Brian Hale’s question 3 is “Mormon Fundamentalists believe that the more wives they marry in mortality, the greater their eternal reward.  Is this a true doctrine?”

One might as well say “Mormons believe that having larger families brings them greater blessings.  Is this a true doctrine?”  If we say no, then we are saying God divides His blessings amongst the children of a family (in a family of 5 they would have a 5th of a blessing each), if we say yes, we are saying that God multiples his blessings among the children in a family (in a family of 5 there are 5 children blessed).

It must be remembered though that a man may have a ten wives and prove unworthy of them all for treating them badly, whilst another man with two wives may find a multitude of women wanting to join his family because he lived a life of integrity.  Having said this if I were a wife I would hope my husband would consider me an additional blessing to his family in this life.

The idea a faithful man with more wives could be the recipient of greater blessings comes from Joseph Smith (as we will see from the article below), and is not just a modern Mormon Fundamentalist teaching.

Lucy Walker, recalled that Joseph Smith had taught this doctrine to her:

“He [Joseph] said men must beware how they treat their wives. They were given them for a holy purpose that the myriads of spirits waiting for tabernacles might have pure and healthy bodies. He also said many would awake in the morning of the resurrection sadly disappointed; for they, by transgression, would have neither wives nor children, for they surely would be taken from them, and given to those who should prove themselves worthy. Again he said, a woman would have her choice; this was a privilege that could not be denied her.”⁷

Benjamin F. Johnson was a faithful Church patriarch, who recounted in a letter to the First Presidency’s secretary how the Prophet asked him to approach his sister Almera with the idea of her being Joseph’s plural wife:⁸

“But how,’ I asked, ‘Can I teach my sister what I myself do not understand, or show her what I do not myself see?’ ‘But you will see and understand it,’ he said, ‘And when you open your mouth to talk to your sister, light will come to you and your mouth will be full and your tongue loose, and I will today preach a sermon to you that none but you will understand.’ Both of these promises were more than fulfilled. The text of his sermon was our use of the ‘one, five and ten talents,’ and as God had now commanded plural marriage, and as exaltation and dominion of the saints depended upon the number of their righteous posterity, from him who was then but with one talent, it would be taken and given him that had ten, which item of doctrine seems now to be somewhat differently constructed.”⁹

Although we do not have a complete record of what Joseph Smith said in his sermon, we do have Willard Richards summary of the Joseph’s remarks, in which Joseph asked the congregation:

“What is the meaning of the Parable of the 10 talents? What is the meaning of the scripture [that] he that is faithful over a few things shall be made ruler over many? And he that is faithful over many shall be made ruler over many more?”¹⁰

It seems that as well as hinting to Benjamin F. Johnson about this doctrine, he explicitly taught it to Erastus Snow, who later recollected:

“Joseph Smith said that the parable that Jesus spoke of that the man who had one talent and hid it in the earth was the man who had but one wife and would not take another, would have her taken from him and given to the one who had the more.”¹¹

The idea of a woman symbolically representing a talent can be seen in the Old Testament vision of Zechariah:

“And behold, there was lifted up a talent of lead: and this is a woman that sitteth in the midst of ephah.”¹²

One wonders if any of the Apostles of Jesus who heard him relate the parable of the talents was aware of this connection, or if this was first recognized by Joseph Smith. Years after the Prophet’s death this doctrine became common place enough to be included in a hymn written during the reformation movement of the mid-1850s:

“Now, this advice I freely give,
If exalted you would be,
Remember that your husband must
Be blessed with more than thee.
Then, O, let us say,
God bless the wife that strives
And aids her husband all she can
T’ obtain a dozen wives.”¹³

Multiple wives were seen as a blessing to women as well as men. As one modern Fundamentalist Mormon woman put it “an only wife is a lonely wife.” Brigham Young taught that both men and women were expected to live plural marriage, or they would be unworthy of being with their monogamous spouses taken from them in eternity:

If a man wont take this responsibility he will find himself without a wife in eternity, as would any woman who held her husband back from righteously taking another wife, or chose to remain single in this life rather than marry a good man willing to live this principle, even if he already has a wife.

The time will come when those good women whose husbands refuse to live this way will have the choice to marry a man who will, as is taught in this early Mormon hymn -

“He who one talent has abused,
Hear it! ye sons of men,
Shall lose it, and it shall be given
To him who improves ten.”¹⁵

The Savior also hinted at the idea of men who had proved faithful – even to the point of losing a wife – receiving many more in this life or the life to come, when he promised:

“There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God’s sake, who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.¹⁶

This does not mean, however, that woman are mere property, but rather that a woman who desires to serve God will have the choice of a righteous man, even though he is already married, and will not be forced to stay with a husband unworthy of her throughout eternity.

As Eliza R. Snow pointed out; to a good woman it does not matter how many wives her husband has: “What to Eve, though in her mortal life, [if] she’d been the first, the tenth, or fiftieth wife?”¹⁷ she asked.

In most Christian congregations today and even in the LDS Church, religiously active women outnumber devoted men by quite a proportion¹⁸, leaving some destined to be single throughout this life with no security of marriage in the next, unless they are sealed to a good man who is already married.

Anticipating this, Isaiah looked forward to the time when “seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.”¹⁹ Through Celestial Plural Marriage in our day both the parable of talents and the prophecies of God are fulfilled.

“if they are not more faithful unto me, it shall be taken away, even that which they have.”

Doctrine & Covenants 60:23.

“every man may improve upon his talent, that every man may gain other talents, yea, even an hundred fold”

Doctrine & Covenants 82:18.

Footnotes

7Lucy Walker, Autobiography of Lyman O. Littlefield. Lucy married Joseph on May 1^st, 1843.

8Joseph married Almera in April 1843.

9Benjamin F. Johnson to George F. Gibbs, date? 1903

10Willard Richards, Joseph Smith’s Diary, 2 April 1843. Interestingly it is from part of this sermon that we derive section 130 of the Doctrine and Covenants.

11Erastus Snow, Meeting of the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve, Wilford Woodruff Journal, October 14th, 1882

12Zechariah 5:7, see 5-11. Ephah usually refers to a unit of measurement (Exodus 16:36).

131856 Reformation Song. Used as a Hymn in an edition of Songs of Zion.

14Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses Vol. 16, p.166.

19Isaiah 4:1. -

“Now, where a man in this Church says, ‘I don’t want but one wife, I will live my religion with one,’ he will perhaps be saved in the celestial kingdom; but when he gets there he will not find himself in possession of any wife at all. He has had a talent that he has hid up. He will come forward and say, ‘Here is that which thou gavest me, I have not wasted it, and here is the one talent,’ and he will not enjoy it, but it will be taken and given to those who have improved the talents they received, and he will find himself without any wife, and he will remain single for ever and ever. But if the woman is determined not to enter into a plural marriage, that woman when she comes forth will have the privilege of living in single blessedness through all eternity.”¹⁴

A response to a recent LDS press release:

Despite differing in many respects now from its earlier teachings and practices, the LDS Church still has much in common with Mormon Fundamentalism (which is founded in early Mormonism).

Both groups share a belief in the same set of scriptures – the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price.

They revere many of the same prophets, including Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and John Taylor. They accept all of their teachings notwithstanding the LDS Church’s later denunciation of many of them. They both believe in the necessity of Priesthood authority.

A Worldwide Movement

* Fundamentalist Mormonism is a global movement. It has tens of thousands of adherents, including many in other countries.

Fundamentalist Mormons…

* Can be found in every level of society and in almost all communities. They include doctors, teachers, and even college professors.

* Many celebrate public holidays, serve in their respective military services and actively interact with and respect those of other beliefs and faiths.

* While many wear regular modern clothing and have contemporary hairstyles (largely adhering to high standards of modesty), some do wear distinctive clothing (just as do other religious groups such as the Hutterites or Amish).

Family

* Fundamentalist Mormonism teaches that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and that a man’s having more than one such marriage is ordained of God.

* The majority of Fundamentalist Mormons do not believe in arranged marriages, and those groups who do recommend possible spouses to their members still ultimately leave the decision to the individual. The decision of whom to marry is an individual choice.

* Men and women are co-equal in their relationship. There are, however, divine patriarchal and matriarchal roles as emphasized in the standard works of scripture.

* Child and spousal abuse are seen as serious sins, and are not tolerated by the doctrines of Fundamentalist Mormonism or amongst the majority of those who consider themselves Fundamentalist Mormons.

Polygamy

* Contrary to the assertions of the LDS Church, one can be a polygamist and a Mormon. Joseph Smith, the first president of the Church was a polygamist and arguably the first ‘Mormon’, as were his successors, Brigham Young, John Taylor, and the next three successive Church presidents. Joseph Smith taught that, if a Hindu or Muslim converted to Mormonism, he would be welcome, along with his wives. Sadly, the LDS Church now excludes such families from fellowship and the saving ordinances of God.

* The standard doctrine of the Church has evolved into monogamy, and yet the Church still embraces polygamy for the after-life. LDS men can be sealed to more than one woman in the temple, with the expectation that they will have multiple wives after this life.

* Mormons practiced polygamy in 19th-century Utah in the same way as most Fundamentalist Mormons practice it today. Women still choose to marry or not marry, and are entirely free to leave. The majority of Fundamentalist Mormons are actually not living polygamously at all (hence, they are not polygamists), and most who do practice polygamy have only two wives.

Education

* Fundamentalist Mormonism teaches that adherents should seek out both spiritual and secular knowledge. However, spiritual knowledge is considered of greater value.

* Fundamentalist Mormons take full part in public and private education, both at the school and university level. To ensure that a high level of education is imparted and that good values are taught, some Fundamentalist Mormons also home-school their children (as do LDS Church members).

* Fundamentalist Mormon communities own and operate charter schools and colleges. Some of these are notable for their academic achievements.

* Many Fundamentalist Mormon groups offer scholarships and assistance where possible to students.

Church Government

* Historically there is a great deal of affiliation between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and members of Fundamentalist Mormon groups. The majority of Fundamentalist Mormons largely spring from the LDS Church, and most trace their ancestors to Mormon pioneers.

* Fundamentalist Mormon groups are governed by a lay clergy at the congregational level.

* Fundamentalist Mormon groups have governing councils which seek inspiration from God to serve their fellow members.

* Several Fundamentalist Mormon groups have Relief Society or similar women’s organizations, and they also have youth groups.

Community Involvement

* Fundamentalist Mormons believe in the Constitution and Bill of Rights and fight to uphold its ideals and protections.

* Fundamentalist Mormons may exercise their personal convictions independent of a group or work together in groups to promote industry and morality, and they advocate civil rights.

* Fundamentalist Mormons have run for various political offices, and have served as city councilors and judges.

Service

* Fundamentalist Mormons believe in being good Samaritans and in helping those in need.

* Many Fundamentalist Mormons have volunteered their assistance, resources and skills in times of disaster.

* Fundamentalist Mormons have also made monetary and other donations to a variety of non-profit organizations, charities and other good causes, for the relief of suffering of God’s children around the world.

We regret that others would – in an attempt to try and distance themselves from Fundamentalist Mormons – promote misconceptions about them. We acknowledge the good the LDS Church does. Its members remain our fellow Mormons, and we their brothers and sisters in the Gospel.

In order to get back to the original purpose of this website – I am going to concentrate on answer specific questions and issues brought up by Brian Hales in his latest book.  So I will be putting off responding to comments until I begin to make progress in this.

Most of Hales’ questions reflect the responses that are being made anyway, but posting a full article for each with documentation and references seems like it will be a more constructive way of covering the issues, rather than expecting people to keep up with brief discussions in past postings.

Once Hales’ book has been dealt with, I will take suggestions for areas that might not have been covered at all or adequately enough.

I am also considering a series of online debates (like this Mormon / Catholic one) and am interested in what others think the main topic should be.

Prophecy Six

President Cannon, made another important prophesy that has been fulfilled, when he said: “The day will come when men’s Priesthood and authority will be called into question, and you will find out that there will be hundreds who have no Priesthood, but believe they hold it, they holding only an office in the Church.”(1) His remarks it seems followed on from the prediction of President Taylor (which Brother Cannon would have heard firsthand, he also being at the meeting at which he spoke), “I would be surprised if ten percent of those who claim to hold the Melchizedek Priesthood will remain true and faithful to the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, at that time of the seventh President, and there would be thousands that think they hold the Priesthood at that time, but would not have it properly conferred upon them.”(2)  It is interesting that he said that these things would happen in the time of the seventh President of the Church, who of course was Heber J. Grant.

What might cause the Priesthood to cease amongst so many men, or could change so drastically as to prevent it being passed on? Certainly the attitude of members against Celestial Plural Marriage qualifies as one of those areas in which many might lose God’s favor and even bring the authority of some who fought against it into question. As an editorial from the Church’s own newspaper warned, “The entire Church and all of its Priesthood, with the Presidency at the head of it might motion and vote against this principle until doomsday with just one effect, (namely) to vote themselves away from the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, from the possession of their Priesthood.”(3) As has been pointed out, such a vote did take place, and it was not without consequence.

In the same year Brother Cannon warned the Saints about losing the Priesthood, President Joseph F. Smith reaffirmed the method ordinations to the Priesthood should follow, and how, “the conferring of the Priesthood should precede and accompany ordination to an office, unless it is possessed by previous bestowal and ordination.”(4) Just as Brigham Young had instructed regarding ordinations, “Do not forget to confer the High Priesthood upon them.”(5)

However, Charles W. Penrose, Counselor to President Smith, must have disagreed with him on this point, and said shortly after his death, “We have been making a mistake in ordinations. We have been conferring the Priesthood, and it ought not to be done…. We should ordain directly to the office in the Priesthood.”(6) Instead of correcting Penrose, Heber J. Grant implemented his views, and on the 23rd of April 1921 the First Presidency announced a new form of ordinations in which the words “confer upon you the Melchizedek Priesthood” were removed.

36 years later the Church returned to it’s original form of ordination, but the years in between in which they departed from President Smith’s strict instructions cannot be easily explained away. If we are to believe Joseph F. Smith, then during that period all the ordinations were invalid, as well as all the ordinances since by those ordained during that time, for he stated, “Surely a man cannot possess an appendage to the Priesthood without possessing the Priesthood itself, which he cannot obtain unless it be authoritatively conferred upon him.” As Brigham Young said, “No being can give that which he does not possess; consequently, no man can confer the Priesthood on another, if he has not himself first received it.”(7) However surprisingly President McKay made no effort to ordering the re-conferral of the Priesthood on everyone ordained during that time, and the re-performance of every ordinance by anyone ordained during that time, and so the situation has probably worsened considerably.

The removal of Priesthood conferral in ordination is only one area in which John Taylor’s prophecy has been fulfilled. The revocation or alteration of any other ordinance can cause the withdrawal of Priesthood (or at least produces questions over its effectiveness) from those who sustain such changes or participate in such an altered Gospel. As an early Church publication put it, “the priesthood can not continue when the gospel is perverted;”(8) Whilst specific examples are beyond the scope of this particular treatment, yet many books and magazine articles have been written outlining such changes, and it remains up to us as faithful Latter-day Saints to personally receive and perpetuate the ordinances of God has He has given them, because as Joseph stated, “that the ordinances must be kept in the very way God has appointed; otherwise their Priesthood will prove a cursing instead of a blessing.”(9)

The fulfillment of these last prophecies of President John Taylor in so literal a manner is another testimony that John Taylor did indeed fulfill a special purpose in setting in motion the manner through which the laws of God would continue, and that those set apart by him and who were present and testified of these events were both honest and accurate in their accounts. The Bible sets this as a sure test of truthfulness, but there is yet another test which leaves us with even greater certainty that God’s hand is in the work to keep the fullness of the Gospel alive, that is the Spirit of God. May that Spirit witness the truthfulness of the Priesthood authority that acts on His behalf, and the laws which he has not revoked, nor will He!

This concludes this series

1. 1901, Draper, Utah, as related by Daniel R. Bateman.
2. Woolley affidavit.
3. Deseret News, Editorial, 1 April 1885.
4. March 1901, Improvement Era 4:394.
5. Deseret News, 6 June 1877.
6. Stake Quarterly Conference, Utah Stake, Provo, Utah, 1919, as recollected by Daniel R. Peay.
7. History of the Church 4:257.
8. Times and Seasons, Nov. 15, 1841.
9. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p 169.

Prophecy Five

This being the last dispensation the Lord has restored the Gospel, with all its features and functions, never to be taken away again from the earth. As we have seen, however, this does not mean that the Church is obliged to promote laws the majority of members don’t want to live or are unworthy of, or doctrines they don’t understand or accept. The responsibility to keep such beliefs and ordinances alive still remains though, and there must be a group with sufficient authority, and at least a few worthy enough to see to it that His work in such areas is still carried on. This is in line with precedent and in fulfillment of prophesy.

What of those who keep such commandments alive? Who make the personal sacrifice of living God’s laws in opposition to the world, what are the Saints to make of such men and women the Lord has called to that work? Sadly, the majority of them – no longer being familiar with the principles they uphold, nor being aware of the Lord’s approval of their actions – would be more likely to condemn those Mormons who maintain Mormonism as Joseph and Brigham taught and lived it. Even many of the modern Authorities, whose time is taken up with dealing with the problems amongst members throughout the world, are very often unaware that a higher Priesthood organization exists and operates, that was set up under the direction of a prophet and President of the Church. This has led to misunderstandings, even to persecution and excommunication. Just as Brother John Taylor foresaw: “Some of you will be handled and ostracized and cast out from the Church by your brethren because of your faithfulness and integrity to this principle, and some of you may have to surrender your lives because of the same, but woe, woe, unto those who shall bring these troubles upon you.”(1)

The idea of righteous Saints being cast out of the Church is nothing new. Alma came upon members in his day who had been cast out of the synagogues(2), and Jesus also warned that it was a prospect that the righteous might face(3). Joseph once lamented how a man was tried for his membership because of his personal beliefs(4), and an Apostle decades later wrote in a Church magazine how sad it was that sometime people were excommunicated, when they shouldn’t have been, and how the Spirit remains with such people(5). Some have incorrectly supposed that having a person’s name removed from the records of the Church also removes any Priesthood that they held, but the Priesthood is only removed by personal unworthiness and not by Church courts, as John Taylor and Joseph F. Smith plainly taught(6).

Such action could not take place, however, without some leaders approving or at least overlooking the injustice. Most members have become unaware of the strange past of the Church, and look upon those who keep alive the ‘old’ ways as even stranger. As the traditions and teachings of ‘the world’ have gained greater acceptance amongst members, so too has intolerance of those lifestyles and ideas which seem to starkly conflict with the “American way” of life. Even many leading men within the Church have not been immune to such influences, and some have even been involved in the persecution of those men and women who live those laws the Church once promoted. Joseph warned that this would one day be the case, when he confided to a friend that, “You will live to see men arise in power in the Church who will seek to put down your friends and the friends of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. Many will be hoisted because of their money and worldly learning which they seem to be in possession of; and many who are the true followers of our Lord and Saviour will be cast down.”(7)

The Lord does not give any commandment though without providing a way that the faithful might keep it. So too, unpopularity, excommunication, and even martyrdom has not stopped a group of Saints from ensuring that no year has passed without God’s highest laws being kept alive. “Though they may imprison or kill most Mormons there will always be someone left to carry on the work,”(8) said John Taylor, and he was a man who knew what his words meant. For he himself would spend most of his presidency in hiding, even from members who would have handed him in for the reward! And “woe unto those who cut men off from the Church for private pique, or to exercise undue dominion, or for any reason not prompted by truth and righteousness! All the acts of men, official or otherwise, will be reviewed and passed upon in that great day.”(9)

For as a First Presidency member, George Q. Cannon stated so powerfully, “I tell you, the salvation that will come to this people, will be through the faithfulness of the men of God and the women of God who, in the face of an opposing world, contrary to their traditions, to their education, to their pre-conceived notions and to the popular prejudices of the day – who have in the midst of all this stepped forward in the vanguard and obeyed the command of God, and have dared to endure all the consequences, and have been willing to endure all the penalties.”(10)

Part six will conclude this series tomorrow

1. Woolley affidavit.
2. Alma 32:2-3.
3. Matt 10:17, see John 9:22,12:42
4. “I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodists, and not like the Latter-Day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their Church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammelled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine.” (Joseph Smith, History of the Church 5:340)
5. “Persons sometimes say that they have enjoyed the spirit of the work as much since they were cut off as while they were in the Church. Have they enjoyed the Spirit? Yes. Why? Simply because they were wrongfully cut off. They were cut off in a way that it did not not take the Spirit of the God from them. And the reason why they were cut off was because they didn’t come to the particular standard of perfection of those who dealt with them, or they did not come up to their feelings.” (Millennial Star 24:9)
6. “You cannot take away any man’s Priesthood without transgression.” (John Taylor, Times and Seasons 6:922.)
“No endowments or blessings in the house of the Lord, no Patriarchal blessings, no ordination to the Priesthood, can be taken away, once given. To prevent for just cause from exercising the rights and privileges of acting in the offices of acting in the Priesthood [within the Church], may be and has been done, and the person so silenced still remain a member of the Church, but this does not take away from him any Priesthood that he held.” (Joseph F. Smith, Improvement Era 11:466.)
7. Joseph Smith, Mosiah Hancock Journal, p. 19.
8. Deseret News Weekly, 25 February 1885.
9. Millennial Star 40:262-63.
10. George Q. Cannon, 8 October 1882, Journal of Discourses 23:280.

Prophecy Four

President Taylor foresaw that the Church would undergo a mighty change – not just of emphasis – but of altering principles, ordinances, and teachings in order for the Church’s beliefs and practices to be less offensive to the world. There was a time when friendship with the world was looked upon as undesirable(1), for as James taught, “friendship of the world is enmity with God”(2). Whereas when Brother Heber J. Grant took the reins of Church leadership he seemed to see securing a good relationship with the world as a lofty goal to be sought after. Said he, “My greatest happiness I find in the goodwill and friendship that has developed among all classes of people at home and abroad toward the LDS church during my lifetime. In place of early-day persecution and bitterness we now enjoy high regard and happy associations with all denominations.”(3) He was undoubtedly eager to avoid the persecution which plagued the Church in the previous century, just as the general membership was all too eager to jettison those elements which left them too peculiar to have entered the American mainstream. The cost of such a move was a great one, however, as John Taylor prophesied, “in the time of the seventh President of this Church, the Church would go into bondage both temporally and spiritually.”(4)

Likewise Heber C. Kimball related to Amanda H. Wilcox in May 1868 that, “A spirit of speculation and extravagance will take possession of the Saints, and the result will be financial bondage.” Orson Pratt similarly warned that, “This people, at some future time – may be possible be in bondage greater than they are at the present time.”(5)

Before the death of Joseph F. Smith he had striven to free the Church from debt and succeeded. His financial prudence meant that the Church need no longer be reliant upon the world for its support, nor be beholden to business to which it was indebted. However, Heber J. Grant, who was a banking man used to the ways of the world as they related to business found occasion to put church property back into the hands of the creditors. In 1923 he took out a $30 million loan to put the Utah and Idaho sugar company back on its feet. As collateral he mortgaged Temple Square (including the temple), and the Bishop’s Storehouse. During the time the temple was mortgaged (for fifty years) it belonged in the hands of the gentile bankers, not to the Saints, and so the Lord’s house was not wholly in the possession of His people for quite some time.

This was only the beginning of the indebtedness of the Church to the world, which has had much of its money held in the stocks and shares of non-Mormon businesses, some of which undoubtedly would be guilty of the unethical practices which almost all large corporations are. The Mormon people too have succumbed to being in such bondage: having their money in gentile banks, working for gentile employers, buying from gentile stores, being insured by gentiles, and voting for gentile political parties. Yet the Church is better organized and in a better position financially to end such dependency upon the world than it has ever been, although it is less inclined to do so than at any other point in its history.

“Spiritual Bondage”

When God’s people follow after the fashions and traditions of the world, fail to live up to His expectations for them, and indicate by their actions and attitudes that they do not wish to believe all of the doctrines of the Gospel or live all of God’s laws, then they are indeed under ‘spiritual bondage’.

The ancient Israelites, through their choices and their lack of worthiness, had the higher law and its blessings taken away from them, whilst only a small group maintained the Gospel in it’s fullness. So too at least one General Authority in this dispensation warned that the same could happen to the modern Church: “If all Israel will not be sanctified by the law which their Moses first offers them, they will peradventure receive a law of ordinances administered to them, not according to the power of an endless life.”(6)

The Saints had indeed rejected one of the highest laws of God by not entering into Celestial plural Marriage, and making it known that they wished the Church to end the practice. As Joseph F. Smith stated at the dedication of the Salt Lake temple, “The reason the Manifesto was given and the principle laid aside was that many of those who entered into that principle were not keeping the commandments, and that not over two percent of the Latter-day Saints ever entered into that principle”, or simply “because the Saints rejected it.”(7)

Satan – who we learn from the temple endowment ceremony controls the governments of the world – had gone to war with the Saints, in a war which was prophesied in the book of Daniel(8). The Lord revealed to Wilford Woodruff, whilst an Apostle, that this prophesy applied to our day, “The Devil is ruling over his kingdom and my Spirit has no place in the hearts of the rulers of this nation, and the Devil stirs them up to defy my power and make war upon the Saints.”(9) On the eve of 1890, President Woodruff realized that the prophesy of war was “beginning to be fulfilled, that the whole nation would turn against Zion and make war upon the Saints.”(10) Thousands of years previously the prophets had predicted the outcome of the battle the Church then faced: They would lose! As John the Beloved recorded, “it was given unto him (the beast) to make war with the Saints, and to overcome them.”(11)  The Saints need not have lost the fight though, for even as late as the year before the Manifesto, the Lord revealed, “If the Saints will hearken unto My voice … the wicked shall not prevail.” Of course the opposite was also true, “inasmuch as they .. hearken not to observe all my words, the kingdoms of the world, shall prevail against them.”(12) Which is, sadly, what happened.

If God’s people as a majority had followed Him there would have been no Manifesto, nor the resultant ‘spiritual bondage’ which John Taylor predicted would follow their actions. As the Apostle Matthias F. Cowley told the Saints at the beginning of this century: “I wish to remind you of a certain revelation given you through President Taylor*. The command was given to set our quorums and houses in order, and the promise was that if we should obey the command God would fight our battles for us; but we did not obey the command and revelation given through President Taylor, [for if we did] there would have been no Manifesto.”(13)

The bondage God’s people are in both temporarily and spiritually has increased over the years, as is evidenced by the declining moral standards, in the way the Gospel has been simplified, and that the Church has made efforts to stop teaching and practicing many of the principles the world and other Christian churches find offensive. However, the Lord will not allow such a situation to go on indefinitely.

Part five of this series will continue tomorrow

1. “There is nothing that would soon weaken my hope and discourage me as to see this people in full fellowship with the world, and receive no more persecution from them because they are one with them.” Brigham Young, 8 April 1862, Journal of Discourses 10:32 (see 4:38)
2. James 4:4; see John 15:18.
3. Heber J. Grant, Salt Lake Tribune, 22 November 1938.
4. Woolley affidavit.
5. 7 February 1875, Journal of Discourses 17:305.
6. Franklin D. Richards, J.D. 1: 321.
7. John Mills Whitaker Journal, April 1893, W. H. Smart Diary, 1901-1902 Bk; p. 94; 28 July 1901.
8. Daniel 7:21.
9. 25 January 1880, Unpublished Revelations 79:10.
10. Wilford Woodruff Journal, 31 December 1889.
11. Revelations 13:7
12. D&C 103:8.
13. Matthias F. Cowley, January 28th, 1901, Smoot Hearing 1:8. *Revelation to John Taylor, 25 December 1884; Unpublished Revelations 87:5-8, also Revelation to John Taylor, 13 October 1882; Unpublished Revelations 83:20-25.

Prophecy Three

The Lord made provision though that his sacred law (of plural marriage) would continue amongst those worthy to live it, that their children would be born in that holy covenant of Celestial (plural) Marriage, and that the authority would remain upon the earth until the return of Christ. He, Himself, said “I have not revoked this law, nor will I!”(1), and that the principle was to continue, is a truth all of the prophets from Brigham Young to Joseph F. Smith prophesied of:

“For so God help us, we will never give up that holy law that noble prophets laid down their lives to maintain.” Brigham Young(2)

“It is an eternal part of our religion, and we will never relinquish it – We cannot withdraw or renounce it – He has promised to maintain it.” John Taylor(3)

“We wont quit practicing Plural Marriage until Christ shall come.” Wilford Woodruff(4)

“Though I go to prison, God will not change His law of Celestial Marriage.” Lorenzo Snow(5)

“There are, however, enough witnesses to these principles to establish them upon the earth in such a manner that they never can be forgotten or stamped out. For they will live;…they are bound to prevail, because they are true principles.” Joseph F. Smith(6)

John Taylor began both the means through which those prophecies would be fulfilled, and also made a further prophesy at that momentous time, as Lorin Woolley, a witness relates, “He then set apart and placed us under covenant that while we lived we would see to it that no year passed by without children being born in the principle of Plural Marriage. We were given authority to ordain others if necessary to carry this work on, they in turn to be given authority to ordain others when necessary, under the direction of the worthy senior (by ordination), so that there should be no cessation in the work.”(7)

Apostle Marriner W. Merrill, who would have surely come to know of the covenant those faithful brethren made, repeated President Taylor’s words to a group of Saints just before the the new century. Said he, “…the time would never come when children of Polygamous parents would cease to be born in the Church.”(8) A year later, another Apostle, the son of Wilford Woodruff in fact, made a similar statement, and ensured his listeners knew it was a prophesy, “…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.”(9)

It is also related that Presidents B.H. Roberts and Joseph F. Smith(10) made similar remarks, and we know from those men who in this century have received the same commission and authority John Taylor originally imparted have also made a the same covenant(11), and that to the present day no year has gone by without a child being born into families living plural marriage.

Additional Quotes

Heber C. Kimball – Plural marriage “would end” he said “when the Church had gone to the devil or the Priesthood taken from this people – then God would give it to another people.”  (11 February 1849, Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power.  See Journal of Discourses 3:125, 6 October 1855.)

George Q. Cannon – “To renounce the doctrine and promise not to obey the revelation – such an action – is impossible.”  (Juvenile Instructor 20:136, 1 May 1885.)

Abraham H. Cannon – “As God lives, the principle will not be driven from the earth.”  (Salt Lake Conference, 8 May 1887.)

John W. Taylor & Owen Woodruff – “They both prophesied ‘that it would never die out.’”  (Letter from Bishop Heber Bennion to Orson F. Whitney, March 1931.)

Charles W. Penrose – “How can God withdraw an everlasting principle from the earth?  He has not, and cannot.”  (Elder T.J. Rosser letter, 25 May 1908.)

Part four of this series will be posted tomorrow

1. Revelation to John Taylor, 26 September 1886, Unpublished Revelations 88:9.
2. Brigham Young, Life of Mosiah Hancock p. 48.
3. John Taylor, Millennial Star 47:708, 9 November 1855.
4. Wilford Woodruff, John Henry Smith Journal, see Heber J. Grant Journal, 17 May 1888.
5. Lorenzo Snow, History of Utah, Orson F. Whitney, 1879.
6. Joseph F. Smith, Journal of Discourses 21:10, 7 December 1879.
7. Woolley affidavit.
8. Rudger Clawson Diary, 11 July 1899.
9. Abraham O. Woodruff, Quarterly Conference in Colonia Juarez, 18-19 November 1900, recorded by Joseph Charles Bentley (clerk), Journal and Notes p. 61.
10. Interview with Douglas M. Todd, Sr., 28 November 1969.
11. “I was instructed to see that never a year passed that children were not born in the covenant of plural marriage.” Joseph W. Musser (autobiography), 14 May 1929.

Prophecy Two

Such choices (as giving up plural marriage) are not without consequence, however, and where a law of God is rejected by the majority of Church members, they cannot hope to receive the blessings attached to living such a law, and they allow the adversary to greater influence over their lives. One aspect of the law of Plural Marriage was that it minimized the temptation to commit adultery, offered to every woman the chance to marry, to have a greater degree of freedom to women (who shared responsibilities with their ‘sister-wives’), and therefore eliminated many of the causes of children being born out of wedlock.

The outcome of relinquishing such a responsibility for a more worldly system of marriage has led to more worldly problems being prevalent amongst the Saints. This outcome was anticipated by President Taylor who warned, “the day will come when a document similar to that (manifesto) then under consideration would be adopted by the Church, following which “apostasy and whoredom would be rampant in the Church.”(1) Another Church President, almost a hundred years later would state, in fulfillment of President Taylor’s words, “the sin of adultery is running rampant through the Church.”(2)

Sadly such problems began almost immediately after the turn of the century, as a son of President Heber C. Kimball related, “I remember very accurately what my father told this people in the old Bowery. Said he, ‘You men and you women that lift up your voices against that holy principle (plural marriage) that has been introduced among this people, the time will come when your daughters will run these streets as common harlots, and you can’t help yourselves.’ I think some have been guilty of lifting up their voices, and if there is any one thing that some people are glad and happy it is done away with, it is that principle. I remember hearing another statement my father made: ‘When you stand on the street corners of this great city and you cannot tell a Mormon from a Gentile, then look out for trouble.’ Well, it has come. The trouble has not come to us in the way of tornadoes, or cyclones; but it has come to us and to our sons and daughters in the way of temptations.”(3) Elder Matthias F. Cowley, also sadly admitted, “I want to say that that prediction, sorrowful though it may seem, has had its fulfillment.”(4)

That such an attitude towards the principle as a great number of Saints had at the time constitutes their apostasy from the Gospel, is clear from the observation of President Heber C, Kimball, who lamented, “Many of this people have broken their covenants by finding fault with the Plurality of Wives and trying to sink it out of existence.”(5) In failing to defend their rights or uphold the right of the faithful who lived a higher law, such members were not only pleasing the government, but also the more malevolent power which inspired the persecution against the elect of God. In answer to the question of President Penrose of, “What would be necessary to bring about the result nearest the hearts of the opponents of ‘Mormonism’, more properly termed the Gospel of the Son of God? Simply to renounce, abrogate or apostatize from the new and everlasting covenant of marriage in its fullness.”(6)

Additional Quotes -

“President Kimball once prophesied to this people, and especially to the mothers, that if they spoke disrespectfully of a certain principle of the Gospel and fought against it, the day would come when their daughters would turn aside and lose their virtue, and become objects of immorality upon the streets of Salt Lake City.  I want to say that that prediction, sorrowful though it may seem, has had its fulfillment.”  (Matthias F. Cowley, Deseret News, 9 Aug. 1902)

The third part of this series will be posted tomorrow

1. Woolley affidavit, see fn. 2.
2. Harold B. Lee, Ensign 4:7:101.
3. Conference Report, Oct. 1901, p. 32.
4. Deseret News, August 9, 1902.
5. Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses 4:108.
6. Charles W. Penrose, Deseret Evening News, April 23rd, 1885.

Lorin Woolley’s account of John Taylor’s 1886 prophecies have come under suspicion, because – it is argued – they were written after the events came to pass.  However, as this series of articles will show, similar prophecies predate Woolley’s account, and the prophecies themselves – which conflict with modern LDS Church views – have been fulfilled very literally, thus again substantiating Woolley’s account.

“I have saved my servant John Taylor for a wise purpose in me,”(1) revealed the Lord to Wilford Woodruff in 1880. Yet most of that decade the Church President spent his days in hiding from the government that was imprisoning those Latter-day Saints who lived the principle of Celestial Plural Marriage, and his life during that time remains a mystery to most Church members, who are unaware of the great purpose he was to fulfil. During his stay in the home of John W. Woolley in Centreville, Utah, he was visited by the resurrected Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith, who instructed him how to ensure that the Priesthood of God and its highest ordinances continued, no matter what persecution may come and notwithstanding the direction others Latter-day Saints might take. He called together his most faithful associates and laid this great responsibility upon them, with all the authority they would require to carry out God’s work. After which, he foretold the future of those who had received this commission and those who would yet fulfill it, as well as the Church and the course it would take.(2)

Prophecy One

The Saints had been warned repeatedly that their enemies wanted them to give up the law of Patriarchal Marriage, as President Charles Penrose told them, “What would be necessary to bring about the result nearest the hearts of the opponents of ‘Mormonism’…? Simply to renounce, abrogate or apostatize from the new and everlasting covenant of marriage in its fullness.”(3) However, the Gentile world was but a puppet for a more malevolent power: Satan himself, who personally was on a campaign to have the Church members relinquish their “most holy principle”(4). As Brigham foresaw, “the powers of hell will do their utmost to get this people to give up that holy law which God designs to maintain.”(5)

However, President Taylor’s actions ensured that there would always be a group of righteous Latter-day Saints maintaining this principle, so that the Devil would be ultimately thwarted in his plans. Yet, he also foresaw that the majority of Saints would seek an easier road, even if it meant a lesser glory, as he prophesied, “one half of this people will apostatize over the principle for which we are now in hiding, yea, and possibly one half of the other half.”(6) Sadly, this regrettable outcome was the only prophesy he would see fulfilled prior to his death.

On the last day of Jun 1887 a constitutional convention was held, the Gentiles having declined to participate, Mormon delegates from all the counties in the territory formulated a provision “prohibiting polygamy and making it a crime, with a severe penalty;” According to the Church’s own newspaper just over a month later, on the first day of August (less than a week after the death of President Taylor), an election was held in which “95 per cent (13,000) of all the Mormon voters in the territory voted for the ratification of this convention.”(7)

Why did they do it? Why did they replace a law of God with a law to make it a crime? The First Presidency themselves summed it up thus, “To be at peace with the government and in harmony with their fellow citizens who are not of their faith, and to share in the confidence of the Government and the people, our people have voluntarily put aside something which all their lives they have believed to be a sacred principle,”(8)

There was undoubtedly relief amongst the monogamous Mormons that they would no longer have to suffer because of their polygamous leaders and those few members that kept the practice, however, faithful Saints – such as Elder Kimball lamented that “…if there is any one thing that some people are glad and happy is done away with, it is that principle.”(9) Of course, one wonders if such people will be as happy in the eternities having given up an essential requirement for their exaltation, for as Brother Brigham stated, “The only men who become Gods, even sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.”(10)

The Saints today are largely of the same attitude towards Celestial (plural) Marriage as most were just before the Manifesto, if not more so, as Professor David Bitton suggests, “Today probably no modern people is more anti-polygamy than the orthodox Mormons.”(11) This was further shown by an opinion poll, on whether people should be allowed to live polygamously, in which it was found that, “… the greatest opposition to polygamy [was] among Mormons – 64.5 percent.”(12) Not content with rejected the lifestyle themselves, it seems that the majority of members would not want any one else to have that choice either.

Part two of this series will appear tomorrow

1. Revelation to Wilford Woodruff, 26 January 1880, Unpublished Revelations 79:75.
2. 27 September 1886, John W. Woolley Home, Centerville, Utah. As related by Lorin C. Woolley. (Woolley’s 1929 affidavit serves as the primary source for the text of these prophecies.)
3. Deseret News, 23 April 1885 (1:377).
4. Recollection of William Clayton (Joseph Smith’s secretary), Historical Record 6:225-7.
5. Mosiah Hancock Journal, Spring 1863.
6. Woolley affidavit, see fn. 2.
7. Deseret News, Aug. 30, 1890
8. 19 December 1891, First Presidency Petition for Amnesty, Contributor 13:197; Smoot Investigation 1:18.
9. Deseret News, Mar. 1, 1902.
10. Journal of Discourses 11:268-9.
11. Journal of Mormon History 4:101, 1977.
12. Provo Daily Herald, 29 May 1977, p. 23.

From “Who Holds The Keys” -

The Prophet Joseph clearly taught the Saints that all the ordinances of the Gospel were “instituted in heaven before the foundation of this world in the Priesthood for the salvation of man,” that they were “not to be altered or changed,” and that “all must be saved upon the same principles.” He added that they “must be kept in the very way God has appointed; otherwise their Priesthood will prove a cursing instead of a blessing.”⁵

Even Joseph Smith’s Priesthood authority was dependent upon him receiving all of the ordinances in the manner that God restored them, as we can see from the Lord’s promise to him that “the keys of the mysteries of the kingdom shall not be taken from” him “while he liveth, inasmuch as he obeyeth mine ordinances.”⁶

If this was a condition upon which Joseph’s authority rested then it would also be a test by which we can judge anyone who claims to be his successor and hold the keys he did. Have they received all the ordinances, and kept them “in the very way God has appointed,” or are there ordinances they have not received or changes they have tried to make to those they have? Could any man ever have the right to perform an ordinances he had not received? Brigham Young posed this same question to the Saints of his day:

“Can any man or set of men officiate in dispensing the laws and administering the ordinances of the Kingdom of God or of the kingdoms and governments of the world legally, without first obeying those laws and submitting to those ordinances themselves? … do not forget that no man has authority to officiate in the ordinances of heavenly or earthly governments only so far as he has obeyed them himself.”⁷

That keeping alive such ordinances is necessary to hold and exercise the keys of the Priesthood is something Joseph Smith explained very plainly in his day:

“The spirit, power, and calling of Elijah is, that ye have power to hold the key of the revelation, ordinances, oracles, powers and endowments of the fullness of the Melchizedek Priesthood and of the kingdom of God on the earth; and to receive, obtain, and perform all the ordinances belonging to the kingdom of God”⁸

He was also by the Lord that if he did not introduce a principle he would lose any authority he already had:

“An angel of God … told him that, unless he moved forward and establish plural marriage, his Priesthood would be taken from him.”⁹

Likewise Heber C. Kimball was told by the Prophet that if he did not take another wife “he would lose his Apostleship.”¹⁰ This was not just a condition placed upon Brothers Joseph and Heber, but upon all the Apostles:

“When this commandment was given, it was so far religious, and so far binding upon the Elders of this Church, that it was told them if they were not prepared to enter into it, and to stem the torrent of opposition that would come in consequence of it, the keys of the kingdom would be taken from them and given to others.”¹¹

The necessity of living this high and holy law to be able to preside over the Priesthood was repeated again by the Lord to his servant John Taylor in 1882, in which He said:

“Thus saith the Lord to the Twelve, and to the Priesthood and people of my Church: … You may appoint Seymour B. Young to fill up the vacancy in the presiding quorum of Seventies, if he will conform to My law: For it is not meet that men who will not abide My law shall preside over My Priesthood; … For my Priesthood, whom I have called and whom I have sustained and honored, shall honor one and obey my laws, and the laws of my Holy Priesthood, or they shall not be considered worthy to hold my Priesthood, saith the Lord.”¹²

Some might ask, as undoubtedly some of the Saints did during President Taylor’s tenure, “apart from the exalting purpose of this divine law, why was it so essential to the issue of Priesthood authority?” To this he plainly answered that “a man obeying a lesser law is not qualified to preside over those who keep a higher law.”¹³

… When assessing the claims of those who would call themselves Joseph Smith’s successor as head of the Priesthood and holder of its keys, we have a right and responsibility to ask ourselves if they meet the criteria given in the scriptures and teachings of the prophets. Can they show:

• A continuation of administering all the same ordinances unchanged
• A continuation of maintaining the same laws, and living them
• A continuation of living and keeping alive Celestial Plural Marriage