POLYGAMY: Nauvoo Expositor & Interview with William Law, March 30, 1887

[Mark]

Here's something else to consider... the first vision reportedly took place 199 years ago and in almost 200 years' time, only .0025% of everyone on planet earth are members of the church. Approx. half of the 15 million members are inactive and so then that number goes to .00125. In 200 years' time, that is the best God has done after restoring his only true church? And there was absolutely no one on the entire planet for 1,820 years righteous enough to restore the gospel with God allowing 18 generations to pass with no truth, gospel of Christ or necessary saving ordinances for billions of people who he apparently didn't care enough about to have everything he needs them to have to enter back into his presence? Sorry for playing the devil's advocate.

Why are you sorry? You have become a great advocate for the devil and his fiendish plan to lead away as many as will listen to all the endless contrarian and cynical talk about the restored church which inevitable creates fear and doubt in those who buy into it. Those are his best tools. He will use as many useful idiots as he can to spread them in an attempt to drive people away from the truths and salvation offered in the church. He is getting more converts all the time if this board is any indication of his effectiveness. Such a shame..

[Arenera]

Arenera, it has nothing to do with what anyone thinks of womens dignity....its the way it was.
Concubines were less than wife OTHERWISE why the special designation of title if its the same as a wife.

The wives used these women, shame on them for using the women and acting stupid with Jacob, of course he didnt have to sleep with their handmaids but he did.

My point MMbelieve, is that you are of the House of Israel, which comes from Jacob and his wives / concubines. I don't believe these women were "less than". They are Exalted!

Of course, you can call them a "womb" if that helps your argument.

You assume alot, do you know for a fact the state of these women and their marriage(s).

The women had a lower status in life and were not wives. I think you dont understand there was a real distinction back then.
It doesn't seem to matter to you though. You do realize that being exalted has NOTHING to do with their earthly status right? Unless your insinuating that if they were concubines (as the book says they were) then they couldnt be exalted so therefore they must have been wives based on your personal assumption they are exalted in heaven?

I never called them a womb, by the way. They were concubines taken advantage of (one would assume so) by their master and Jacob. And it is true that they were used for the purpose of sex and babies. I see them as women though, not “wombs”.

If they were the same as the wives then why were they concubines? Do you have an explaination for that or....?

Concubine
Female slave who functioned as a secondary wife and surrogate mother. The Hebrew word for concubine (pileges [v,g,lyiP]) is a non-Semitic loanword borrowed to refer to a phenomenon not indigenous to Israel. Babylonian and Assyrian law codes regulate primary and secondary marriages more specifically than do the Old Testament laws. Exodus 21:7-10 has been appealed to as regulative of some aspects of concubinage, but that only implicitly.

Concubines are mentioned primarily in early Israelite history — during patriarchal times, the period of the judges, and the early monarchy although some later kings also had concubines. While concubines did not have the same status as wives, they were not to be mistreated ( Exod 21:7-10 ) nor could they be violated by other males ( Gen 35:22 ) with impunity ( Gen 49:3-4 ). They seem to have received higher status if they bore sons, or at least they are remembered by name ( Gen 21:10 ; 22:24 ; 30:3 ; 36:12 ).

The sons of some concubines were treated as co-heirs with the sons of wives. Was this facilitated by the wife accepting and naming the child as her own, or was the father's act of "adopting" the son required? Paucity of information prevents us from answering this definitively. In at least one case the inheritance potential of the concubine's son seems to present a threat to the primary wife and her son ( Gen 21:10 ). Abraham eventually gives the full inheritance to Isaac, and only gives gifts to his concubines' sons ( Gen 25:6 ).

The story of Judges 19-20 suggests that the terminology used of relationships in a regular marriage are also used in a concubinage relationship. The man is called the concubine's "husband" ( 19:3 ; 20:4 ) and the woman's father is referred to as the man's "father-in-law" ( 19:9 ). Some evidence suggests that royal wives (concubines?) were inherited by succeeding kings ( 1 Sam 12:8 ). Thus approaching the royal concubines ( 1 Sam 16:21-22 ) or even requesting the king's female attendant for a wife ( 1 Kings 2:13-22 ) can be understood as the act of one attempting to take the throne away from its designated occupant ( 1 Kings 2:22 ).

The practice of taking concubines as "wife" was used to provide a male heir for a barren wife (cf. Gen. 16, 35, 36). In addition, the practice provided a social safety net for poor families who could sell their daughters in dire times ( Exod 21:7-10 ; Judges 19:1 ). It seems plausible to suggest that the practice of taking concubines was perpetuated to meet the sexual desires of the males and/or to cement political alliances between nations. Nevertheless, the paucity of sufficient internal data requires dependence on comparative ancient Near Eastern evidence for these conclusions. Multiplying children through concubines would not normally complicate the inheritance lines, but would increase the available family workforce and the family wealth.

David H. Engelhart

Since we are in the process of "Gathering Israel", that would suggest the 12 sons are Exalted, which would say their mothers are also. This is certainly Arenera's belief.

This will certainly resolve it:

D&C 132:1. What Are Concubines?
Concubine, a word commonly used in the Old Testament, was defined by Elder Bruce R. McConkie as follows: “Anciently they were considered to be secondary wives, that is, wives who did not have the same standing in the caste system then prevailing as did those wives who were not called concubines. There were no concubines connected with the practice of plural marriage in this dispensation, because the caste system which caused some wives to be so designated did not exist.” (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 154–55.)

[oneClimbs]

All children of God have Divinity in them. While in this Telestial kingdom, there is a lot of inequality, but the Divinity is always there.

Abraham and Jacob/Israel were not considered by God to be following the abomination of multiple wives, it was condoned by God.

I think their situations were very different. David and Solomon intentionally sought out multiple wives and concubines whereas Abraham was convinced by his wife to use Hagar as a surrogate even though God had another plan and timetable. Abraham and Sarah didn't wait and took it upon themselves to find a solution but afterwards, God told them that they would have Isaac and the covenant was through him.

Jacob was tricked into marrying a woman he did not want to marry but he was bound by the rules of the house he was a part of. He still wanted to marry the woman he loved and seemed to have no other choice but to navigate the tricky situation and then was pressured by the women to give them babies in order to be the favorite wife, seriously, go read the scriptures it's all there.

For this reason, I think there is a large distinction between Abraham and Israel versus David and Solomon. That said, I don't condemn any of them just as I don't condemn anyone else for the messiness of their lives.

What I am saying is that God can work through some of those messy issues and just because he does that, it doesn't constitute an endorsement. God never told Abraham and Israel to do what they did.

[Hie'ing to Kolob]

Here's something else to consider... the first vision reportedly took place 199 years ago and in almost 200 years' time, only .0025% of everyone on planet earth are members of the church. Approx. half of the 15 million members are inactive and so then that number goes to .00125. In 200 years' time, that is the best God has done after restoring his only true church? And there was absolutely no one on the entire planet for 1,820 years righteous enough to restore the gospel with God allowing 18 generations to pass with no truth, gospel of Christ or necessary saving ordinances for billions of people who he apparently didn't care enough about to have everything he needs them to have to enter back into his presence? Sorry for playing the devil's advocate.

Why are you sorry? You have become a great advocate for the devil and his fiendish plan to lead away as many as will listen to all the endless contrarian and cynical talk about the restored church which inevitable creates fear and doubt in those who buy into it. Those are his best tools. He will use as many useful idiots as he can to spread them in an attempt to drive people away from the truths and salvation offered in the church. He is getting more converts all the time if this board is any indication of his effectiveness. Such a shame..

"when the prophet speaks, the thinking is done."

[setyourselffree]

It's a completely made up "doctrine" in order to cover his arse with the saints.

What about "I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good" (D&C 56:4)? Could polygamy have been a commandment at one time and revoked at another? The Lord laid the groundwork for that pattern back in 1831. Maybe the Lord commanded through Joseph, and revoked through WW.

Wait, I thought God was removing JS because he taught it; now he was commanded it?

When? When did he teach it and present it to the saints as such?

I don't think God commands abominations. And since Jesus is the standard, God manifest among us, whatever deviates from that is nothing more than men using God's name to justify bad behaviour.

Interesting thought.
In Jacob we hear these things being termed an abomination to the Lord so yeah, why exactly would he command an abomination?

Abomination is pretty much saying its really not what he wants at all and he dislikes it.

Definition of abomination

a·bom·i·na·tionDictionary result for abomination
/əˌbäməˈnāSH(ə)n/Submit
noun
a thing that causes disgust or hatred.
"concrete abominations masquerading as hotels"

synonyms: atrocity, disgrace, horror, obscenity, outrage, curse, torment, evil, crime, monstrosity, violation, bugbear, anathema, bane; bête noire

"in both wars, internment was an abomination"

a feeling of hatred.
"their abomination of indulgence"
synonyms: detestation, loathing, hatred, aversion, antipathy, revulsion, repugnance, abhorrence, odium, execration, disgust, horror, hostility, disdain, contempt, distaste, dislike
"he had a Calvinist abomination of indulgence"

In contrast heres the definition of “sin”

sin1Dictionary result for sin
/sin/Submit
noun
1.
an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.
"a sin in the eyes of God"
synonyms: immoral act, wrong, wrongdoing, act of evil/wickedness, transgression, crime, offense, misdeed, misdemeanor, error, lapse, fall from grace; More
verb
1.
commit a sin.
"I sinned and brought shame down on us"
synonyms: commit a sin, offend against God, commit an offense, transgress, do wrong, commit a crime, break the law, misbehave, go astray, stray from the straight and narrow, go wrong, fall from grace; archaictrespass
"I sinned and brought down shame on us"

Would you consider Murder an abomination? If so don't read the Old Testament.

[MMbelieve]

What about "I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good" (D&C 56:4)? Could polygamy have been a commandment at one time and revoked at another? The Lord laid the groundwork for that pattern back in 1831. Maybe the Lord commanded through Joseph, and revoked through WW.

Wait, I thought God was removing JS because he taught it; now he was commanded it?

When? When did he teach it and present it to the saints as such?

I don't think God commands abominations. And since Jesus is the standard, God manifest among us, whatever deviates from that is nothing more than men using God's name to justify bad behaviour.

Interesting thought.
In Jacob we hear these things being termed an abomination to the Lord so yeah, why exactly would he command an abomination?

Abomination is pretty much saying its really not what he wants at all and he dislikes it.

Definition of abomination

a·bom·i·na·tionDictionary result for abomination
/əˌbäməˈnāSH(ə)n/Submit
noun
a thing that causes disgust or hatred.
"concrete abominations masquerading as hotels"

synonyms: atrocity, disgrace, horror, obscenity, outrage, curse, torment, evil, crime, monstrosity, violation, bugbear, anathema, bane; bête noire

"in both wars, internment was an abomination"

a feeling of hatred.
"their abomination of indulgence"
synonyms: detestation, loathing, hatred, aversion, antipathy, revulsion, repugnance, abhorrence, odium, execration, disgust, horror, hostility, disdain, contempt, distaste, dislike
"he had a Calvinist abomination of indulgence"

In contrast heres the definition of “sin”

sin1Dictionary result for sin
/sin/Submit
noun
1.
an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.
"a sin in the eyes of God"
synonyms: immoral act, wrong, wrongdoing, act of evil/wickedness, transgression, crime, offense, misdeed, misdemeanor, error, lapse, fall from grace; More
verb
1.
commit a sin.
"I sinned and brought shame down on us"
synonyms: commit a sin, offend against God, commit an offense, transgress, do wrong, commit a crime, break the law, misbehave, go astray, stray from the straight and narrow, go wrong, fall from grace; archaictrespass
"I sinned and brought down shame on us"

Would you consider Murder an abomination? If so don't read the Old Testament.

This was about what God considered an abomination.
Know ye not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?” (Alma 39:5)

[Finrock]

Arenera, it has nothing to do with what anyone thinks of womens dignity....its the way it was.
Concubines were less than wife OTHERWISE why the special designation of title if its the same as a wife.

The wives used these women, shame on them for using the women and acting stupid with Jacob, of course he didnt have to sleep with their handmaids but he did.

My point MMbelieve, is that you are of the House of Israel, which comes from Jacob and his wives / concubines. I don't believe these women were "less than". They are Exalted!

Of course, you can call them a "womb" if that helps your argument.

I don't know why you think being associated with the "House of Israel" means that someone or something is,ipso facto, righteous/good. Can you explain it?

-Finrock

[setyourselffree]

Wait, I thought God was removing JS because he taught it; now he was commanded it?

When? When did he teach it and present it to the saints as such?

I don't think God commands abominations. And since Jesus is the standard, God manifest among us, whatever deviates from that is nothing more than men using God's name to justify bad behaviour.

Interesting thought.
In Jacob we hear these things being termed an abomination to the Lord so yeah, why exactly would he command an abomination?

Abomination is pretty much saying its really not what he wants at all and he dislikes it.

Definition of abomination

a·bom·i·na·tionDictionary result for abomination
/əˌbäməˈnāSH(ə)n/Submit
noun
a thing that causes disgust or hatred.
"concrete abominations masquerading as hotels"

synonyms: atrocity, disgrace, horror, obscenity, outrage, curse, torment, evil, crime, monstrosity, violation, bugbear, anathema, bane; bête noire

"in both wars, internment was an abomination"

a feeling of hatred.
"their abomination of indulgence"
synonyms: detestation, loathing, hatred, aversion, antipathy, revulsion, repugnance, abhorrence, odium, execration, disgust, horror, hostility, disdain, contempt, distaste, dislike
"he had a Calvinist abomination of indulgence"

In contrast heres the definition of “sin”

sin1Dictionary result for sin
/sin/Submit
noun
1.
an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.
"a sin in the eyes of God"
synonyms: immoral act, wrong, wrongdoing, act of evil/wickedness, transgression, crime, offense, misdeed, misdemeanor, error, lapse, fall from grace; More
verb
1.
commit a sin.
"I sinned and brought shame down on us"
synonyms: commit a sin, offend against God, commit an offense, transgress, do wrong, commit a crime, break the law, misbehave, go astray, stray from the straight and narrow, go wrong, fall from grace; archaictrespass
"I sinned and brought down shame on us"

Would you consider Murder an abomination? If so don't read the Old Testament.

This was about what God considered an abomination.
Know ye not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?” (Alma 39:5)

How many times were the men in the Old Testament commanded to kill? Think taking out entire cities. How many of those killed were innocent?

[Finrock]

Interesting thought.
In Jacob we hear these things being termed an abomination to the Lord so yeah, why exactly would he command an abomination?

Abomination is pretty much saying its really not what he wants at all and he dislikes it.

Definition of abomination

a·bom·i·na·tionDictionary result for abomination
/əˌbäməˈnāSH(ə)n/Submit
noun
a thing that causes disgust or hatred.
"concrete abominations masquerading as hotels"

synonyms: atrocity, disgrace, horror, obscenity, outrage, curse, torment, evil, crime, monstrosity, violation, bugbear, anathema, bane; bête noire

"in both wars, internment was an abomination"

a feeling of hatred.
"their abomination of indulgence"
synonyms: detestation, loathing, hatred, aversion, antipathy, revulsion, repugnance, abhorrence, odium, execration, disgust, horror, hostility, disdain, contempt, distaste, dislike
"he had a Calvinist abomination of indulgence"

In contrast heres the definition of “sin”

sin1Dictionary result for sin
/sin/Submit
noun
1.
an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.
"a sin in the eyes of God"
synonyms: immoral act, wrong, wrongdoing, act of evil/wickedness, transgression, crime, offense, misdeed, misdemeanor, error, lapse, fall from grace; More
verb
1.
commit a sin.
"I sinned and brought shame down on us"
synonyms: commit a sin, offend against God, commit an offense, transgress, do wrong, commit a crime, break the law, misbehave, go astray, stray from the straight and narrow, go wrong, fall from grace; archaictrespass
"I sinned and brought down shame on us"

Would you consider Murder an abomination? If so don't read the Old Testament.

This was about what God considered an abomination.
Know ye not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?” (Alma 39:5)

How many times were the men in the Old Testament commanded to kill? Think taking out entire cities. How many of those killed were innocent?

I think a more relevant and accurate question is: How many times were men in the Old Testament commanded by God to practice genocide and murder innocent people?

Answer: Zero times.

-Finrock

[MMbelieve]

Interesting thought.
In Jacob we hear these things being termed an abomination to the Lord so yeah, why exactly would he command an abomination?

Abomination is pretty much saying its really not what he wants at all and he dislikes it.

Definition of abomination

a·bom·i·na·tionDictionary result for abomination
/əˌbäməˈnāSH(ə)n/Submit
noun
a thing that causes disgust or hatred.
"concrete abominations masquerading as hotels"

synonyms: atrocity, disgrace, horror, obscenity, outrage, curse, torment, evil, crime, monstrosity, violation, bugbear, anathema, bane; bête noire

"in both wars, internment was an abomination"

a feeling of hatred.
"their abomination of indulgence"
synonyms: detestation, loathing, hatred, aversion, antipathy, revulsion, repugnance, abhorrence, odium, execration, disgust, horror, hostility, disdain, contempt, distaste, dislike
"he had a Calvinist abomination of indulgence"

In contrast heres the definition of “sin”

sin1Dictionary result for sin
/sin/Submit
noun
1.
an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.
"a sin in the eyes of God"
synonyms: immoral act, wrong, wrongdoing, act of evil/wickedness, transgression, crime, offense, misdeed, misdemeanor, error, lapse, fall from grace; More
verb
1.
commit a sin.
"I sinned and brought shame down on us"
synonyms: commit a sin, offend against God, commit an offense, transgress, do wrong, commit a crime, break the law, misbehave, go astray, stray from the straight and narrow, go wrong, fall from grace; archaictrespass
"I sinned and brought down shame on us"

Would you consider Murder an abomination? If so don't read the Old Testament.

This was about what God considered an abomination.
Know ye not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?” (Alma 39:5)

How many times were the men in the Old Testament commanded to kill? Think taking out entire cities. How many of those killed were innocent?

Maybe none of them were. I dont know nor do I particularly concern myself with it.

Thousands of years ago...it was a different world entirely. Today, I couldnt imagine god asking the elders quorum to go kill off a population of people BUT im sure it will happen again to some degree. God uses people to destroy people even if its wicked against wicked. Its not my form of doing things but thats because im the female nature that is designed to give life and nurture life, not to take it.

The world would be very different if women were in charge, we would talk and talk and talk to find solutions and be very hesitant and even sickened by taking up arms against human beings. One reason the men take care of that sort of thing due to the carnal and sinful world we have to live in, someone has to be capable.

[setyourselffree]

Would you consider Murder an abomination? If so don't read the Old Testament.

This was about what God considered an abomination.
Know ye not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?” (Alma 39:5)

How many times were the men in the Old Testament commanded to kill? Think taking out entire cities. How many of those killed were innocent?

I think a more relevant and accurate question is: How many times were men in the Old Testament commanded by God to practice genocide and murder innocent people?

Answer: Zero times.

-Finrock

Reallly? I mean what do you think of all the Canaanites killed so the Jews could have that land? I'm not saying I don't agree with it, just that sometimes God can command otherwise for what seems like very serious offenses.

[MMbelieve]

Psalms 106
32 They angered him also at the waters of strife, so that it went ill with Moses for their sakes:
33 Because they provoked his spirit, so that he spake unadvisedly with his lips.
34 They did not destroy the nations, concerning whom the Lord commanded them:
35 But were mingled among the heathen, and learned their works.
36 And they served their idols: which were a snare unto them.
37 Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils,
38 And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood.
39 Thus were they defiled with their own works, and went a whoring with their own inventions.
40 Therefore was the wrath of the Lord kindled against his people, insomuch that he abhorred his own inheritance.
41 And he gave them into the hand of the heathen; and they that hated them ruled over them.
42 Their enemies also oppressed them, and they were brought into subjection under their hand.
43 Many times did he deliver them; but they provoked him with their counsel, and were brought low for their iniquity.

This is interesting. God was pretty upset that they didnt obey his command to destroy (kill?) but instead became evil.

[Arenera]

Arenera, it has nothing to do with what anyone thinks of womens dignity....its the way it was.
Concubines were less than wife OTHERWISE why the special designation of title if its the same as a wife.

The wives used these women, shame on them for using the women and acting stupid with Jacob, of course he didnt have to sleep with their handmaids but he did.

My point MMbelieve, is that you are of the House of Israel, which comes from Jacob and his wives / concubines. I don't believe these women were "less than". They are Exalted!

Of course, you can call them a "womb" if that helps your argument.

I don't know why you think being associated with the "House of Israel" means that someone or something is,ipso facto, righteous/good. Can you explain it?

-Finrock

I don’t know, except President Nelson said we are to gather them.

[Sirius]

It's a completely made up "doctrine" in order to cover his arse with the saints.

What about "I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good" (D&C 56:4)? Could polygamy have been a commandment at one time and revoked at another? The Lord laid the groundwork for that pattern back in 1831. Maybe the Lord commanded through Joseph, and revoked through WW.

Because the people weren't living the law? According to the BoM by which we are to abide its precepts because it will get us closer to God than any other book, if God gives a commandment, he prepares the way so that it might be fulfilled. So apparently he all of a sudden states, through vision that If you don't stop this commandment that I gave then you will be destroyed? It doesn't follow or make sense.
Edit: additionally as far as I'm aware, it wasn't a I the Lord God revoke this, it was a "if yhou don't stop this you will be destroyed." It's one thing for the Lord to command to revoke and if they ignore it they will be destroyed, but that vision certainly wasn't shared that way.

Correct, the words "I revoke" are not in the Manifesto. But in effect and in practice, that is what occurred. The Lord showed WW ("revelation", he said) what would happen if they didn't stop practicing polygamy.

The Manifesto itself was not revelation as many think it to be. Church Historian D. Michael Quinn notes in his essay, "LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages: 1890-1904"

"On 24 September 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued his famous Manifesto which stated in part:

"' . . . [A]nd I deny that either 40 or any other number of plural marriages have during the period [since June 1889] been solemnized in our temples or in any other place in the Territory,' and concluded, 'And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.'

"The Church-owned 'Deseret Evening News' editorialized on 30 September [1890]: 'Anyone who calls the language of President Woodruff's declaration 'indefinite' must be either exceedingly dense or determined to find fault. It is so definite that its meaning cannot be mistaken by any one who understands simple English.' On 3 October it added, 'Nothing could be more direct and unambiguous than the language of President Woodruff, nor could anything be more authoritative.'

"A few days after this last editorial, the Church authorities presented this 'unambiguous' document for a sustaining vote of the General Conference. Yet during the next 13-and-a-half years, members of the First Presidency individually or as a unit published 24 denials that any new plural marriages were being performed. The climax of that series of little manifestoes was the 'Second Manifesto' on plural marriage sustained by a vote of a general conference. President Joseph F. Smith's statement of 6 April 1904, read in part:

"'Inasmuch as there are numerous reports in circulation that plural marriages have been entered into contrary to the official declaration of President Woodruff, of September 24, 1890, commonly called the Manifesto . . . I, Joseph F. Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, hereby affirm and declare that no such marriages have been solemnized with the sanction, consent or knowledge of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.'"

Joseph F. Smith, stated unequivocally that he did not regard the 1890 Manifesto as having heavenly origins, nor did he believe it constituted an order from On High to halt the practice of polygamy.

Quinn reports:

“Responding to Heber J. Grant’s question in August 1891, if he regarded the Manifesto as a revelation, ‘President Smith answered emphatically no.’ [adding that] . . . he did not believe it to be an emphatic revelation from God abolishing plural marriage.’”

Further undermining Woodruff's tale that God prompted the Manifesto's command that polygamy be discontinued, Woodruff had earlier claimed just the opposite--declaring that God had revealed to him not to give into the federal government by abandoning polygamy. Apostle Abraham H. Cannon wrote in his journal of 19 December 1889 (less than a year before Woodruff issued the Manifesto):

"During our meeting, a revelation was read which President Woodruff received Sunday evening, November 24th. Propositions had been made for the Church to make some concession to the Courts in regard to the principles [of polygamy]. . . . [President Woodruff] laid the matter before the Lord.

"The answer cam quick and strong. The word of the Lord was for us not to yield one particle of that which he had revealed and established. . . . [W]e need have no fear of our enemies when we were in the line of duty. We are promised redemption and deliverance if we will trust in God and not in the arm of flesh . . . . [M]y heart was filled with joy and peace during the entire reading. It sets all doubts at rest concerning the course to pursue."

". .. [A]fter he made the most explicit and authoritative public pronouncements that the Manifesto prohibited polygamous cohabitation and that excommunication was the penalty for violating the Manifesto, President Woodruff told the First Presidency and Twelve on 12 November 1891 'that he was placed in such a position on the witness stand that he could not answer other than he did; yet any man who deserts and neglects his wives or children because of the Manifesto, should be handled on his fellowship.'"

Richard Abanes, in his book, "One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church," observes that the Manifesto lacked the look and feel of a genuine revelation: "Its wording and the way leaders publicly released it dramatically differed from every other 'revelation' that had been give to the Saints.

"Before being issued, this so-called 'revelation' was written re-written, edited and re-edited many times behind closed doors by various persons ranging from Mormon politicians, to LDS apostles, to non-Mormon legal advisors.

"It was addressed 'To whom it my concern,' a decidedly secular phrase that failed to hold the authority of a 'Thus saith the Lord' declaration.

"It was publicly issued as a press release from Washington by Utah's delegate in Congress, John T. Caine, rather than being presented to the congregation by Church authorities at a Church Conference, which was how other revelations had been presented.

"It was not signed by the First Presidency, but only signed by Wilford Woodruff.

"Woodruff carefully worded the Manifesto to read, 'I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land,' which means that the entire declaration was Woodruff's personal advice, rather than a command from God. Thus, a sort of theological loophole was given for disobedience."

(Richard Abanes, "One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church," Chapter 14, "The Politics of Compromise" (New York/London: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2002), p. 324)

[Finrock]

This was about what God considered an abomination.
Know ye not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?” (Alma 39:5)

How many times were the men in the Old Testament commanded to kill? Think taking out entire cities. How many of those killed were innocent?

I think a more relevant and accurate question is: How many times were men in the Old Testament commanded by God to practice genocide and murder innocent people?

Answer: Zero times.

-Finrock

Reallly? I mean what do you think of all the Canaanites killed so the Jews could have that land? I'm not saying I don't agree with it, just that sometimes God can command otherwise for what seems like very serious offenses.

I have a different theory. Not everything attributed to God is actually God. The Bible or all scripture, really, is errant. Also we have to take in to account the people who's records we are reading. We have to consider where they were spiritually, scientifically, culturally, traditions, and other such things that aren't necessarily universal and eternal principles. So what we see often in the Old Testament is a description of God based on the perceptions of these people, not based on reality.

To me it seems better, rational, reasonable, and believable that maybe God didn't command the Israelites to commit genocide? The Bible is not without error. Not everything in the Bible is historically, universally, absolutely true. Many of the things in the OT are inconsistent with Love/Christ. Many of the views and the perceptions that ancient people's had of God were incorrect. To the Israelites, who were living in sin, God seemed like this angry, mean, destructive being. But, that doesn't mean that is what God was or is. Its just how they understood it and that is the record they made. We need to learn to discern the "black" and the "light" "squares" mixed through-out the scriptures. I think the Israelites who committed these astrocities towards the Canaanites used God as a means to justify their actions, much in the same way as the Catholic Church used God and the scriptures to justify the Crusades or how Muslim extremist use the Koran to justify their murders.

The fact of the matter is that the Israelites actually attacked and killed the Canaanites, not God. How do you know that it was God who pronounced destruction on them? I mean, it would be more convincing if an earthquake destroyed them or a meteor or something that the Israelites had no control over. Is that how we react to people or groups today who say that God commanded them to attack a city and to kill all of the inhabitants, do we accept that? Or do we think that is insane? Its nuts. Sodom destroyed by natural means. Flood, natural. Genocide? If God wants genocide, He'll do it Himself. At least He will have to do it Himself if I'm ever asked to do something like that. But, He isn't going to command men and/or women to go in to a city and murder every man, women, child, and animal.

That's my view, any ways. For what its worth.

-Finrock

[Col. Flagg]

Here's something else to consider... the first vision reportedly took place 199 years ago and in almost 200 years' time, only .0025% of everyone on planet earth are members of the church. Approx. half of the 15 million members are inactive and so then that number goes to .00125. In 200 years' time, that is the best God has done after restoring his only true church? And there was absolutely no one on the entire planet for 1,820 years righteous enough to restore the gospel with God allowing 18 generations to pass with no truth, gospel of Christ or necessary saving ordinances for billions of people who he apparently didn't care enough about to have everything he needs them to have to enter back into his presence? Sorry for playing the devil's advocate.

Why are you sorry? You have become a great advocate for the devil and his fiendish plan to lead away as many as will listen to all the endless contrarian and cynical talk about the restored church which inevitable creates fear and doubt in those who buy into it. Those are his best tools. He will use as many useful idiots as he can to spread them in an attempt to drive people away from the truths and salvation offered in the church. He is getting more converts all the time if this board is any indication of his effectiveness. Such a shame..

Spoken like a true friend as always Mark. Apparently, truth means nothing to you... only attacking anyone who rains on your 'all is well in Zion' parade.

[Finrock]

Arenera, it has nothing to do with what anyone thinks of womens dignity....its the way it was.
Concubines were less than wife OTHERWISE why the special designation of title if its the same as a wife.

The wives used these women, shame on them for using the women and acting stupid with Jacob, of course he didnt have to sleep with their handmaids but he did.

My point MMbelieve, is that you are of the House of Israel, which comes from Jacob and his wives / concubines. I don't believe these women were "less than". They are Exalted!

Of course, you can call them a "womb" if that helps your argument.

I don't know why you think being associated with the "House of Israel" means that someone or something is,ipso facto, righteous/good. Can you explain it?

-Finrock

I don’t know, except President Nelson said we are to gather them.

You don't know why you believe anyone or anything associated with the House of Israel is, ipso facto, righteous/good?

OK, well, may I suggest and invite you to do some introspection and pondering until you are able to reason out for yourself and figure out for yourself why you believe that something or someone is, ipso facto, good/righteous because they are associated with the House of Israel? To be clear, I can relate. There have been many things in my life that I just believed even though I hadn't taken the time to really know WHY I believe it. There have been some things that I just believed just because that is what I was told, etc. I've since learned and have come to realize that believing something without understanding why you believe it is not a good thing and can result in damning our progression.

In any case, I don't see any good reason to assume that something or someone is good just because they are associated with the House of Israel. The House of Israel, in general, has been responsible for all sorts of atrocities and evil things over the course of time (much good too). When Israel fought against God, they suffered the consequences, but, God didn't abandon them. He still used Israel to fulfill His purposes, etc. Not everything that Israel has done, has been approved and sanctioned by God.

-Finrock

[Arenera]

My point MMbelieve, is that you are of the House of Israel, which comes from Jacob and his wives / concubines. I don't believe these women were "less than". They are Exalted!

Of course, you can call them a "womb" if that helps your argument.

I don't know why you think being associated with the "House of Israel" means that someone or something is,ipso facto, righteous/good. Can you explain it?

-Finrock

I don’t know, except President Nelson said we are to gather them.

You don't know why you believe anyone or anything associated with the House of Israel is, ipso facto, righteous/good?

OK, well, may I suggest and invite you to do some introspection and pondering until you are able to reason out for yourself and figure out for yourself why you believe that something or someone is, ipso facto, good/righteous because they are associated with the House of Israel? To be clear, I can relate. There have been many things in my life that I just believed even though I hadn't taken the time to really know WHY I believe it. There have been some things that I just believed just because that is what I was told, etc. I've since learned and have come to realize that believing something without understanding why you believe it is not a good thing and can result in damning our progression.

In any case, I don't see any good reason to assume that something or someone is good just because they are associated with the House of Israel. The House of Israel, in general, has been responsible for all sorts of atrocities and evil things over the course of time (much good too). When Israel fought against God, they suffered the consequences, but, God didn't abandon them. He still used Israel to fulfill His purposes, etc. Not everything that Israel has done, has been approved and sanctioned by God.

-Finrock

Israel are the Covenant people of the Lord.

2 For behold, I say unto you that as many of the Gentiles as will repent are the covenant people of the Lord;

[Finrock]

I don't know why you think being associated with the "House of Israel" means that someone or something is,ipso facto, righteous/good. Can you explain it?

-Finrock

I don’t know, except President Nelson said we are to gather them.

You don't know why you believe anyone or anything associated with the House of Israel is, ipso facto, righteous/good?

OK, well, may I suggest and invite you to do some introspection and pondering until you are able to reason out for yourself and figure out for yourself why you believe that something or someone is, ipso facto, good/righteous because they are associated with the House of Israel? To be clear, I can relate. There have been many things in my life that I just believed even though I hadn't taken the time to really know WHY I believe it. There have been some things that I just believed just because that is what I was told, etc. I've since learned and have come to realize that believing something without understanding why you believe it is not a good thing and can result in damning our progression.

In any case, I don't see any good reason to assume that something or someone is good just because they are associated with the House of Israel. The House of Israel, in general, has been responsible for all sorts of atrocities and evil things over the course of time (much good too). When Israel fought against God, they suffered the consequences, but, God didn't abandon them. He still used Israel to fulfill His purposes, etc. Not everything that Israel has done, has been approved and sanctioned by God.

-Finrock

Israel are the Covenant people of the Lord.

2 For behold, I say unto you that as many of the Gentiles as will repent are the covenant people of the Lord;

Anyone who believes and has faith in Jesus Christ, repents, and is baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost, is the covenant people of the Lord.

I still don't see how this makes polygamy, ipso facto, OK.

I'm a covenant people of the Lord (I'm a part of the House of Israel) and the Lord has NOT approved, agreed with, sanctioned, or been OK with all of my decisions and all of my actions, just because I am a part of the House of Israel. This clinches the point because it was no different for the ancient Israelites.

-Finrock

[Arenera]

I don’t know, except President Nelson said we are to gather them.

You don't know why you believe anyone or anything associated with the House of Israel is, ipso facto, righteous/good?

OK, well, may I suggest and invite you to do some introspection and pondering until you are able to reason out for yourself and figure out for yourself why you believe that something or someone is, ipso facto, good/righteous because they are associated with the House of Israel? To be clear, I can relate. There have been many things in my life that I just believed even though I hadn't taken the time to really know WHY I believe it. There have been some things that I just believed just because that is what I was told, etc. I've since learned and have come to realize that believing something without understanding why you believe it is not a good thing and can result in damning our progression.

In any case, I don't see any good reason to assume that something or someone is good just because they are associated with the House of Israel. The House of Israel, in general, has been responsible for all sorts of atrocities and evil things over the course of time (much good too). When Israel fought against God, they suffered the consequences, but, God didn't abandon them. He still used Israel to fulfill His purposes, etc. Not everything that Israel has done, has been approved and sanctioned by God.

-Finrock

Israel are the Covenant people of the Lord.

2 For behold, I say unto you that as many of the Gentiles as will repent are the covenant people of the Lord;

Anyone who believes and has faith in Jesus Christ, repents, and is baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost, is the covenant people of the Lord.

I still don't see how this makes polygamy, ipso facto, OK.

I'm a covenant people of the Lord (I'm a part of the House of Israel) and the Lord has NOT approved, agreed with, sanctioned, or been OK with all of my decisions and all of my actions, just because I am a part of the House of Israel. This clinches the point because it was no different for the ancient Israelites.

-Finrock

No, there is a difference. We are not part of the Finrock Covenant or of the House of Finrock.

[kittycat51]

Speaking of William Law; I just read this story about him and the Prophet. It comes from a devotional given by Robert H Daines in 2000. He states:

"This is a record of a little-known experience of the Prophet Joseph—little known because this diary was lost for 30 to 40 years in my mother’s home in New Jersey. It was only rediscovered as they were preparing to move back to Utah in the late 1970s. This is a diary entry of Sister Sarah Stoddard. Her son Charles, my great-grandfather, as a boy of 14, was asked by the Prophet Joseph to serve as a houseboy for William Law, an enemy of the Prophet, and to inform him of any of the Laws’ devious plans. It was, I guess, an early form of counterintelligence.

Note the date of the diary entry: April 1844. It was just two months before the Martyrdom of the Prophet.

Dear Diary,

Charles had another faith-promoting experience last night.

Early this morning, even while the darkness still hemmed out the light of the day, Mr. Law, after he had been drinking and planning with his associates through the night, got Charles out of bed to clean and oil his gun. He said he was going to shoot the Prophet, only William Law called him “old Joe Smith.” Poor Charles was frightened beyond description, but Mr. Law stood over him and prodded him with his foot when Charles hesitated through fright and anxiety. Finally, when Mr. Law was satisfied with the way the gun was working, he put one bullet in. (He boasted he could kill the Prophet with one shot.) He sent Charles to bring the Prophet.

He ran as fast as he could and delivered the message, but he begged the Prophet not to go to Mr. Law’s as Mr. Law was drunk and Charles was afraid he would carry through on his threat to shoot the Prophet in cold blood.

As they walked the few blocks from the Mansion House to the Law residence, the Prophet assured Charles that no harm would come to him that day. Charles was frightened, and he said that it kept racing through his mind, “I am the one that cleaned the gun that is going to be used to kill the Prophet,” until he was sick with fear. The Prophet in a final attempt to calm my dear son uttered the fateful words, “Mr. Law may someday kill me, Charles, but it won’t be today.”

As they approached their destination, Mr. Law came staggering out of the house shouting out what he intended to do.

The Prophet said kindly and unafraid, “You sent for me, Mr. Law?” to which Mr. Law replied with oaths that now he was doing the whole a favor by disposing of the Prophet with one shot.

Calmly the Prophet unbuttoned his shirt and bared his chest, then said, “I’m ready now, Mr. Law.” Charles said at this point he nearly fainted. Sick fear strangled him until he was speechless and paralyzed, unable to move a muscle.

Mr. Law paced a few steps, turned, aimed, and pressed the trigger. There was complete silence. Then the air rang with profanity, and Mr. Law turned on Charles, accusing him of fixing the gun so it would not go off and threatening to kill even Charles—my innocent, frightened, but faithful son.

The Prophet, to divert Mr. Law’s blame of Charles, suggested that a can be placed on a fence post for Mr. Law to take a practice shot. Relieved, Charles ran for a can and laid it on its side on the post. Mr. Law paced back, took aim, and fired. His “one shot” streaked through the exact center of the can.

Even Mr. Law was quiet, as if stunned.

The Prophet buttoned up his shirt, gave Charles a meaningful look, and then said, “If you are finished with me now, Mr. Law, I have other things needing to be done. Good morning." [Diary of Sarah Stoddard; text modernized]

[Finrock]

You don't know why you believe anyone or anything associated with the House of Israel is, ipso facto, righteous/good?

OK, well, may I suggest and invite you to do some introspection and pondering until you are able to reason out for yourself and figure out for yourself why you believe that something or someone is, ipso facto, good/righteous because they are associated with the House of Israel? To be clear, I can relate. There have been many things in my life that I just believed even though I hadn't taken the time to really know WHY I believe it. There have been some things that I just believed just because that is what I was told, etc. I've since learned and have come to realize that believing something without understanding why you believe it is not a good thing and can result in damning our progression.

In any case, I don't see any good reason to assume that something or someone is good just because they are associated with the House of Israel. The House of Israel, in general, has been responsible for all sorts of atrocities and evil things over the course of time (much good too). When Israel fought against God, they suffered the consequences, but, God didn't abandon them. He still used Israel to fulfill His purposes, etc. Not everything that Israel has done, has been approved and sanctioned by God.

-Finrock

Israel are the Covenant people of the Lord.

2 For behold, I say unto you that as many of the Gentiles as will repent are the covenant people of the Lord;

Anyone who believes and has faith in Jesus Christ, repents, and is baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost, is the covenant people of the Lord.

I still don't see how this makes polygamy, ipso facto, OK.

I'm a covenant people of the Lord (I'm a part of the House of Israel) and the Lord has NOT approved, agreed with, sanctioned, or been OK with all of my decisions and all of my actions, just because I am a part of the House of Israel. This clinches the point because it was no different for the ancient Israelites.

-Finrock

No, there is a difference.

Articulate the difference, please.

We are not part of the Finrock Covenant or of the House of Finrock.

I don't get it. We are not a part of the fungus family?

-Finrock

[simpleton]

Here's something else to consider... the first vision reportedly took place 199 years ago and in almost 200 years' time, only .0025% of everyone on planet earth are members of the church. Approx. half of the 15 million members are inactive and so then that number goes to .00125. In 200 years' time, that is the best God has done after restoring his only true church? And there was absolutely no one on the entire planet for 1,820 years righteous enough to restore the gospel with God allowing 18 generations to pass with no truth, gospel of Christ or necessary saving ordinances for billions of people who he apparently didn't care enough about to have everything he needs them to have to enter back into his presence? Sorry for playing the devil's advocate.

Or rather His children mostly just dont give a rat's rear about their personal salvation....

How would 18 generations have even known what that was? Isn't/wasn't that the purpose/reason for a 'restoration' in the first place?

And today most people still dont care