Tuesday, July 25, 2006

President Wilford Woodruff On Polygamy This for the LDS

As all you LDS out there know, or should know, President Wilford Woodruff of the Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints was the man, who most of you LDS think had a revelation ending the practice of polygamy in the LDS church. And he was the President of the LDS church who signed off on the manefesto. What most of you don't know and won't hear from the LDS leadership is the following. And this is probably the only place your ever going to hear it.

Quote from my great gradmother Esther E Morrison in her life history:

"Years later, about 1925, I attended a Daughters of the Pioneers meeting held at the home of Mrs. Joseph J Danes, on Fifth east, who was a daughter of President Wilford Woodruff. Also another daughter, Mrs. Beatty was there. She spoke on the Manifesto. During her talk she said: “The day father signed the manifesto I was in the front room when he came home. I shall never forget his face. He moaned, and said “O God what have I done?” He immediately went upstairs to his room. He remained there for a whole week, never speaking to any of us. When he came down and joined the family he looked awful. The ravages of sickness could never have made him look worse. It was awful.” As a note here, my children, I desire to leave this to you. I know the law of plural marriage to be a heaven truth. Your father was an issue of that great law. You have a righteous heritage. Don’t trample on it, but treasure it, and accept the pattern given to you.”

Which points directly to the fact, Wilford Woodruff did, not only NOT HAVE a REVELATION, he was pushed into signing it from outside sources. ( ie. Federal Government). And more importantly still maintaened his support for it.

For ALL YOU LDS out there, there should be going off a red light or other means of wake up, you have been LIED TO. By your own church. Over the years they have tried their best to convince you Wilford Woodruff was the Prophet and President of the LDS church who had the revelation ending Polygamy in the LDS church. And that IS NOT THE CASE.

Polygamy was practiced and continued in the LDS church long after Wilford Woodruff, admitted signing the manefesto, it was something he did not want to do, and regretted for the rest of his life. Its amazing what truth can uncover. Polygamy goes on in the LDS to this very day. Make no mistake.

30 comments:

Anonymous said...

Question for Barlow.

How important is the Book of Mormon scripture in your faith?

Is Doctrine and Covenants revelations have equal standing or more important than the Book of Mormon?

Anonymous said...

And years later it is now 2006.

Polgamy was against the law then.

Polygamy is against the law now.

TBM said...

In the first place, the LDS church has not abandoned polygamy. It remains doctrinal, but is not practised at present. Theoretically, it could be brought back, although I don't see that happening in my lifetime.

In the second place, I'm going to need stronger evidence than the reminiscence of a hearsay of a reminiscence! In a law court, that would NOT be admissable evidence!

I'm not suggesting your great-grandmother was lying, but memories are pretty unreliable things (especially years later, which her words suggest). Her memory may well be imperfect, or she may simply have misheard or not understood.

Or Mrs Beatty's memory (30 years on) may have been imperfect, or Mrs Beatty may have been lying, or just confused. If Wilford Woodruff came home looking awful, said "Oh God, what have I done" and was then sick for a week -- he might just have eaten some bad meat and his guts were churning!!!!!

You can't tell what Wilford Woodruff was referring to when (and if) he said that. Maybe it was the manifesto. But it could have been any of a host of other explanations.

And finally, only an FLDS would assume that your wife count is the be-all-and-end-all of the planet. And as such, will be the thing that destroys the LDS church, and has all its members converting to the FLDS by the million. It's really not an issue. It hardly ever even gets discussed. Keeping our kids on the straight and narrow, nagging them into doing their homework, fulfilling our day-to-day duties in the church, organizing family activities, scripture study, doing our genealogy, pondering the issues we face and trying to agree on the moral reaction to them -- this is what concerns us as LDS. Not corralling as many wild mares as we can round up!

Alma said...

Esther Elggrin Morrison was my great-grandmother as well, and I don't think the story ever happened. The early 1920's was a great time to get together to speak evil of Church authorities, and the "recollections" were about as authentic as recovered memories are today. That's one of the biggest problems with fundamentalist history: it relies nearly entirely on recollection while ignoring documented history.

It seems that TBM has the same idea about the LDS Church that Brigham Young had. "But to preach the Gospel, save the children of men, build up the kingdom of God, produce righteousness in the midst of the people; ...and to usher in and establish the reign of universal peace, is our business, no matter how many wives a man has got, that makes no difference here or there." (BY 06/04/1871)

"If it is wrong for a man to have more than one wife at a time, the Lord will reveal it by and by, and he will put it away that it will not be known in the Church." (BY 08/19/1866)

TBM said...

Thank you, Alma. That is a very interesting comment.

And I wasn't aware of that quote by Brigham Young. I may well use it in the future! Thank you.

Alma said...

The recollection that Wilford Woodruff stayed in his room for a week after having signed the manifesto conflicts with WW's own journal where he notes during that week having attended several board meetings, meeting with the 12 apostles and attending a wedding reception. He spent the day after signing the manifesto at the farm and the day following he stayed home. Now, who are you going to believe, this alleged recollection or your lying eyes?

TBM said...

I'll believe WW's own journal. That's first-hand evidence. Do you know if it's online anywhere? I'd like to read it.

It did strike me as strange that WW, whilst leading a large church through an immense crisis, would take a week off to feel sorry for himself!

Alma said...

I don't think it's on-line, but I have it from the Signature Books CD.

ATAR_i said...

This is a great discussion, I'm thrilled to have two mormon history buffs on board.

I have nothing to add - I just wanted to thank you both for the comments.

Anonymous said...

Lets make a Movie about all of the divorces in Monogamy and Cheating and Spouse Abuse and Child Abuse,all the vices of that Society and then Lets Call it BANKING ON HELL. This Producer of this movie needs to focus on the good of this society. Oh I apologize this is a very corrupt society and needs to be obliberated off the planet. The LDS people think that they can just Mock the God of Jacob and make fun of this society, but he says D&C 132 Says "NO ONE CAN REJECT THIS COVENANT AND BE PERMITTED TO ENTER INTO MY GLORY" Did anyone catch the phrase (NO ONE), Oh! except the President of the Church. All those that have this law revealed unto them must and SHALL ABIDE THIS LAW OR THEY SHALL BE DAMNED.D&C 132. I quess according to their ideas, they are going to live it in the next life. I guess being LDS I will just plan on paying my Tithing in the next life, go to church in the next life,receive my Temple ordinces in the next life, and get Babtized in the next life Etc. If they make a law to Ban one Principle can't they make a law to Ban another Principle. So if they made laws too Ban all of the Principles of the Gospel, Since the LDS Church succumed to the Ban on Polygamy,whats next? Those who live Godly in Christ SHALL SUFFER PERSECUTION Why? because they won't back down. God's law will not be trifled with. God is watching us from a distance.

7/18/2006 10:34 AM

Alma said...

I hate to be in a position to point out the error of my own progenitor, but this recollection of Esther Morrison is not reliable at all. It was written by her son, Fred, so she could read it into a tape recorder in 1963 --nearly forty years after she allegedly attended a meeting of the DUP. This third hand account is so full of holes that it barely warrants a refutation. When I got home from work, I read her account and listened to the tape recording. She was prompted all the way through by her son Fred - even though she was reading it. Barlow, you do the family no favor in citing it. I remember her fondly; but you'd do her and the truth a service by letting it die quietly.

ATAR_i said...

Mark 12:25

"When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven."


How does FLDS deal with this portion of scripture?

Or this one?

Luke 24:34-36

"34. Jesus replied, "The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35. But those who are considered worthy of taking part in that age and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36. and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God's children, since they are children of the resurrection."


Or this one?

1 Corinthians 7:1-2

"1. Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.[a] 2. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband."

fttc said...

Atar

JS taught that marriage like baptism must take place in this temporal life. Hence the necessity for the ordinances being performed by proxy for the dead.

For the last verse take into mind who Paul was speaking to. This was a directive to get married and not a restriction.

ATAR_i said...

I didn't take the last scripture like that. It seems like he's saying, It would be great if you could be unmarried, but since you have such temptation - it is better to be married than immoral.

Fttc, the baptism of the dead, and the Bible just won't match on this issue - isn't that correct?

Because the Bible teaches there is no marriage in heaven, and specifically states that each individual has to choose him (during life or at that certain time mentioned in Revelation).

My guess is, this is one of the Mormon teachings that does not reconcile with the Bible, and that BOM takes precedence for LDS faithful - would that be a correct assumption?

Or have you been taught something different?

muggsey said...

Absolutely. I have understood the passage the same way for many years. I don't read any other possible meaning.

Paul himself never married. He gave congradulations to those who were strong enough to maintain a celebate life but encouraged all to marry if they did not have the strength to do so.

He especially discouraged adultry and fornication. As a matter of fact he often refered to these acts in the same light as murder, sodomy, theft, lying, giving false witness, covetousness et. al. These were all condemmed, if unrepenant, to hell. These same sins are condemned in the last chapter of Revelation. So, the same sins condemned under the law are still condemnable today. But, we now have the option of acceptance of The Grace of GOD to forgive us from all unrighteousness. Confess, accept the blood atonement of Jesus as the Grace of GOD by your faith. Then your works will praise His holy name instead of an attempt to stack up your good deeds to try to impress a PERFECT KING,I AM Who will say unto you, depart from ME, you worker of iniquity, I never knew you.

onthestreet said...

TBM said...
In the first place, the LDS church has not abandoned polygamy. It remains doctrinal, but is not practised at present. Theoretically, it could be brought back, although I don't see that happening in my lifetime.

STREET's Reply: Right! It's called "not practicing what you preach", and not even believing what you profess. In short, it being a law of God (even according to them), rejecting God and His law.

onthestreet said...

ATAR LIED AGAIN. She’s manufacturing or misguiding scripture again. You said:

Or this one? Luke 24:34-36

"34. Jesus replied, "The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35. But those who are considered worthy of taking part in that age and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36. and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God's children, since they are children of the resurrection."

Now, let’s see what Luke 24:34-35 actually say:

34. Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.

35. And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread.


Poor Tar! Now, how about the point she’s trying to make, in saying:
Mark 12:25 "When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven." She asks: How does FLDS deal with this portion of scripture?

First, you have to look at who He is talking to, in verse 18: “Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him…” The Sadducees believe not in the resurrection, totally reject Christ and His many women. Therefore, Christ had to tell them that THEY THEMSELVES arise…How could they, they have no belief in His resurrection, see. Therefore, when they DO come forth, THEY (Sadducess), being unbelievers in His plurality of wives and resurrection, will neither marry nor be given in marriage, but will be single angels, servants, not Gods.

Poor, Poor Tar!

TBM said...

Atarithe baptism of the dead, and the Bible just won't match on this issue - isn't that correct?

It's mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:29 -- when Paul was answering a concern that there was no resurrection:

Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

ATAR_i said...

You got me, it's actually Luke 20:34-36 - but it's there, I just typed the wrong number.

But it's not talking about plurality in marriage. It was talking about when a man dies and leaves a wife, and she marries another, and he dies, and she marries yet a third, and he dies. They are asking who is she married to.

Jesus states, basically, there is no marriage in heaven.

muggsey said...

Atar_i

I have the exact same take. What good does it do to be baptized for someone else, dead or alive? They had no part in the decision. why were they baptized, why weren't they baptized? My take on baptism is this: You can take any man off the street and run him through your baptistry. What do you have then? A wet sinner. If a change has not taken place in the soul and conciousness of the individual, prior to the baptism what has been acomplished? Baptism is a portrait of the change God has wraught in the person's life. Man has surrendered himself to the Grace of God in expection of the promise of eternal salvation to all who believe. The thief on the cross never was baptized. Thousands of individuals have found the Grace and Love of God while engaged in peril. Many died without having been baptized. Are they not worthy? Did not Christ die for their sin.

Baptism is representative of the death(being immersed or otherwise baptized), buried (symbolized by the total covering of the body with water), resurection (being raised from the water as those who at the last trumpet will rise from their graves). So baptism is symbolic of the death, burial and resurection of our Lord Jesus Christ. Many of us practice baptism as an ordinance. This practice is a witness to those observing that a change has occurred within the life of the individual being baptized.

The idea that in order to enjoy perfect fellowship with God, in heaven, that I have to be dipped in YOUR tank is absurd. Who gave you the total franchise on Christianity.

ATAR_i said...

Are you asking me all these questions, and are all the comments directed at me - cuz the thread is addressed to me specifically.

"The idea that in order to enjoy perfect fellowship with God, in heaven, that I have to be dipped in YOUR tank is absurd. Who gave you the total franchise on Christianity"

"Many died without having been baptized. Are they not worthy?"

muggsey said...

'pologize atat_i. the first sentence was directed to you and I do agree with your assessment on the Biblical accessment of marriage in Heaven.

The baptism question is directed to those who think that their baptstry, baptismal fount or whatever is the ONLY way to gain the pleasure of salvation. I don't agree with this doctrine.

I don't think that failure to have received baptism will keep those who have come to know the Lord in forgivness by His Grace, through their Faith from entering glory.

Do I believe in baptism? You bet. For the reason stated above. It is a testimony of the change wrought in their life by the surrender of their spirit to the Lord's guidance. But, if the person being baptized has made no such committment, I believe that the action meant only that they got wet.

god wannabe said...

Excuse me alma, but great grandmother wrote her own history and was reading it. She was NOT coerced. Not only that, she, nor her son Fred, lived plural marriage.

Here is her words before the above quote:

"At the time the manifesto was signed, I was staying with Mary [her older sister] I remember so vividly when the word came about this, as father, mother, Charlie’s father [Mary’s father in law] Carl Runchrist[sp?], and mother were in Mary’s home. Everything was so quiet, and it seemed as though there was a feeling of some terrible happening taking place. It was felt in the home and outside even in my young years, about 8 or 9 years old, and not understanding the great significance of what happened, I felt the dreadful impact of it..."

How about these quotes:

“They accuse me of Polygamy, and being a false prophet, and many other things which I do not now remember; but I am no false prophet; I am no imposter; I have had no dark revelations; I have had no revelations of the devil; I made no revelations; I have got nothing up of myself. The same God that has thus far dictated me and directed me and strengthened me in this work, gave me this revelation and commandment on celestial and plural marriage, and the same God commanded me to obey it. He said to me that unless I accepted it, and introduced it, and practiced it, I, together with my people, would be damned and cut off from this time henceforth. And they say if I do so, they will kill me! Oh, what shall I do? If I do not practice it, I shall be damned with my people. If I do teach it, and practice it, and urge it, they say they will kill me, and I know they will. But said He, we have got to observe it. It is an eternal principle and was given by way of commandment and not by way of instruction.” (Joseph Smith Contributor 5:259)

“You might as well deny “Mormonism” and turn away from it, as to oppose the plurality of wives. Let the Presidency of this Church, and the twelve Apostles, and all the authorities unite and say with one voice that they will oppose that doctrine, and the whole of them would be damned.” (Heber C. Kimball 10/12/1856 JD 5:203)

“If we do not embrace that principle soon, the keys will be turned against us. If we do not keep the same law that our Heavenly Father kept (Celestial and Plural marriage) WE CANNOT GO WITH HIM. A man obeying a lower law is not qualified to preside over those who keep a higher law." (Life of Wilford Woodruff pg.542)

Anonymous said...

"Except that a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5)

"Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?" (1 Cor 15:29)

muggsey said...

Annon.

The question comes again. Were they baptized to atain their salvation or were they baptized because they had become saved?

Is not acceptance of any doctrine concerning salvation essential prior to the act of baptism itself?

The dead, not having accepted anything while alive, have no choice in the matter.

They, the dead, are then baptised by proxy because some human told another human that the soul of the departed person could be saved if they, the live proxy, were to go through the baptismal fount in behalf of the departed one. Can the proxy make a decision in behalf of the departed? Or, as I suspect, is the proxy gaining brownie points of "works" by acting as proxy?

Anonymous said...

We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the gospel are: FIRST, faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, SECOND repentance, THIRD baptism, by immersion, for the remission of sins, FOURTH, for the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Joseph Smith)

You are right, the first two must happen before baptism.

The great Millenium, after Armageddon and this country is empty of its wicked inhabitants, after the "lifting up",(or as you may call it "the rapture") Then the temples will be built in Zion, the New Jarusalem. And for a thousand years there will be baptism's, ordination's, and marriage's by proxy for those who are converted Fudamentalist Latter Day Saints after they die, and before the ressurection of the physical body.

You see sir, my religion is just as plausible as yours, even by the Bible.

Eze 37:16-
"Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and all the house of Israel his companions"

mugs, your great sagacity cannot make anyone who already believes to not believe. They have to feel insulted by their leaders themselves.

"The gospel is true whether I believe it or not" (Richard S. Jessop)

Does your God love me as much as He love you? Or do I have to ignore my parents and grandparents and assume that they are damned, and follow you?

My God loves you as much as He loves me.

onthestreet said...

MUKKY Said (7/31/2006 11:41 AM):

The dead, not having accepted anything while alive, have no choice in the matter. They, the dead, are then baptised by proxy because some human told another human that the soul of the departed person could be saved if they, the live proxy, were to go through the baptismal fount in behalf of the departed one. Can the proxy make a decision in behalf of the departed? Or, as I suspect, is the proxy gaining brownie points of "works" by acting as proxy?


STREET’s Reply. The dead have a choice beyond the veil, and the communication is relayed to the proper authority in the flesh.

muggsey said...

The question is not about God's love. It is permanent and abundant to all who will receive it. His Love never waivers or changes. His love is available. The word Love is also translated Grace. The Grace of God is available to all who receive as Lord and Savior, God's Son, Jesus, by their (the individual's) faith. To demonstrate God's Grace and their Faith, they then produce good works to honor the name of Jesus. Do they sin? Yes, of course but Jesus doesn't have to die nor do they have to appear before a tribunal of their peers to confess and ask forgivness. God doesn't kick them out of His Grace for having sinned. They just loose a part of the joy of their salvation. Salvation is still there, they can't loose it. God doesn't give it and then take it back. And, he certainly doesen't leave His Judgement in the hands of mere men.

In America a man may commit a crime. He is entitled to trial by jury. Often he pleas guilty to a lesser crime and is sent to prison by reason of his plea bargain. He has appeared before a judge, in a bench trial. No jury was present because his attorneys have pursuaded him that he will in all probability get a shorter or less sever sentence if he agrees to plea guilty to a lesser crime.

Trials cost a lot of money. Bench trials get quicker justice administered even though the criminal gets less punishment perhaps than is deserved.

The Judgement by Christ is a different type of trial. The individual, each and every one who lives on earth will be asked but one question. Do you know me? The Lamb's Book of Life is open. Jesus knows whose names are written there but the individual standing before the throne will have to admit his guilt.

All the good works he wants to claim as his admission will be thrown in the trash, totally without value. The only question is: Do you know me? A lie from the defendent is impossible. The Just Sentence is: Depart from Me you worker of iniquity, I never knew you. There will be no plea bargains in Heaven.

TBM said...

Were they baptized to atain their salvation or were they baptized because they had become saved?

Neither. They are baptized because you cannot be saved without baptism. It's an essential ordinance: "Except that a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5)

Baptism doesn't guarantee entry to the Celestial Kingdom. We are saved by the grace of Christ after all we can do. On the off-chance that someone who never had the opportunity to accept the gospel lived a good life anyway, and was worthy to enter the Celestial Kingdom, they are given this ordinance by proxy to ensure they attain what they deserve.

I guess the obvious question is, "If God is all-powerful, surely He could figure out a way to get them into heaven anyway."

Sure He can! And this is how He's done it!

onthestreet said...

Good job tbm. Yet, people have to realize that a bag of sand could never be saved or exalted, just by baptising it. Baptism is only a symbolism of the archtype immersion of the Holy Spirit, immersing your entire being, from the crown of your head or spirit-center, to the souls of your feet or earth-center, and all the planes in between. There is alot to it, "a heap of living" as they say in the FLDS Church.