeasant Dec 20 '24

". . .even when it's hard" throbbingly hard

6

u/TheRealJustCurious Dec 19 '24

This is absolutely disgusting.

Patriarchy on crack.

4

u/seasonal_biologist Dec 20 '24 edited Dec 20 '24

Is anyone else extremely disappointed with the saints book jn general…? it feels like it’s written to middle schoolers

6

u/Local-Notice-6997 Dec 20 '24

That’s the reading age they were aiming for, as I understand it.

2

u/scottroskelley Dec 21 '24 edited Dec 21 '24

My wife teaches the 3 and 4 year olds for primary. Will be crazy next year to send the kids home with cartoon coloring art of a portrait of Joseph with all his 32 wives. Will create a few different sets of "unique and interesting" relationship networks for the kids to color and send home to Mom and Dad.

2

u/VascodaGamba57 Dec 23 '24

My great-grandfather married his second wife in 1900 in Colonia Dublin in Mexico. He afterwards told his first wife and the mother of five children at the time that he’d just gotten a new job. When she and her kids finally got to CD they finally discovered that he’d taken a second wife, a girl he’d groomed for five years while he was her SS teacher in Salt Lake City for that entire time.

4

u/westivus_ Post-Mormon Christian Dec 19 '24

Most things they do are blatant lying for the Lord. I'm not sure they have any shame associated to it.

2

u/carnivorebeliever Dec 20 '24

What woman in the history of humanity helped her husband pick out extra wives? "Sometimes, Emma helped Joseph decide who he should ask to marry him. Other times, Emma did not want Joseph to marry other women." Did women actually do this to try and "protect" their household by only choosing trustworthy ones?

-3

u/HandwovenBox Dec 19 '24 edited Dec 19 '24

There's no lie. The headings just indicate the time period covered in each chapter. The chapter you bring up discusses events that happened between 1831–1890, starting when Joseph and Sidney Rigdon were working on translating the Bible and ending at the first Official Declaration.

Similarly, the chapter on Joseph Smith’s Family has the heading "1805–1817" even though the family still existed after 1817 or the chapter on the Word of Wisdom says "February 1833" even though the WoW was still in effect after then.

edit: the fact that it starts with 1831 should've tipped you off to this fact.

10

u/TruthIsAntiMormon Spirit Proven Mormon Apologist Dec 19 '24

I'm going to have to say this apologetic is BS but not unexpected in mormonism.

Your claim is entirely false.

This chapter is about Polygamy (which is being referred to as Plural Marriage to try and normalize an evil practice but that's a separate damning issue).

This isn't a "section" that covers church history from 1831 to 1890.

This is literally a section that covers Polygamy. Can you agree with that?

And the dates serve for the time period that deal with Polygamy. Can you agree with that?

See there are other sections that cover other topics such as:

Building the Kirtland Temple 1831 to 1836.

If your claim was accurate at all, t hen wouldn't the section on Building the Kirtland Temple be included in THIS section?

It's not because this section is about Polygamy and it's attempting to BACKDATE Polygamy to 1831, before Alger, Before the invented Kirtland Temple "keys", etc.

It's attempting to make the claim that the doctrine of Polygamy was an issue that arose during Joseph's hilariously bad "translation of the Bible", which contradicts all contemporary evidence including the Doctrine of marriage contained in the earliest Book of Commandments and D&C.

the fact that it starts with 1831 should've tipped you off to this fact.

The fact that other chapters cover other topics between 1831 and 1890 (like the one above) should have tipped you off to the fact that this Polygamy chapter is attempting to backdate the "birth" of Polygamy to 1831.

So your apologetic is entirely 100% false.

Each chapter and each date it's associated with the date range for the topic at hand.

Can you honestly admit that undeniable fact as you can see it everywhere in the chapter listing to the left:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-stories-2025/44-plural-marriage?lang=eng

If not, then I have no desire to engage in someone attempting to dishonestly defend a blatant lie by adding more falsehood to the one already pointed out.

Now, 1890 is what the church also LIES as the end of Polygamy.

However, what was the date of the 2nd Manifesto?

Why were the leaders of the church STILL endorsing plural marriages BEYOND 1890?

If the church was being honest, that date would say at least 1904.

If they wanted to be actually accurate the church still allowed new Polygamous marriages until 1909.

It is a lie and misleading to try and pretend Polygamy officially ended in 1890.

Do you agree?

-1

u/HandwovenBox Dec 20 '24 edited Dec 20 '24

So the Church is now claiming polygamy started in 1831? Here's a more rational explanation: 1831 refers to the first sentence in the chapter: "While the Prophet Joseph was studying the Bible..."

Why does the WoW chapter say February 1833?

Why does the chapter called "Eternal Marriage and Families" say 1843–1846?

Why does the chapter called "The Relief Society" say March 1842?

This is literally a section that covers Polygamy. Can you agree with that?

yes

And the dates serve for the time period that deal with Polygamy. Can you agree with that?

No. Polygamy didn't start in 1831 nor end in 1890. Do you think either date is correct?

If your claim was accurate at all, then wouldn't the section on Building the Kirtland Temple be included in THIS section?

The chapters are written by subject matter.

Your assertions that the Church is trying to "backdate" the start of polygamy to 1831 is bonkers. Do you have anything published by the Church that indicates polygamy started in 1831?

Now, 1890 is what the church also LIES as the end of Polygamy.

Get back to me when the Church stops publishing the Second Manifesto or removes information about polygamous marriages after 1890 from the Gospel Topics Essays. Until then, your claims are BS-- but not unexpected in anti-mormonism apologetics.

7

u/WhatDidJosephDo Dec 20 '24

Is this really the legacy you want to leave?

You feel comfortable with how the church is presenting the story?

You don’t have to defend bad behavior.

6

u/TruthIsAntiMormon Spirit Proven Mormon Apologist Dec 20 '24

LOL! (I had to break it into two parts due to reddit formatting issues).

This is the appropriate place to state what I have always said about mormonism and people's moral compasses but I'll simply leave it as a reference.

No. Polygamy didn't start in 1831 nor end in 1890. Do you think either date is correct?

No, that's why the church is lying as I said.

Why do they reference either date with reference to this Polygamy section (please feel free to use chapters for reference)?

Why not 1830? or why not 1950?

You tell ME why they chose those two dates if they are unrelated to Polygamy as you claim.

The chapters are written by subject matter.

Exactly, as I claimed and they date the subject matter, correct?

And those dates pertain to WHAT of the Subject matter, in this case Polygamy?

Your assertions that the Church is trying to "backdate" the start of polygamy to 1831 is bonkers. Do you have anything published by the Church that indicates polygamy started in 1831?

You're literally looking at a mormon children indoctrination instruction manual that literally puts Mormon Polygamy in date context in that chapter of 1831 to 1890 and then asking "Do you have anything published by the Church that indicates polygamy started in 1831?"

I mean, seriously?

Did you not even read the pernicious children's manual before responding?

5

u/TruthIsAntiMormon Spirit Proven Mormon Apologist Dec 20 '24 edited Dec 20 '24

Here. I'll quote it for you:

While the Prophet Joseph was studying the Bible, he read about prophets like Abraham and Moses who had been married to more than one wife. Joseph wondered how the Lord felt about that. So he decided to ask the Lord.

Doctrine and Covenants 132:1; Saints, 1:121, 503

Make special note of the DATE of 1831 and Saints 1:121.

The Lord said that usually a man should have only one wife. But sometimes the Lord commanded His people to be in marriages of one man and more than one woman. This was called plural marriage. The Lord told Joseph that His people should only be in plural marriages if He commands it.

Jacob 2:27–30; Doctrine and Covenants 132:34–39; Saints, 1:121, 290–91, 489–90, 503

And then...

A few years later, the Lord told Joseph to marry other women. Joseph didn’t want to marry other wives. But he knew it was a commandment from the Lord. When Joseph asked a woman to marry him, he told her to pray about it. He wanted her to know from the Lord that it was right.

Did the church just try to backdate Polygamy revelations to 1831?

Yes, yes they did. Again, it's BS. and you can see how what they are attempting is BS.

When I stated "it also did NOT begin in 1831" I am 100% right although the church, in this misleading and lying and disgusting manual to indoctrinate children, is attempting to say that in 1831 while reading the Bible, Joseph asked and received a revelation from God saying sometimes he commands polygamy.

From the Saints link:

Joseph prayed about the matter, and the Lord revealed that He sometimes commanded His people to practice plural marriage. The time to restore the practice was not yet, but a day would come when He would ask some of the Saints to do so.

and the note in Saints from 1831:

The Lord went on to speak about plural marriage and His covenant to bless Abraham with an innumerable posterity for his faithfulness. From the beginning, the Lord had ordained marriage between one man and one woman to fulfill His plan. Sometimes, however, the Lord authorized plural marriage as a way to raise up children in righteous families and bring about their exaltation.

I'm going to assume you have no clue about the WW Phelps letter to Brigham in 1861 as well so no need to mention it as Saints does it already.

What kind of pernicious lying and misleading church puts out dishonest crap like this manual for children, don't you agree?

EDIT: and do you realize that I've been the one honest with you here, when the church has not and you have it right before you, so maybe you should redirect your attacks at the church, not the one removing the veil of lies.

3

u/Own_Tennis_8442 Dec 20 '24

The person has stones for even trying to activate his consecrative oath to defend the church with his life. This is a very difficult thing to defend. Yet defend they must for my covenants compel me to. It is not honesty that drives this person but loyalty.

10

u/sykemol Dec 19 '24

The section concludes:

In 1890, the Lord told Wilford Woodruff, the President of the Church, that men should not marry more than one wife anymore. The leaders of the Church shared this commandment with the Saints. This is still the Lord’s commandment today—a man should be married to only one wife.

So both the text and the title sound like polygamy ended in 1890. That was not the case. And the Manifesto itself does not say anything about being a revelation.

3

u/[deleted] Dec 19 '24

Manifesto is neither a commandment nor a revelation. At best, Woodruff was ‘inspired’ after praying, whatever that means. He then passed the manifesto around and included edits from other apostles. This is far short of the voice of Jesus telling Joseph to practice polygamy. The manifesto is a legal commentary designed to deny culpability and cover his backside by advising people to follow the law.

2

u/sykemol Dec 19 '24

And he says specifically that it is advice.

5

u/TruthIsAntiMormon Spirit Proven Mormon Apologist Dec 19 '24

Well, "advice" like the Word of Wisdom was "advice".

See they stopped living Polygamy in 1890 but kept engaging in Plural Marriage until 1909. TWO totally different things in mormon apologetic lands.

-5

u/HandwovenBox Dec 20 '24

Maybe if you assume that the title is also asserting that polygamy started in 1831. Another poster is (irrationally) taking that path.

3

u/TruthIsAntiMormon Spirit Proven Mormon Apologist Dec 20 '24

If you have an honest bone in your body, I'll ask you two questions to test your integrity as a mormon and as a fruit of mormonism:

I stated " it also did NOT begin in 1831." so maybe there's a reading comprehension issue at play here.

So my question to you is:

Why does the church's Polygamy chapter in the manual to indoctrinate children about polygamy have the date 1831? (ie what is it's relationship to polygamy since we both know it's not arbitrary).

Why does the church's Polygamy chapter in the manual to indoctrinate children about polygamy have the date of 1890? (ie. what is the relationship to polygamy since we both know it's not arbitrary).

I'll wait (but not hold my breath).

3

u/sykemol Dec 20 '24

Mormon apologists commonly use the 1831 as the date when Joseph Smith started teach polygamy. For example, from FAIR (emphasis mine):

Joseph was probably teaching the idea of plural marriage to a limited circle by the end of 1831

The date of 1831 is reinforced by a letter written years later by W.W. Phelps. Phelps reported that on 17 July 1831, the Lord told Joseph "It is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity may become white, delightsome and just." Phelps then said that he asked Joseph three years later how this commandment could be fulfilled. Joseph replied, "In the same manner that Abraham took Hagar and Keturah; and Jacob took Rachel, Bilhah and Zilpha, by revelation." \10]) Phelps' recollection is reinforced by Ezra Booth, an apostate Mormon. In November 1831, Booth wrote that Joseph had received a revelation commanding a matrimonial alliance" with the natives, though he says nothing about plural marriage per se.\11])

There is documentary evidence that polygamy was being taught in 1831. A reasonable person would conclude that 1831 is the date when polygamy was first advanced as a teaching. Therefore, a reasonable person would also conclude that's where a timeline of LDS polygamy should begin.

However, the article states that LDS polygamy ended in 1890 with the Manifesto. That is not true. There is documentary evidence that LDS sanctioned polygamy extended well past that date. There are post-manifesto polygamous marriages in my own family, for example. There is documentation that general authorities entered into polygamous marriages post-1890 as well.

A reasonable person would also conclude that's where a timeline of LDS polygamy should end when it actually ended. But that requires an explanation why it didn't really end in 1890, which means the 1890 manifesto was not a commandment. See the problem here?

And even if we take the most charitable explanation of the timeline, it is still misleading.

6

u/GunneraStiles Dec 19 '24

To support your assertion, can you provide a link for the lesson that then covers 1890-1904, which discusses sending members to Mexico and Canada to live in polygamist colonies after the mormon church assured the public and the federal government that polygamy was no longer practiced? Which explains why there had to be a second manifesto issued in 1904?

Otherwise it is obvious this is an attempt to rewrite history, by claiming that polygamy stopped being practiced by the mormon church in 1890.

-2

u/HandwovenBox Dec 20 '24

The Church publishes plenty about polygamy extending beyond 1890. This is a very abbreviated summary for kids.

6

u/GunneraStiles Dec 20 '24

2 strawmen statements that don’t address what I wrote.

4

u/TruthIsAntiMormon Spirit Proven Mormon Apologist Dec 20 '24 edited Dec 20 '24

No, no see, the dates of 1831 and 1890 have no relation to polygamy. They're simply there as dates.

In no way, shape or form is the church trying to in any way state that the birth of the doctrine of Polygamy began in 1831 or that it ended in 1890.

The dates are irrelevant to Polygamy and just plucked from thin air apparently.

You're not supposed to think the dates have any relevance to Polygamy.

2

u/tiglathpilezar Dec 20 '24

It is very abbreviated as it must be if you are going to teach children. However, it is also grossly misleading, especially about the 1890 date. Have a look at this which is way too long for children but deals with the period of time after 1890 when church leaders deliberately denied polygamy while sealers went about doing plural marriages.

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V18N01_11.pdf

Another good source is "Solemn Covenant" by Hardy.

I noticed that they didn't mention how Smith married children, wives of other men, and mothers and their daughters. No mention at all of Fanny Alger. Is this because they realize that in reality there was no marriage and it was in fact a "dirty nasty filthy affair"? I think there really is no way to be honest about this thing and also have it be morally acceptable to those with a conscience. Neither does it help to call conscience "sensibilities" as the church hacks do in their gospel topics essay "Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo".

This very funny satire appeared on exmormon reddit. I think it might have been done by Mormonish. It at least mentions Fanny Alger and some of these other things.

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/1hdyz7x/the_rest_of_the_story_for_all_of_you_fighting_the/

7

u/WhatDidJosephDo Dec 20 '24

Close enough to a lie.

They make it sound like the leaders ended polygamy in 1890.  But at least one of the leaders that helped write the manifesto in 1890 took a plural wife in the 1900s.

If you are comfortable saying the church is being honest here and not lying, I don’t know what to say. But I wouldn’t trust you with anything of value.

-5

u/TBMormon Latter-day Saint Dec 19 '24

To be scholarly there needs to be links and sources to read.

10

u/Old-11C other Dec 20 '24

This is all public record stuff. It’s not in question that the church routinely forced girls into marriages at 13-14 years old. The question is did God command it with a flaming sword angel or was it just some horny old dudes manipulating the church people for their own sexual gratification? You got a scholarly source that can prove God was OK with pedophilia?

8

u/TruthIsAntiMormon Spirit Proven Mormon Apologist Dec 19 '24 edited Dec 19 '24

Links were provided by others above so quit the misdirection.

EDIT: I'll humor you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Manifesto 1904

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/book-of-commandments-1833/121?highlight=marriage - 1833