Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage

Discuss books and videos related to the principles of Freedom and proper role of government, U.S. Constitution, LDS Church, etc.

Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage

Postby iamse7en » Fri Sep 23, 2011 10:00 pm

Just started a new book, and I'm loving it so far. I read another book by Carmon Hardy last year, a unique look at the history of LDS polygamy, which was really good. This book focuses only on church-authorized, post-manifesto polygamy.

Michael Quinn (who authored the famous 1985 Dialogue piece) once said this book is the book he wished he would/could have written. Solemn Covenant was published in 1992. I know some will be offended by the material in this book, even try to question/attack Carmon Hardy's faithfulness... He is a faithful member, very converted to the Gospel, who is honest about the history.

Although I don't have the time to share all the nuggets I find, I'll update this thread every once in awhile. Here is a quote from the introduction, authored by an LDS correspondent to the Deseret News (which at this time is the official journalistic voice of the Church):

"The abandonment of polygamy, that is considered by some to be so easy of accomplishment, is more untenable even than fighting. However much the people might desire to do this, they could not without yielding every other principle, for it is the very key stone of our faith, and is so closely interwoven into every-thing that pertains to our religion, that to tear it asunder and cast it away would involve the entire structure." (Deseret News, 14 April 1885.)
iamse7en
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 1342
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:19 am

Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage

Sponsor

Sponsor
 
The Mormon Chronicle

Latter-day Conservative

Re: Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage

Postby Rand » Sat Sep 24, 2011 5:40 am

Interesting and please keep sharing. I am afraid it is probably a correct quote. We shall see...
Rand
captain of 1,000
 
Posts: 1316
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 4:42 pm

Re: Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage

Postby iamse7en » Wed Sep 28, 2011 11:47 pm

Okay, this book gives a bit more historical and social history than I care to get detail on, but it still provides some interesting context. Also, I don't like how the author tends to paraphrase more than quote some of the more interesting statements. Quinn's piece still is superior, if you're looking for the meaty information on Church-authorized, post-Manifesto polygamy. This book uses some of his research, and adds some other interesting points. Some interesting things I've come across so far (going in backwards order from where I am now in the book)...

Abraham Woodruff: “...no year will ever pass, whether it be in this country [Mexico], in India, or wherever, from now until the coming of the Saviour, when children will not be born in Plural Marriage. And I make this prophecy in the name of Jesus Christ." (Journal and Notes, 61, 18-19 Nov. 1900, Church Archives) - He certainly will be right on that prophecy, though not a hard one to make. :)

Quite a bit of Millennialism from the Church leaders. Some thought around 1890 because of Joseph Smith revelation "if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man." Woodruff certainly felt it was soon. Lorenzo Snow (as President) told living Saints several times that they would participate in the long-awaited trek back to Missouri, and that it would occur much sooner than most people believed. This attitude certainly affected their Church policies, especially with regards to plural marriage. Definitely makes me think twice about whether the 2nd coming is soon, today. The prophets thought it was just around the corner over 100 years ago! Who knows how much more needs to happen...

In 1894, Wilford Woodruff told a meeting of the First Presidency and Quorum of 12 that the day would soon arrive when good men would again be able to marry plural wives. (Abraham H. Cannon diaries, 5 April 1894, BYU Library)

Interesting chart showing how many plural marriages and where performed from 1890 to 1910 (started getting quite sparse in 1905). Summarizing: Canada: 11; US: 72; Mexico: 127; Unknown: 52; Total: 262. Large portion authorized by Presidency and/or Apostles.

Important to note that even though many Apostles interpreted the Manifesto to mean plural marriages could continue outside the U.S., it was still technically illegal in Mexico and Canada, just as it was in Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois. The token answer that we don't practice polygamy because we obey the laws of the land is quite weak. It's more we don't disobey those laws which are strictly enforced and would cause the Church to, as Woodruff believed, be destroyed.

Joseph F. Smith supposedly said: "There is a tacit understanding between the church and the Mexican government, that we may practice plural marriage but must outwardly appear to have but one wife." (Joseph Dean Diaries, 24 Sept. 1890)

Apostle Merrill: "I do not believe the Manifesto was a revelation from God but was formulated by Prest. Woodruff and endorsed by his Councilors and the Twelve Apostles for expediency to meet the present situation of affairs in the Nation or those against the Church." (Marriner Merrill Diaries, 20 Aug. 1891)

President Woodruff said the Manifesto was issued by inspiration. He later said that to him, inspiration and revelation are the same thing. The Lord had shown him by vision and revelation what would happen to the LDS if they continued to resist the government (speech in Logan).

Some allege WW's counselors, GQCannon and JFSmith did not sign the Manifesto because of strong reservations from Smith. His actions as President could corroborate that theory, but it just isn't known.

Reed Smoot asking Apostle John Henry Smith: "Why in the world President Woodruff ever made that Logan speech in which he declared the manifesto to be a revelation." Smith's replied that "he did not know!!!" (Carlos Badger (Smoot's secretary) Diaries, 19 Feb. 1905, Church Archives)

Interesting commentary on when they believed sex was appropriate (not while wife is pregnant or nursing, and should be restricted to purpose of reproduction), how plural marriage made them healthier, would lengthen their lives, how monogamy was evil, how plurality could cure prostitution and infidelity, etc... The typical apologetics material here that was heard for decades. Nothing stood out that I hadn't heard already.

Wilford Woodruff in 1888, that "the Lord never will give a revelation to abandon polygamy." (Lyman, Political Deliverance, 106)

It would amount to apostasy if Church ever renounced "the new and everlasting covenant of marriage in its fullness." God would then reject the Saints as a people. (Deseret News, 23 April 1885 & 5 June 1885)

Wilford Woodruff asked, "Now, which shall we obey, God or Congress? For it is God and Congress for it." With a loud voice the assembly answered: "We will obey God." (Wilford Woodruff Journal, 9 Jan. 1870)

I had never heard that Benjamin F. Johnson said Joseph Smith taught him that plural marriage was the only means by which prostitution could be eliminated. I thought this was apologetics material that was formed later. (Johnson, My Life's Review, 326-28)

Should do it for now. I may do one more update when I finish. Decent book so far.
iamse7en
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 1342
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:19 am

Re: Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage

Postby Rand » Thu Sep 29, 2011 8:08 pm

Fantastic info. Thanks so much for the time and effort in sharing these thoughts. So the big question is, do you think plural marriage will be re instituted before the onset of the millennium?
Rand
captain of 1,000
 
Posts: 1316
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 4:42 pm

Re: Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage

Postby Jason » Fri Sep 30, 2011 6:03 am

Certainly wouldn't surprise me if it was....
Tares grow with the wheat for a season - your job is to not be a tare
What we do in life echoes an eternity
When it starts raining - its too late to begin building the ark

SEPIUS EXERTUS, SEMPER FIDELIS, FRATERS INFINITAS
MOLON LABE - NON TIMEBO MALA
Jason
I am a nobody!

User avatar
 
Posts: 9542
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 9:34 pm

Re: Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage

Postby iamse7en » Fri Sep 30, 2011 10:44 am

Even Bruce R. thought it would be restored before millennium.

"After Brigham Young led the saints to the Salt Lake Valley, plural marriage was openly taught and practiced until the year 1890. At that time conditions were such that the Lord by revelation withdrew the command to continue the practice, and President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto directing that it cease. (Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, pp. 213-218.) Obviously the holy practice will commence again after the Second Coming of the Son of Man and the ushering in of the millennium." (Isa. 4.) (Mormon Doctrine, p. 578)


Obviously. ;) Another reason that makes me think the 2nd coming is probably further away than we think; no way the Church leadership is close to this yet. Let's be honest, revelation and changes of policy are not puppet affairs. You have to inquire first. Do you think any of the Brethren are inquiring the Lord about bringing back plural marriage in its fullness? I mean, it took decades of inquiring about blacks and the priesthood before anything changed. But then again, I'm sure things will happen a LOT faster once the 2nd coming commences. So, I'm probably making faulty conclusions. Either way, just follow the living prophet! I do know though, that having spent 2 years in Africa where there are very few worthy priesthood holders for the faithful sisters to choose from, many of them did voice to me that they wish plural marriage was practiced. It might be a cultural thing, because several tribes in SA practice polygamy. It's legal there; should the members there be allowed to practice it? I mean, isn't the main reason we don't practice it because of the laws and persecution of government? Or it's probably much more than that: we are too sinful, prideful, etc. Wheat probably needs to be separated from the tares first. Or, just its re-institution will help that separation! Which comes first, the chicken or the egg! Okay, enough ranting.
iamse7en
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 1342
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:19 am

Re: Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage

Postby Jason » Fri Sep 30, 2011 11:01 am

iamse7en wrote:Even Bruce R. thought it would be restored before millennium.

"After Brigham Young led the saints to the Salt Lake Valley, plural marriage was openly taught and practiced until the year 1890. At that time conditions were such that the Lord by revelation withdrew the command to continue the practice, and President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto directing that it cease. (Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, pp. 213-218.) Obviously the holy practice will commence again after the Second Coming of the Son of Man and the ushering in of the millennium." (Isa. 4.) (Mormon Doctrine, p. 578)


Obviously. ;) Another reason that makes me think the 2nd coming is probably further away than we think; no way the Church leadership is close to this yet. Let's be honest, revelation and changes of policy are not puppet affairs. You have to inquire first. Do you think any of the Brethren are inquiring the Lord about bringing back plural marriage in its fullness? I mean, it took decades of inquiring about blacks and the priesthood before anything changed. But then again, I'm sure things will happen a LOT faster once the 2nd coming commences. So, I'm probably making faulty conclusions. Either way, just follow the living prophet! I do know though, that having spent 2 years in Africa where there are very few worthy priesthood holders for the faithful sisters to choose from, many of them did voice to me that they wish plural marriage was practiced. It might be a cultural thing, because several tribes in SA practice polygamy. It's legal there; should the members there be allowed to practice it? I mean, isn't the main reason we don't practice it because of the laws and persecution of government? Or it's probably much more than that: we are too sinful, prideful, etc. Wheat probably needs to be separated from the tares first. Or, just its re-institution will help that separation! Which comes first, the chicken or the egg! Okay, enough ranting.

good summary/rant!!!
Tares grow with the wheat for a season - your job is to not be a tare
What we do in life echoes an eternity
When it starts raining - its too late to begin building the ark

SEPIUS EXERTUS, SEMPER FIDELIS, FRATERS INFINITAS
MOLON LABE - NON TIMEBO MALA
Jason
I am a nobody!

User avatar
 
Posts: 9542
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 9:34 pm

Re: Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage

Postby Rand » Fri Sep 30, 2011 11:06 am

Agreed. Great rant, and I agree with the sentiments expressed. It may recommence in a foreign country first, if it is reestablished prior to the millennium It is really an interesting topic. Just as the commandment to follow Plural Marriage was a challenge to the faith of many, the ceasing and recommencement will also be a challenge. Why are we so untrusting? It shouldn't be that hard.
I loved the quote "You have to inquire first. Do you think any of the Brethren are inquiring the Lord about bringing back plural marriage in its fullness? " True, that, I suspect.
Rand
captain of 1,000
 
Posts: 1316
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 4:42 pm

Re: Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage

Postby Jason » Fri Sep 30, 2011 11:19 am

Rand wrote:Agreed. Great rant, and I agree with the sentiments expressed. It may recommence in a foreign country first, if it is reestablished prior to the millennium It is really an interesting topic. Just as the commandment to follow Plural Marriage was a challenge to the faith of many, the ceasing and recommencement will also be a challenge. Why are we so untrusting? It shouldn't be that hard.
I loved the quote "You have to inquire first. Do you think any of the Brethren are inquiring the Lord about bringing back plural marriage in its fullness? " True, that, I suspect.

...well quite frankly...if I were in their shoes (a major major long shot what if)....I'd procrastinate as long as possible. Who asks for more accountability and people to protect, defend, provide for, etc??? ...and I dearly love my wife and children.....but the thoughts of adding a multiplication factor to that equation would scare the daylights out of me!!!
Tares grow with the wheat for a season - your job is to not be a tare
What we do in life echoes an eternity
When it starts raining - its too late to begin building the ark

SEPIUS EXERTUS, SEMPER FIDELIS, FRATERS INFINITAS
MOLON LABE - NON TIMEBO MALA
Jason
I am a nobody!

User avatar
 
Posts: 9542
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 9:34 pm

Re: Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage

Postby Sariel » Fri Sep 30, 2011 11:23 am

Thanks for posting the summaries, very interesting.
You take the blue pill - You wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.
You take the red pill - You stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.
Sariel
captain of 100

User avatar
 
Posts: 363
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 10:26 am

Re: Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage

Postby Stella Solaris » Sat Oct 01, 2011 5:31 pm

How do we reconcile this -
iamse7en wrote:Wilford Woodruff in 1888, that "the Lord never will give a revelation to abandon polygamy." (Lyman, Political Deliverance, 106)

It would amount to apostasy if the Church ever renounced "the new and everlasting covenant of marriage in its fullness." God would then reject the Saints as a people. (Deseret News, 23 April 1885 & 5 June 1885)

...with this -

Gordon B. Hinckley (speaking of plural marriage): "I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal." http://www.lds-mormon.com/lkl_00.shtml

"Doctrinal" is different than "legal". If we don't believe plural marriage is doctrinal, why/how are two of our current apostles (Dallin H. Oaks & Russell M. Nelson, not to mention many, many other men in the church) sealed to two women each? They do not have two living, mortal wives right now, because it is not "legal", but when they are all resurrected, they will each have two living wives - so how can plural marriage not be doctrinal? :-\
When the student is ready, the Teacher will appear....
Stella Solaris
captain of 1,000
 
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 5:46 pm

Re: Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage

Postby Rand » Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:32 pm

Jason wrote:
Rand wrote:Agreed. Great rant, and I agree with the sentiments expressed. It may recommence in a foreign country first, if it is reestablished prior to the millennium It is really an interesting topic. Just as the commandment to follow Plural Marriage was a challenge to the faith of many, the ceasing and recommencement will also be a challenge. Why are we so untrusting? It shouldn't be that hard.
I loved the quote "You have to inquire first. Do you think any of the Brethren are inquiring the Lord about bringing back plural marriage in its fullness? " True, that, I suspect.

...well quite frankly...if I were in their shoes (a major major long shot what if)....I'd procrastinate as long as possible. Who asks for more accountability and people to protect, defend, provide for, etc??? ...and I dearly love my wife and children.....but the thoughts of adding a multiplication factor to that equation would scare the daylights out of me!!!


Amen to that. Not a thing that we should look forward to. My mother told me several times how hard life was for my polygamous great grand parents. Tough duty. Not something anyone should look forward to...
Rand
captain of 1,000
 
Posts: 1316
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 4:42 pm

Re: Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage

Postby Rand » Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:35 pm

Stella Solaris wrote:How do we reconcile this -
iamse7en wrote:Wilford Woodruff in 1888, that "the Lord never will give a revelation to abandon polygamy." (Lyman, Political Deliverance, 106)

It would amount to apostasy if the Church ever renounced "the new and everlasting covenant of marriage in its fullness." God would then reject the Saints as a people. (Deseret News, 23 April 1885 & 5 June 1885)

...with this -

Gordon B. Hinckley (speaking of plural marriage): "I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal." http://www.lds-mormon.com/lkl_00.shtml

"Doctrinal" is different than "legal". If we don't believe plural marriage is doctrinal, why/how are two of our current apostles (Dallin H. Oaks & Russell M. Nelson, not to mention many, many other men in the church) sealed to two women each? They do not have two living, mortal wives right now, because it is not "legal", but when they are all resurrected, they will each have two living wives - so how can plural marriage not be doctrinal? :-\


I imagine he is skirting the issue by saying it is not legal now, therefore, not our doctrine, and thus not doctrinal. Just my thought.
Rand
captain of 1,000
 
Posts: 1316
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 4:42 pm

Re: Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage

Postby Stella Solaris » Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:25 pm

Rand wrote:I imagine he is skirting the issue by saying it is not legal now, therefore, not our doctrine, and thus not doctrinal. Just my thought.

I understand what you're saying, Rand. I just hope we really don't believe Congress/man defines the doctrines of the gospel.
When the student is ready, the Teacher will appear....
Stella Solaris
captain of 1,000
 
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 5:46 pm

Re: Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage

Postby shadow » Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:29 pm

iamse7en wrote:Even Bruce R. thought it would be restored before millennium.

"After Brigham Young led the saints to the Salt Lake Valley, plural marriage was openly taught and practiced until the year 1890. At that time conditions were such that the Lord by revelation withdrew the command to continue the practice, and President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto directing that it cease. (Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, pp. 213-218.) Obviously the holy practice will commence again after the Second Coming of the Son of Man and the ushering in of the millennium." (Isa. 4.) (Mormon Doctrine, p. 578)


Actually he seems to think it will be AFTER the the ushering in of the millennium, not before.
"The everlasting Gospel is mightier in power to save than our narrow finite minds can comprehend" -Pres. Hinckley
shadow
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 6167
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:22 am

Re: Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage

Postby iamse7en » Sat Oct 01, 2011 11:13 pm

shadow, yeah, I was thinking that too after reading it again. It will return after the second coming. And with the wording of "ushering in of the millennium," he is implying it will return quite early in the millennium, perhaps commence with the ushering of the millennium, though he does not use the word, 'with.' Either way, he seems to think it will be restored around the beginning of the millennium, and who knows whether it will be just before or just after its "ushering in." Some would consider the statement is somewhat provocative, just the fact he is saying it will be restored again before we are all in the Celestial Kingdom.
iamse7en
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 1342
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:19 am

Re: Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage

Postby shadow » Sat Oct 01, 2011 11:21 pm

Rand wrote:
Stella Solaris wrote:How do we reconcile this -
iamse7en wrote:Wilford Woodruff in 1888, that "the Lord never will give a revelation to abandon polygamy." (Lyman, Political Deliverance, 106)

It would amount to apostasy if the Church ever renounced "the new and everlasting covenant of marriage in its fullness." God would then reject the Saints as a people. (Deseret News, 23 April 1885 & 5 June 1885)

...with this -

Gordon B. Hinckley (speaking of plural marriage): "I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal." http://www.lds-mormon.com/lkl_00.shtml

"Doctrinal" is different than "legal". If we don't believe plural marriage is doctrinal, why/how are two of our current apostles (Dallin H. Oaks & Russell M. Nelson, not to mention many, many other men in the church) sealed to two women each? They do not have two living, mortal wives right now, because it is not "legal", but when they are all resurrected, they will each have two living wives - so how can plural marriage not be doctrinal? :-\


I imagine he is skirting the issue by saying it is not legal now, therefore, not our doctrine, and thus not doctrinal. Just my thought.

I don't think he was really skirting it. It's only doctrinal (practiced/taught) when God commands it. Right now it's not commanded so it's automatically condemned (Jacob 2). Pres. Hinckley was correct on all counts.
"The everlasting Gospel is mightier in power to save than our narrow finite minds can comprehend" -Pres. Hinckley
shadow
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 6167
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:22 am

Re: Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage

Postby Rand » Sun Oct 02, 2011 7:11 am

I suspect it had something to do with the audience he was addressing as well. Wasn't that a part of the interview with Mike Wallace? I imagine if he were speaking to the Q of the 12 in a private meeting he would have chosen a different way to express it his doctrinal belief.
Rand
captain of 1,000
 
Posts: 1316
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 4:42 pm

Re: Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage

Postby sbsion » Sun Oct 02, 2011 7:12 pm

bottomline" again...........DC 137:9 "...by the desire or our hearts.." if we can't embrace this celestial principle, we most likely will not recieve the "sealing of the holy spirit of promise" as a conformation of anthing :ymhug:
There are no mysteries, only undiscovered truths, have you found one today?
sbsion
captain of 1,000
 
Posts: 3944
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Ephraim, Utah

Re: Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage

Postby iamse7en » Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:11 am

Finished. Some chapters better than others, but it finished strong. Was thinking it was a 3/5 star book, but I'll say 4 stars now, probably mostly because of the sheer research and amazing ability to summarize so much in a relatively short book. Again, I am amazed at the early Saints. Their hesitation in accepting the principle, but when converted, you couldn't stop them. They would be faithful no matter the cost, and it is so honorable. I sometimes weep when I think of my cushy life, with my flatscreen TV, my iPhone, my laptop, in the comfort of nice apartment, just one wife and two kids... Those Saints were converted to the Lord and were so faithful, and their stories are inspiring. Even when the 1890 and 1904 manifestos came, there were mixed messages, some secrecy, some confusion, but most had the best of intentions - intentions to follow God, not man, and they were conflicted in that resolution. What a great message of faith and diligence to God - I think we can all learn lessons from these faithful Saints who practiced an eternal principle, one they felt was the cornerstone of their faith. Okay, now a couple nuggets to end:

Chapter on consent of leadership was a bit jumbled. Quinn piece much superior. But it was interesting to again review the differences amongst the Presidents in that time. JFS was so dedicated to preserve it, even behind the backs of his superiors, then ironically, upon pressure from Reed Smoot (more on him later), he was pretty dedicated in ending the practice as well by the later 1900's. Woodruff was strict against at times, passive at other times, did consent to some, mostly just let his counselors authorize. Snow was more strict, pretty adamant at times, counselors/apostles went behind his back quite a bit. JFS was pretty intent on preserving principle until 1905ish, when he felt pressure to publicly reprimand 'offenders.' This caused some negative feelings of betrayal.

From 1890-1910, over time, outside pressure increased (mostly thanks to BH Roberts and Reed Smoot investigations), it got more secret, more confusing, destruction of evidence, cliques within the 12, etc. As you can imagine.

JFS was not afraid to mislead and lie to protect others, particularly the Church. Most of them had hoped they could stop for a time then resume living the eternal principle once they got the gov't off their back. That would explain much of their behavior.

Fascinating story of Wilford Woodruff's possible marriage (to Madame Mountford) in 1897. Evidence is pretty good, but not explicit, because of its secrecy. Born in Jerusalem in 1948, born Anglican, her dad befriended Orson Hyde when he was in Jerusalem. She claimed to be descendent from Ephraim and Melchizedek. Met WW in early 1897, they had a number of meetings together, mostly private ones. Apparently, she, WW, and L. John Nuttal went on a trip to the Pacific (and refused his wife and daughter to come). Registered in Oregon at a hotel under assumed names. Speculation is that they were married by L. John Nuttal on a steamboat off the coast b/w 20 and 22 of Sep 1897. She actually had married a guy in 1890, but were separated. She leaves SLC in 1898 (WW passes away later that year in CA, no mention of Bohemian Grove in the book :) ). Later support of this. Apostle Cowley said in 1911 that he was convinced WW married another wife the year before he died. Apostle Anthon Lund mentions how WW took him aside and spoke to him about Madame Mountford. Lund's comment was: "I was rather astonished." Also, it has been reported that the marriage was solemnized by proxy in the SLC temple in 1920. Sources for this paragraph include WW's Journal, Cowley's Trials, Lund Diaries, and the 1920 proxy marriage comes from Quinn in May 1990.

Roberts and Smoot chapter, not a whole lot I want to report, other than to say I'm shocked how much influence Smoot had over the Church. Perhaps it was because he felt as a gov't insider, would be paranoid about the gov't hammering down, Smoot, over and over, demanded JFS do certain things, like excommunicate people, kick them out of the 12, write specific statements for General Conference speaking out against polygamy. It seems it was Smoot that initiated the whole 1904 Manifesto. He was an Apostle by 1900, but still perplexed by how much power he had over policy and what JFS did. JFS did push back a bit, but all the witch-hunting of new plural marriages (even from ones that the 1st presidency secretly authorized) past 1904 caused some real backlash. People felt betrayed. It was messy. I feel like Roberts and Smoot screwed things up for the Church by running for office. It got messy and shined a brighter light on the mess.

Interesting stories of Matthias Cowley and John W. Taylor's resignation from the 12... most in the inner circle felt they were heroes, sacrificing themselves for the good of the Church. JWTaylor's story is interesting. Excommunicated in 1911 (felt betrayed, because JFS apparently told he and Cowley at 1905 resignation, that when things quiet down, they'll be reinstated). Family tradition holds that Cowley rebaptized him later, then performed another plural marriage for him. in 1965, John W. Taylor's priesthood and blessings were posthumously restored at David O. McKay's permission (remember reading about this in Anderson's Development of LDS Temple Worship).

Interesting to see the devolution of the importance of the doctrine. Talmage was a big force in saying it wasn't a vital tenet, is not to be equated with eternal marriage.

Rudger Clawson took another plural wife shortly after the 1904 Manifesto, never penalized, even became President of the 12 in 1921.

Interesting discussion of post-1910 polygamy, some say they were chosen to continue the principle, some believed charged by Pres Smith to indefinitely keep the practice alive, a lot of different reports here. Hardy claims the importance of the 1886 revelation didn't get stressed until the 1930's. John W. Wooley claims to trace his authority to verbal encouragement from Cowley.

Interesting survey from 1960s in the Church: only 2/5 say would live plural marriage if commanded by their prophets. Half say would not live it under any circumstances. [Sadly, I think these numbers are much worse today - I say sadly, because it would be disobeying prophets.]

More liberal ideas creep in, such as from Eugene England, that plural marriage was merely a test and was meant to be permanently rescinded, that monogamy is the real the order of heaven. Hmmm, I seem to be hearing this quite a bit on this forum. ;)

KInda saddened to hear of Church actions/persecution against fundamentalists in 40's through 60's. Leaders actively supported police state measures to stop plural marriage (because they were worried about their image). One report of they actually asked members to sign a loyalty oath to actively implicate polygamists, some were excommunicated if they didn't sign. Church leaders assisted and publicly applauded a mass arrest in 1944 designed to jail Utah polygamists and stop Musser's Truth magazine. Worst, was mormon approval and support of the AZ Short Creek raid in 1953, residents arrested, town under martial law, children relocated with foster families; Deseret News approved the action as necessary for eradicating a "smudge" of the reputations of Utah and Arizona. The polygamists, it said, were a "cancer" on society. [Deseret News, 27 July 1953] I'm sorry, but after reading of the terrible persecution the Church got for decades, it really makes me sad to hear of this. It's wrong. I'll say it. I don't know who in the Church supported this tyranny, but it's wrong. You hear support of this type of treatment today from members. If only they knew their church history, I think they'd hold their tongue and at least have some sympathy.

Well, that's about it. A bit longer summarization than I anticipated. Great book, great research, some chapters aren't that well-done, wished there were more direct quotes rather than summarization, but this book was a monumental effort. Worth the read if this period interests you. Again, as I said, my appreciation for our Church leaders and the Saints in general massively increased. I am inspired by their faith and devotion to God, and I think we can all learn valuable lessons.
iamse7en
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 1342
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:19 am

Re: Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage

Postby sbsion » Thu Oct 06, 2011 11:25 am

hey, Lorenzo Snow fathered a child when he was 82 in 1896, obviously not his ONLY wife?
There are no mysteries, only undiscovered truths, have you found one today?
sbsion
captain of 1,000
 
Posts: 3944
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Ephraim, Utah

Re: Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage

Postby Stella Solaris » Thu Oct 06, 2011 11:54 am

Thanks very much, iamse7en; excellent summary!
When the student is ready, the Teacher will appear....
Stella Solaris
captain of 1,000
 
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 5:46 pm

Re: Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage

Postby iamse7en » Thu Oct 06, 2011 12:03 pm

sbsion wrote:hey, Lorenzo Snow fathered a child when he was 82 in 1896, obviously not his ONLY wife?


Right. Fathered Rhea Snow in 1896, by his last wife, who he married in 1871. There was some confusion as to whether you could still cohabit with your existing plural wives after 1890. Originally, WW said yes, you could under the Manifesto, and basically everyone did, including having more children after 1890. WW later said you couldn't, but nobody really listened. Mixed messages, and ironically, Lorenzo Snow actively tried to end cohabitation. JFS later put the hammer down on cohabitation, though he was very conflicted in it, getting pressure from government forces, including Reed Smoot. In fact, in JFS testimony in the Reed Smoot hearings, he admitted he continued to cohabit with his wives and said the Manifesto prohibited that, so he admitted to breaking the law of the land and Church. This caused quite a stir.
Last edited by iamse7en on Thu Oct 06, 2011 12:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
iamse7en
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 1342
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:19 am

Re: Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage

Postby sbsion » Thu Oct 06, 2011 12:06 pm

But. Snow came after WW........so, what does that tell you
There are no mysteries, only undiscovered truths, have you found one today?
sbsion
captain of 1,000
 
Posts: 3944
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Ephraim, Utah

Re: Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage

Postby iamse7en » Thu Oct 06, 2011 12:07 pm

It tells me lots of things, but why don't you tell me what you're getting at.
iamse7en
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 1342
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:19 am

Re: Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage

Postby sbsion » Thu Oct 06, 2011 12:10 pm

perhaps, the law of the land and the law of God could have a difference when practicing righteous principles, in or out of the church? btw, wasn't LS the last prophet to publicly share his testimony of an actually visitation of Christ by a prophet?
There are no mysteries, only undiscovered truths, have you found one today?
sbsion
captain of 1,000
 
Posts: 3944
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Ephraim, Utah

Re: Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage

Postby Mark » Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:36 pm

sbsion wrote:But. Snow came after WW........so, what does that tell you



It tells me that I can tell you are just chomping at the bit to take on a few more sister wives Stan. Come on and admit it Bro. I know that you wish upon a star every day that you were born 100 years earlier. ;)
You are a true nothing Mark.
Mark
captain of 1,000
 
Posts: 5147
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:16 am

Re: Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage

Postby Rand » Fri Oct 07, 2011 11:07 am

iamse7en; this is an excellent report on the book. I really appreciate it, mostly because it is not something I would ever read, but loved the insights you shared. One of the things I gleaned from your comments was that is seems that the faith of the church leadership was also being tested, on an individual basis. They each seemed to be twisted and turned in the vice of the Lord. To me, it is good to know. Thanks again.
Rand
captain of 1,000
 
Posts: 1316
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 4:42 pm

Re: Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage

Postby sbsion » Fri Oct 07, 2011 12:36 pm

Mark wrote:
sbsion wrote:But. Snow came after WW........so, what does that tell you

It tells me that I can tell you are just chomping at the bit to take on a few more sister wives Stan. Come on and admit it Bro. I know that you wish upon a star every day that
you were born 100 years earlier. ;)[/quote


actually no, I wish I were born a few years later, see, I'm over 60 now, so am praying for an early millenial run :D ;)
There are no mysteries, only undiscovered truths, have you found one today?
sbsion
captain of 1,000
 
Posts: 3944
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Ephraim, Utah


Return to Book/Video Reviews, Commentary & Recommendations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests