(15 March 1999)
To whom it may concern:
I must out of a duty to prinicple and faith, respond to your websites' out-of-context quotation of President Hinckley. Inasmuch as you have taken his words out of context, I will include the entire quote from which you extracted his words, and add to it a quote which properly defines what President Hinckley was speaking about.
While your position is quite clear concerning your practice of polygamy, so to is the position of the LDS Church. It is sufficient to say that we believe the manifesto of 1890 to be the mind and will of the Lord, even a revelation to his servant, Wilford Woodruff. You are ill-served by approaching this matter with out-of-context quotations and other such misrepresentations of our faith and doctrines.
In simillar circumstances where you felt defamed and misrepresented by someone, you demanded a retraction. Upholding to that principle, it would be simillarly justified for me to ask the same of you. If you propose to use quotations, let them be in context, properly representing the messenger and his words, or show the reader where they might read the full text. Otherwise, your words are self-serving and far from representing the truth. Moreover, this practice (out-of-context quotations) is lacking in intergity.
Please accept these things in the spirit which they are given. I am not here to attack, rather to see that the truth is spoken concerning these things.
Respectfully,
[Name Withheld]
HINCKLEY: The figures I have are from between two percent and five percent of our people were involved in it. It was a very limited practice; carefully safeguarded. In 1890, that practice was discontinued. The president of the church, the man who occupied the position which I occupy today, went before the people, said he had, oh, prayed about it, worked on it, and had received from the Lord a revelation that it was time to stop, to discontinue it then. That's 118 years ago. It's behind us.
HINCKLEY: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.
(17 March 1999)
Dear Brother [Name Withheld],
We have received your remarks regarding our "weekly quote" on our TLC web site. We thank you for your comments and wish to address your concerns. My name is John Pratt, and I have been requested by Jeffrey G. Hanks, the President of our Quorum of the Twelve to respond to you. I am also charged with the daily maintenance of our web site.
I am glad that you feel that integrity of purpose and truth is essential; it is also important to us. I have read and considered your feelings on this issue of integrity of reporting the truth. You apparently feel that we have taken the statements of Gordon B. Hinckley made on the Larry King interview "out of context" by not providing the entire quote by Gordon B. Hinckley from which our excerpt was taken. You also feel that we have in so doing "misrepresented" the "faith and doctrines" of the LDS Church, and you state that these actions on our part are "self-serving," "lacking in integrity," and "far from representing the truth."
Since you state your convictions on integrity, I make the same request of honesty and integrity of you as you consider what I say to you here. Do you agree to this and will you extend to me the same courtesy to read and ponder seriously and carefully what I say to you in turn? I regret that this communication is lengthy, but it is necessary to adequately develop this subject. I ask you also to withhold judgment until you have read carefully all I have to say on this.
I assure you that the work we are involved in is wholly sincere and directed of God. An honest assessment in integrity of gospel principles is essential when considering what the Lord's will has been and still is for those who would be His servants and loyal followers for this, the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times.
I reproduce here the quotes from the front of our web site that you question:
At meeting of school of the prophets, President [Brigham] Young said Adam was Michael the Archangel and he was the father of Jesus Christ and was our God, and Joseph taught this principle. (Journal of Wilford Woodruff, January 24th, 1868)
The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. (Brigham Young, JD 11:268-69)
I think that it [polygamy] is not doctrinal. (Gordon B. Hinckley, Larry King Live Interview, 8 September 1998 )
For 150 years now and more, we have held to the doctrine . . . . We modify the organization from time to time. We modify the way we do some things, but the doctrine remains fundamental. (Gordon B. Hinckley, Los Angeles Times Interview, 8 March 1997)
[Name Withheld], do you understand our overall purpose in this collection of quotes? The purpose is to illustrate that there is a great disparity in doctrine in the LDS church from its former days compared to the present day. There have undeniably been many critical changes in LDS doctrine over these years--and this in spite of public statements like the one above by Gordon B. Hinckley that the LDS church has "held to the doctrine" for more than 150 years, and that "the doctrine remains fundamental." (The suspension marks in GBH's quote above from the LA Times were from the article itself--we did not insert those.)
Since the space we allow on the front page for the "weekly quote" is very minimal, we cannot do a full development of the subject encapsulated by each quote at that location. Apparently you feel that we are lacking in integrity on this subject regarding the principle of plural marriage because we failed to address the import of the rest of Gordon B. Hinckley's comments from the interview concerning plural marriage: the very small numbers (as he sees it) of former-day LDS people who practiced plural marriage, his comments about Wilford Woodruff and the Manifesto, the fact that it is "not legal," and the fact that plural marriage is not a practice any more in the LDS Church -- it's "behind us," in his words.
We do not hedge at all from addressing the issues regarding plural marriage that he raised, any of them. But our "weekly quote" as I stated above is not the place to fully develop a subject. However, you cannot deny that Gordon B. Hinckley stated that he felt that practicing plural marriage is "not doctrinal." There is no getting around this. It is a common thing in journalism and reporting to pull an excerpt from a paragraph and quote it, and this is not duplicity if the quote can stand on it's own. And in this case, it can. Irregardless of the numbers of LDS people that practiced plural marriage last century, irregardless of anything about the Manifesto, or else about the "legality" of plural marriage, Gordon B. Hinckley condemned the practice of plural marriage on the grounds that (meaning of "because") he considered it to be "not doctrinal."
After you have carefully considered all I have to say here, I would be curious to have you explain to me exactly how that is out of context and dishonest if you still feel that way. For me it would be dishonest to excuse the present-day LDS position on plural marriage based on the Manifesto. This is because it is very clear to me, after studying it out very carefully on my own, that the Manifesto was not at all a revelation from God, and this we will examine here also. We will examine these issues carefully with an eye towards honesty and integrity of truth -- both from a viewpoint of former-day and present-day LDS doctrine, and in light of Gordon B. Hinckley's comments on the subject from the interview. This will be a more full development of the questions at hand to avoid any issues of something being "out of context."
If you feel that I've overlooked something, I invite you to point it out to me. It is interesting in the many comments that we get from people out there like yourself that raise issues with us, that we rarely hear them ask for correction if they overlook something, but sometimes they do make such a request.
I recognize that we did not reproduce the entire text of the Gordon B. Hinckley quotes on plural marriage from the Larry King interview in our brief "Weekly Quote." I did not include his other statements on plural marriage when I put these particular web site quotes together, as they did not affect the fact that he stated that he thought that plural marriage was "not doctrinal." Even though in my LDS years I supported the Manifesto before learning the facts, I still considered plural marriage to be very "doctrinal" and a true principle -- just as I was thoroughly instructed in my four years in the LDS seminary program from 1968 to 1971.
In the very near future, specifically because of your concerns, I will post some quotes from former LDS leaders addressing whether or not the Manifesto was a revelation, and the importance of the legal issues regarding plural marriage.
There is also much more of the interview that pertains to this discussion that you didn't send to us: that part where Larry King and Gordon B. Hinckley are talking back and forth about whether or not the LDS church should encourage the government to charge polygamists with breaking the law. It would be interesting to discuss that conversation in light of some little-known aspects of fairly recent LDS history.
Doctrinal Foundation:
Forgive me, [Name Withheld], if I repeat some things here that you know, but it is essential to remember that as a part of the restoration works of the Prophet Joseph Smith, many plain, precious, and essential doctrines, principles, and ordinances were revealed by the Lord through Joseph that comprise the "Fullness" of the gospel. ALL of these principles are essential, or the Lord wouldn't have revealed them. They were also correct in the way Joseph taught them.
When did I ever teach anything wrong from this stand? When was I ever confounded? I want to triumph in Israel before I depart hence and am no more seen. I never told you I was perfect; BUT THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE REVELATIONS WHICH I HAVE TAUGHT. (Prophet Joseph Smith, TPJS, p. 368)
I beseech you to go forward, go forward and make your calling and your election sure; and if any man preach any other Gospel than that which I have preached, HE SHALL BE CURSED; and some of you who now hear me shall see it, and now that I testify the truth concerning them. (Prophet Joseph Smith, TPJS, p. 366)
We also have the assurance that Joseph Smith occupied a very unique position as the Prophet and Head of this Dispensation -- that is, he was in a much more unique position than any other leader of Latter-day Israel.
All of these principles of the "Fullness" of the Gospel are essential to building Zion:
And Zion cannot be built up unless it is by the principles of the law of the celestial kingdom; otherwise I cannot receive her unto myself. (D&C 105:5)
You see, if it isn't done the Lord's way, according to the principles of the law of the Celestial Kingdom, it isn't Zion, and it won't "fly."
One of these essential yet difficult laws revealed by the Lord for this dispensation is the law of Plural Marriage. It was not an option. While it started first with Joseph alone, and then with Joseph's inner circle, it was ultimately a principle for the Saints in general if they would righteously prepare themselves and receive it. I would like to remind you of what Joseph Smith and the former-day LDS leaders (those taught by or otherwise very close to the Prophet Joseph Smith) taught about plural marriage:
"They accuse me of polygamy, and of being a false Prophet, and many other things which I do not now remember; but I am no false Prophet; I am no impostor; I have had no dark revelations; I have had no revelations from 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 (D&C 132) and the same God commanded me to obey it. HE [GOD] 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 HENCE FORTH. And they say if I do so, they will kill me. O, 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 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 Jun., 1843, the "Contributor" 5:259.)
Where did this commandment come from in relation to polygamy? IT ALSO CAME FROM GOD. It was a revelation given unto Joseph Smith from God, and WAS MADE BINDING UPON HIS SERVANTS. When this system was first introduced among this people, it was one of the greatest crosses that ever was taken up by any set of men since the world stood. Joseph Smith told others; he told me, and I can bear witness of it, "THAT IF THIS PRINCIPLE WAS NOT INTRODUCED, THIS CHURCH AND KINGDOM COULD NOT PROCEED." 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. WHEN I SEE ANY OF OUR PEOPLE, MEN OR WOMEN, OPPOSING A PRINCIPLE OF THIS KIND, I HAVE YEARS AGO SET THEM DOWN AS ON THE HIGH ROAD TO APOSTACY, AND I DO TO-DAY; I CONSIDER THEM APOSTATES, and not interested in this Church and kingdom. It is so far, then, a religious institution, that it affects my conscience and the consciences of all good men--it is so far religious that it connects itself with time and with eternity. (John Taylor, JD 11:220)
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. What are you opposing it for? It is a principle that God has revealed for the salvation of the human family. He revealed it to Joseph the Prophet in this our dispensation; and that which he revealed he designs to have carried out by his people. (Heber C. Kimball, 12 October 1856, JD 5:203)
What would be necessary to bring about the result nearest the heart 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. Were the Church to do that as an entirety, GOD WOULD REJECT THE SAINTS AS A BODY. The authority of the Priesthood would be withdrawn, with its gifts and powers, and there would be no more heavenly recognition of the ordinances among this people. The heavens would permanently withdraw themselves, AND THE LORD WOULD RAISE UP ANOTHER PEOPLE OF GREATER VALOR AND STABILITY, for His work must, according to His unalterable decrees, go forward. (Charles W. Penrose, Deseret News, April 23, 1885)
[Name Withheld], there are many, many other such statements from the early LDS brethren that speak of the absolute essentiality of the doctrine and principle of plural marriage as an integral part of the Fullness of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Why was this doctrine so essential? Because plural marriage is indeed the marriage order of the heavens, and if we are to qualify ourselves to become Gods and to live with God and to be like Him, we must learn to successfully live the laws and principles of that higher order BEFORE we are permitted to move up to that level. Again, Zion, which is supposed to be received up to the Lord (D&C 84:100) was to be the vehicle on this Telestial earth by which righteous men and women could embrace the Fullness and be prepared in ALL THINGS to move up to a higher order of existence..
Contrast the statements above by former LDS leaders with statements by LDS leaders made in more recent times:
But of Celestial marriage, plurality of wives was AN INCIDENT, NEVER AN ESSENTIAL. (James E. Talmage, Story and Philosophy of Mormonism, p. 89)
Plural marriage is NOT ESSENTIAL to salvation or exaltation. (Bruce R. McKonkie, Mormon Doctrine, p 578)
This is undeniably a change in doctrine from former days to present: Formerly, it was believed that the Fullness of the Gospel didn't exist without the PRACTICE of plural marriage, because it is the marriage and family order of the heavens, and intended to separate us from the world and to prepare us for family life in the heavens. It was a necessity to participate in the fullness of the gospel, right here on this earth.
If plural marriage is the family order of the Heavens, then our Father in Heaven and our Savior Jesus Christ are both polygamists. This also was former-day LDS doctrine. In the early 1850s when the LDS church went public with the doctrine of plural marriage, Orson Pratt was designated by President Brigham Young to be the Church Spokesman to the world on this subject. Orson Pratt taught the saints through discourse as well as through a series of articles each month of 1853 in a publication for the Saints called "The Seer" (I'm sure you must be familiar with this) to teach the saints and to defend this principle. In these teachings, Orson Pratt unequivocally states that our Father in Heaven and our Savior Jesus Christ were both polygamists:
We have now clearly shown that God the Father had a plurality of wives, one or more being in eternity, by whom He begat our spirits as well as the spirit of Jesus His First Born, and another being upon the earth by whom He begat the tabernacle of Jesus, as His Only Begotten in this world. We have also proved most clearly that the Son followed the example of his Father, and became the great Bridegroom to whom kings' daughters and many honorable Wives were to be married. We have also proved that both God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ inherit their wives in eternity as well as in time; and that God the Father has already begotten many thousand millions of sons and daughters and sent them into this world to take tabernacles; and that God the Son has the promise that "of the increase of his government there shall be no end;" it being expressly declared that the children of one of His Queens should be made Princes in all the earth. (Orson Pratt, "Celestial Marriage," The Seer, November 1853)
I set up this doctrinal background so that you may understand really what Gordon B. Hinckley was saying on the Larry King interview.
LDS Doctrine Today on Plural Marriage
The present-day doctrinal position of the LDS church and of Gordon B. Hinckley is not at all that plural marriage is an eternal principle, nor essential, nor the marriage order of the heavens. In recent times, NO SUCH STATEMENT has been forthcoming from any LDS general authority. The present-day LDS doctrinal position on plural marriage may be typified by the statements in a recent letter from the LDS First Presidency secretary to an LDS (not TLC) member who had written to Gordon B. Hinckley for doctrinal clarifications on plural marriage. I have personally seen and transcribed the original of this letter, which is in our possession:
17 September 1998
Dear Brother [Name Withheld]
Thank you for your letter of September 10, 1998, addressed to President Gordon B. Hinckley. I have been asked to respond in his behalf.
In 1890, the Lord, by revelation to His prophet, withdrew the practice of plural marriage and President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto directing that it cease (see Doctrine & Covenants, Official Declaration 1). Because the Lord has not detailed conditions in the hereafter, it is suggested that you lay aside your concerns about the possible practice of plural marriage in the celestial kingdom.
It is hoped that this information is helpful to you. The Brethren have asked me that I extend to you their best wishes.
Sincerely yours, F. Michael Watson, Secretary to the First Presidency
According to the up-to-date LDS position, the Lord never has revealed enough about "conditions in the hereafter" to determine whether or not plural marriage would be practiced in the Celestial Kingdom! How astounding! Section 132, which details how the principles of sealing and calling and election work to bind marriage relations for eternity in the Celestial Kingdom, is where the Lord reveals the righteous principle of plural marriage! They are integrally and inseparably connected! How does one harmonize such rhetoric with what Orson Pratt, under the direction of HIS First Presidency of the LDS church, declared that both God the Father and the Savior Jesus Christ were polygamists!?! Aren't we supposed to become Gods like our Heavenly Father, become joint heirs with Jesus Christ, and inherit all that our Father has?
[Name Withheld], as a person who professes to adhere to the importance of honesty and integrity of heart on truth, you must see the great disparity in present-day and former-day LDS doctrine on the issue of both the importance of the practice of plural marriage here on the earth, as well as the fact that it is an integral part of life in the Celestial realms.
Statements of Gordon B. Hinckley on Plural Marriage from the Larry King Interview
Now what about the specific words of Gordon B. Hinckley that you feel we took out of context? My whole exercise up to now in this communication is to give you some overall context of this doctrine and of this principle. The only possible "save face" interpretation of Gordon B. Hinckley's "not doctrinal" statement on Larry King (yes, we are familiar with these "explanations" offered by LDS apologists) would be one given recently by an LDS public relations spokesman to the effect that Gordon B. Hinckley was condemning the "practice" of plural marriage rather than condemning the "doctrine" of plural marriage. However, this is misleading. Gordon B. Hinckley did indeed condemn the "practice," but did so in his own words because he thought it was "not doctrinal." There is no way around his words. Do you have an alternative explanation?
HINCKLEY: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, BECAUSE I THINK IT IS NOT DOCTRINAL. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.
Shall we now apply some integrity of heart in looking at the truth here? It just might have been reasonable for him to say that he 'condemned the practice because the Lord presently forbids it' (which is not true, but I will discuss this later). But [Name Withheld], that is still not what Gordon B. Hinckley stated. What he said is greatly different than stating that the 'Lord doesn't permit it's practice now because of certain circumstances.’ That plural marriage should be "not doctrinal" flies in the face of countless doctrinal statements that upheld plural marriage as a righteous, eternal principle of the celestial kingdom in the eternities that formerly were an inseparable part of the Fullness of the gospel in the LDS church.
To repeat, Gordon B. Hinckley condemned the practice of plural marriage. He condemned it in his own words "because" he stated that he thought it was "NOT DOCTRINAL," not because he stated that the Lord forbids it. Yes, earlier in the interview Gordon B. Hinckley did refer to the present-day LDS position regarding the Manifesto, but this was still not what he cited as the reasons for his condemnation of the "practice."
Out of a spirit to reconcile truth and of integrity of heart, shall we examine the other statements of Gordon B. Hinckley on this subject in the interview, some of which you forwarded to me, and some of which you didn't? If you feel that we have taken something that Gordon B. Hinckley said "out of context," then shall we examine to a much deeper level the context of his statements?
LARRY KING: Now the big story raging in Utah, before we get back to morals and morality is that the big story, if you don't know, it is polygamy in Utah. There's been major charges. The governor, Mike Leavitt, says that there are legal reasons why the state of Utah has not prosecuted alleged polygamists. Leavitt said plural marriage may be protected by the First Amendment. He is the great-great-grandson, is the governor, of a polygamist. First, tell me about the Church and polygamy. When it started, it allowed it?
PRESIDENT GORDON B. HINCKLEY: When our people came west, they permitted it on a restricted scale.
LARRY KING: You could have a certain amount of....
PRESIDENT GORDON B. HINCKLEY: The figures that I have are from, between, 2% and 5% of our people were involved in it. It was a very limited practice, carefully safeguarded. In 1890 that practice was discontinued. The president of the Church, the man who occupied the position which I occupy today, went before the people, said he had prayed about it, worked on it, and had received from the Lord a revelation that it was time to stop, to discontinue it then. Then, that's 118 years ago. It's behind us.
Shall we first consider the statements "they permitted it [polygamy] on a restricted scale," and "It was a very limited practice, carefully safeguarded," and '2% to 5% of the people involved in it?’
[Name Withheld] the only thing "restricted" or "carefully safeguarded" about plural marriage in the former-day LDS church (once it was formally made public in the 1850s) was the fact that a man or woman had to be worthy, actively working hard to build the Kingdom of God, and willing to approach the principle with the correct attitude – that is, not from a carnal viewpoint. Yes, certain men were called to enter "the principle," but that was because those in leadership positions were expected to set the example. They were so "called" often because of their reluctance. For example, in a 1882 revelation to John Taylor (This revelation is easily found in LDS sources; there is a copy on my LDS CD-ROM), the Lord states:
"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;"
"My law" referred to in the revelation is the principle of Celestial Plural Marriage. This is clear from journal quotes of the brethren at that time concerning this revelation.
HOW CAN WE TEACH THE PEOPLE ANY LAW OR PRINCIPLE THAT WE DO NOT KEEP OURSELVES? (Speaking of Celestial Plural Marriage --Journal of Wilford Woodruff, 13 October 1882)
Worthy men were not kept from entering the principle of plural marriage if they desired:
But no one who lived worthy of his priesthood and calling was deprived of a right to plural marriage. (Benjamin Johnson Letter to George Gibbs, 1903)
While no one was forced into the principle, the fact remained that it was still a necessity if ultimately men were to attain unto the highest exaltation that they might wish:
Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential, to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false. There is no blesssing [sic] promised except upon conditions, and no blessing can be obtained by mankind except by faithful compliance with the conditions, or law, upon which the same is promised. The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the will of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part--and is good so far as it goes--and so far as a man abides these conditions of the law, he will receive his reward therefor, and this reward, or blessing, he could not obtain on any other grounds or conditions. But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it. Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it. (Apostle Joseph F. Smith, July 7, 1878, JD 20:28)
The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. (Brigham Young, JD 11:268-69)
By using rhetoric such as "restricted" or "carefully safeguarded" to speak of plural marriage in the former-day LDS church, Gordon B. Hinckley is attempting to reduce the significance of this principle or minimizing it as an essential part of the restoration when addressing an unbelieving World on this subject. This is called "seeking the praise of the world," and is what Moroni considers the justification for those who will have "polluted the holy church of God" in Mormon 8:38. (I suggest you read or reread carefully Mormon 8:35 through the end of the chapter.)
The practice of plural marriage in the former-day LDS church was not such an inaccessible reality as these words of GBH might suggest. My great-great-grandfather, Rasmus Frandsen, abandoned all in Denmark to "gather" with the saints in Utah. On the ship coming over, he met two Danish girls who were sisters with whom he got along very well, He crossed the plains with their family, his brother and his mother. Upon arriving in Utah, he married both sisters, one month apart. I repeat, if a man was righteous and worthy, plural marriage was not restricted from him.
What about the percentages of 2% to 5%? GBH is correct in that there are reports that reveal those percentages. However, the 2% figure was from Heber J. Grant, who even though a polygamist before the turn of the century, became one of the greatest opponents of the principle during his presidency. From his personal writings, it is clear that later in his life he also tried to seriously downplay the principle of plural marriage. Hence his low estimate of participants. During his presidency, he encouraged and cooperated with government actions in Utah and in Arizona to arrest and round up polygamist men, women, and children. He even helped to finance these raids from Church tithing funds. Children were even separated from their parents and placed in foster homes under these actions. These persecutions for individuals trying to live their religion the way they felt was correct were even harsher than what LDS polygamists were subject to in the 1880s at the hands of the Feds, as at that time no women were arrested, and no children were ever taken away from their mothers.
Benjamin Johnson, in his letter to George Gibbs in 1903, stated in his estimation that about 10% of the LDS people lived plural marriage. If you then consider that generally about half of the membership weren't really active or worthy as they should be, this figure then would jump again considering only active, faithful members. In my own family, better than 50% of my ancestor families practiced plural marriage during the time that it was permitted in the LDS church.
But in reality, citing any statistics on LDS plural marriage is misleading. Why? Because we find that during the days of plural marriage in the LDS church, the closer you examined to the mid-level and then to the high-level leadership of the church, the greater the percentage of men who had plural wives. In the General Authorities, scarcely any of them were monogamists. Those General Authorities who were monogamists received serious chiding about their responsibilities as a husband, father, and patriarch in Zion. This should tell us something about the critical nature of the principle, and the misrepresentation that occurs when discussing mere across-the-board percentages of people involved in the principle, rather than the "whys" and "hows" and "whos" of the matter.
The 1890 Manifesto
But what about Gordon B. Hinckley's repeating the present-day LDS position on the Manifesto: "In 1890 that practice was discontinued. The president of the Church, the man who occupied the position which I occupy today, went before the people, said he had prayed about it, worked on it, and had received from the Lord a revelation that it was time to stop, to discontinue it then. Then, that's 118 years ago. It's behind us."
First of all as an aside, the Manifesto was 108 years before 1998, not 118 years, but perhaps that was just an excusable slip.
The words: "It's behind us" is another attempt by Gordon B. Hinckley to "seek the praise of the world," or rather to 'avoid the condemnation of the world,’ which is the exact same thing. He also stated in the interview that the LDS church had "totally distanced" itself from any association with the practice of polygamy -- and I would add also "totally distanced" itself from the doctrinal moorings of the principle as well. This is what the historical evidence as well as the current-day practical evidence clearly states.
For example, when I was an LDS missionary in 1972-1974, to my dismay, many missionaries were teaching that "polygamy was in the past" rather than to at least try to give a doctrinal understanding of the principle. Even though at that time I supported the overall LDS position as well as the Manifesto, this at the time still struck me as wrong to discuss plural marriage only as "a thing of the past." That clearly implies that plural marriage was wrong to start with. [Name Withheld], saying that plural marriage is "behind us," sends the clear message that it was originally a mistake, or something embarrassing or loathsome. Who is being dishonest here? Answer that honestly please.
As another aside, frankly I gained a greatly strengthened testimony of plural marriage on my LDS mission. I served in Tahiti, where the Reorganized Church was nearly as strong as the LDS church. They would attack us strongly on the principles of rebaptism as well as plural marriage, and would poison all the other denominations about the Mormons on the issue of polygamy. Consequently, we had to familiarize ourselves with the historical and doctrinal underpinnings of this principle and gain a testimony of it, or we would have been ineffective in dealing with the issue. My mission president at the time was the one who played the strongest role in strengthening my testimony of plural marriage as an eternal principle. I found that the only way to deal with any success with this issue was from a very direct and "eternal doctrine and principle" perspective, and not trying to sweep it under the carpet as a "thing of the past."
As to the Manifesto itself, the frank truth of the matter, [Name Withheld], is that the Manifesto was no revelation from the Lord at all, and was the first major step among many others that deleted and changed doctrines, principles, and ordinances that completely destroyed the ability of the LDS church to establish Zion.
Have you personally studied in depth the historical context of the Manifesto, [Name Withheld]? Have you studied what the situations were? What the dates of significant events were? What even the LDS leaders of the time said about it? What their actions were respective to what the Manifesto? Do you know why the present LDS version of this history is held to today by members of the LDS church? Why do you take the Manifesto to be a revelation? Are you "following the prophet" on this one, or are you deciding for yourself, after having studied all the facts?
[Name Withheld], I have studied these things out very carefully, and this was one point (among many others) of truth that I researched and studied very carefully during my in depth investigations of truth that led to my seeking for baptism into the TLC.
First of all, there is nothing at all in the Manifesto document itself that claims to be anything from God, let alone in the manner of saying "Thus saith the Lord." Wilford Woodruff never said a word when the Manifesto was issued about it being a "revelation," or even that the motivation for the Manifesto was a "revelation." In fact, the word "revelation" was never uttered by Wilford Woodruff in conjunction with the Manifesto until more than 13 months, or MORE THAN ONE YEAR afterward, and this only in response from pressure from those who desired to know if it was supposed to be a revelation or merely a dictate of President Woodruff. This first reference to the Manifesto as a revelation was given at a speech in Logan, Utah, and is the one extensively quoted in the present-day LDS edition of the D&C, just after the Manifesto text.
[Name Withheld], do you know what two of the apostles of that day stated about this Logan speech of Wilford Woodruff?
Why in the world [did] President Woodruff ever make that Logan speech in which he declared the Manifesto to be a revelation? (Apostle and later Senator Reed Smoot to Apostle John Henry Smith)
I don't know!!! (Response from Apostle Smith)
(Reported by Senator Smoot's secretary, Carlos Ashby Badger Diaries, 19 Feb. 1905, Church Archives.)
It is clear that these two apostles who were involved in these affairs of that day didn't consider the Manifesto to be a revelation.
The primary reason given both in the Manifesto and also according to present-day LDS Manifesto doctrine for abandoning the practice of plural marriage was because the "court of last resort" of the United States Government upheld the anti-polygamy laws, and in direct consequence, the Church seeing no alternative desired to "obey the law of the land."
[Name Withheld] this is FALSE again. Please hear and understand the facts. The Supreme Court decision which upheld the "constitutionality" of the anti-polygamy laws was the "Reynolds Decision," which was rendered in January 1879, This was more than ELEVEN AND ONE HALF YEARS before the Manifesto of September 1890. Rather than a receiving a revelation from the Lord (supposedly the Manifesto) in response to and shortly after the Reynolds Decision to stop the practice, which is what the Mormon Church would have you believe happened, The LDS leadership defiantly continued to preach, uphold, and live the practice of plural marriage for all these years after the Reynolds Decision. Many of them, like President John Taylor lived and died in hiding to escape prosecution from the "laws of the land" which they utterly refused to obey EVEN AFTER THESE CORRUPT LAWS WERE UPHELD BY THE "COURT OF LAST RESORT." Not only that, but the Lord himself after the Reynolds Decision continued to give revelations to the leadership of the LDS church to stand fast, and to continue to live and uphold the principle of Celestial Plural Marriage. These documents were clearly revelations, and all contained the words "Thus saith the Lord."
Three of the four such revelations that I have in mind at present are not disputed at all by the LDS church as to their authenticity as being the word of the Lord -- they are just ignored. I quoted to you from one of them earlier. One of the four is disputed by the LDS church (John Taylor 1886), but again, a careful researching of this issue will bear out that this revelation is indeed authentic. It is not the purpose to discuss this revelation here, but you may see a copy of it in John Taylor's own handwriting on our web site. The most recent of these revelations was given to Wilford Woodruff in 1889, less than one year before the Manifesto, yet still more than ten and one half years after the Reynolds Decision.
No, even if the Lord did inspire the Manifesto of September 1890, it was not in any stretch of the imagination in response to any decision of the "court of last resort" in January 1879. That is false history. Why the false history associated with the Manifesto, [Name Withheld]? Even IF the long delay between the Reynolds decision and the Manifesto were excusable, why would the Lord repeatedly give revelations during that period to continue the practice AFTER the Reynolds Decision? Why would John Taylor refuse to budge on the issue, and live and die in hiding during that time period (hardly able to perform his calling as President) to avoid capture and prosecution because of his plural wives that he would not repudiate? Some of John Taylor's "brethren" submitted manifesto-like documents for him to sign, but he utterly refused.
But, [Name Withheld], wouldn't you like to hear it from other of the leaders themselves of that time whether or not they felt the Manifesto was from God? Apostle Matthias F. Cowley was one who not only knew the Manifesto was not a revelation, but he took new plural wives after the Manifesto, and performed many, many plural marriages after the Manifesto. He did this with the complete approbation and authorization of the leaders of the Church. Does this sound like the Manifesto was considered to be a revelation by those leaders? I assure you that I am being completely honest with you regarding what I say to you that I have earnestly tried to study and comprehend about these events. I plead with you to open your heart to understand the truth on these things.
However, the post-Manifesto polygamous activities of Apostle Matthias Cowley (along with those of fellow apostle John W. Taylor, son of President John Taylor) were discovered by the national press over the course of the famous Smoot Congressional investigations, and this proved to be an embarrassment to the LDS church. He and John W. Taylor were therefore asked to resign their positions as Apostles specifically to save the "reputation of the church" to quote Joseph F. Smith. Later they were tried for their membership because of these "offenses" and also because of further antagonisms that developed in consequence. As a result, Matthias Cowley was instructed "not to use his priesthood" (for a brief time) and John W. Taylor was excommunicated. Over the course of his trial, Matthias Cowley stated:
Brother [Apostle] Penrose told me once in the city of Mexico, that he had written the manifesto, and it was gotten up so that it did not mean anything and President [Joseph F.] Smith had told me the same. I mention these things only to show the training I have had from those over me. (Testimony under oath of Matthias F. Cowley in the trial for his membership, 10 May 1911, minutes of the Quorum of the Twelve, and "The Trials of Apostles John W. Taylor and Matthias F. Cowley," Doctrine of the Priesthood, Collier's Publishing Co. January 1987, p. 28.)
If you read the transcript from his trial, you will be convinced that Matthias Cowley was a just, moral, and honest man, and repeatedly testified that the highest leadership of the LDS church was aware of, and in agreement with, his post-Manifesto polygamous activities. Note that he reveals that it was Charles Penrose who wrote the Manifesto! He also stated that fellow Apostle Charles Penrose told him that the Manifesto "did not mean anything," and that President Joseph F. Smith felt the same about it!
A similar feeling is gleaned from reading the transcript of Apostle John W. Taylor's trial, except that John W. Taylor, in respect for his commitment to secrecy on these matters to the leaders of the church then, refused to divulge to the "disciplinary council" the names of those leaders who knew and authorized his own post-Manifesto plural marriages, as well as those marriages he performed and authorized. Because of this, John W. Taylor was viewed as antagonistic in his trial. The greatest reason, however, that he was excommunicated was because he married his sixth plural wife in 1909. This was admittedly without the approbation of the Church leadership of the time.
However, John W. Taylor's post-Manifesto plural marriage of October 1890 (third wife, and two weeks after the Manifesto) was approved of by the leadership, as this marriage was performed by fellow Apostle Francis M. Lyman, later president of the quorum of the 12 that excommunicated him! John W. Taylor also married two sisters the same day on 29 August 1901, and no flap about this occurred either. In fact, President Joseph F. Smith continually tried to protect and shield John W. Taylor from the Smoot Congressional Investigation committee concerning these facts.
You see, the LDS leadership didn't really get serious about stopping plural marriage until about 1904, when Joseph F. Smith committed perjury himself before the Smoot Investigating committee on these facts. That is why John W. Taylor didn't get into trouble for his plural marriages in 1890 and 1901, but he did get into trouble for his marriage in 1909.
As a consequence of the ridicule heaped upon the LDS church following Joseph F. Smith's unbelievable testimony early in 1904 in the Smoot Committee Hearings, he issued a totally false statement to the LDS general conference in April 1904 to the effect that there had been no plural marriage anywhere in the LDS church that was officially sanctioned since the Manifesto. He then had this lie sustained by the uplifted hand in conference with the words that he wanted to "seal up" as false the charges from the world that he had been untruthful on the subject of plural marriage in the LDS church after the Manifesto. [Name Withheld], we have it in our family records that my great-grandfather, Helaman Pratt, married his third wife Bertha in 1898 in the Mexican Colonies, eight years after the Manifesto. He was a counselor in the Stake Presidency there, and very active and faithful.
There was a lot of post-Manifesto polygamous activity in the Mexican Colonies, but that was not the only place it occurred. It was more concentrated there, but the activity was still general church-wide. In fact, most all of the LDS general authorities from 1890 through about 1904 participated in either marrying a new plural wife, performing new plural marriage ceremonies, or the specific arranging or approving of the same. It was only John W. Taylor and Matthias Cowley that were publicly caught, and therefore "disciplined."
[Name Withheld], these are documented facts. Most LDS people won't even look at them let alone understand and believe them because these facts shoot holes completely in their false "follow the brethren" doctrine that was never a doctrine anyway in the former-day LDS church. The fact that these post-Manifesto polygamy situations occurred among the leadership (and many, many rank-and-file members of the Church also) indicates that they didn't feel the Lord was prohibiting plural marriage. The Manifesto was no revelation.
The Manifesto was an act of desperation and not revelation to prevent confiscation and escheatment of church properties. When he issued the Manifesto to the government, Wilford Woodruff was within weeks of having to face even more serious Federal confiscation and punitive action against the church. The Lord had promised Wilford Woodruff less than one year before in a revelation that the Kingdom of God would prevail if they would make no compromise with their enemies that seek their destruction. Yet they did make compromise under the many pressures. You sow what you reap. Also, the pressure the church was under was still nothing compared to the persecutions they had encountered in Jackson County, Far West, and Nauvoo.
And all they who receive the oracles [revelations, or power to receive revelations] of God, let them beware how they hold them lest they are accounted as a light thing, and are brought under condemnation thereby, and stumble and fall when the storms descend, and the winds blow, and the rains descend, and beat upon their house. (D&C 90:5)
What did others among the "brethren" of that day say about the Manifesto? Did they think the Manifesto was inspired of God or a revelation?
[The Manifesto was] a cowardly proceeding, the more I thought of it the less I liked it. (General Authority B.H. Roberts, As quoted in Walker, "B. H. Roberts and the Woodruff Manifest," pp. 363-366.)
I do not believe the Manifesto was a revelation from God but was formulated by Prest. Woodruff and endorsed by his counselors and the Twelve Apostles for expediency to meet the present situation of affairs in the Nation or those against the Church. (Apostle Marriner W. Merrill Marriner Wood Merrill Diaries, 20 Aug 1891.)
The Manifesto was not a divine production but something manufactured to outwit the church's enemies (Apostle Charles W. Penrose, Thomas J. Rosser To Robert C. Newson letter, 4 Aug. 1956)
My son David died without seed, and his brothers cannot do a work for him in rearing children to bear his name because of the Manifesto. I believe in concubinage, or some plan whereby men and women can live together under sacred ordinances and vows until they can be married. *** Such relationships would have to be kept secret until the government changed its laws to permit formal polygamous marriages to be performed. (First Presidency member and Apostle George Q. Cannon, As reported in the Abraham H. Cannon Diaries, 5 April 1894.)
[Name Withheld], first of all, the LDS people in general are totally ignorant of the true historical facts on this critical principle and doctrine. Secondly, they are also generally totally unwilling to even look and consider the evidence as to whether this important historical issue is true in the manner it is being taught and explained to them by the LDS "curriculum." The LDS "gospel doctrine" study guide during my last year in the LDS church tried to represent an incredibly ignorant and erroneous point of view about these events. There were gross errors of timing and circumstance. It was unbelievable to even think that such would be put into a study guide of gospel doctrine.
Tell me, how then can an LDS person honestly say that the Manifesto is indeed a revelation from God if he doesn't even know the facts, or is willing to even look at them? Is God going to give him a revelation of the truth of the matter if he hasn't "studied it out" as the D&C commands us [D&C 9:8]? I don't think so. But the adversary might give a "revelation" in such conditions, because he loves people to remain in ignorance. They are easier in that condition to lead like lambs to the slaughter.
The "Law of the Land"
Let's look one more time at Gordon B. Hinckley's statement from which I took our web page quote:
HINCKLEY: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I THINK IT IS NOT DOCTRINAL. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.
What about the "honoring, obeying sustain the law" issue? "It is not legal," says Gordon B. Hinckley. [Name Withheld], when in the course of recorded scriptural history has the Lord ever required his people to obey laws that were wicked from the start, and which were formulated only to persecute the Kingdom of God? I'm not talking about the laws that are designed to regulate common order in society. The Federal laws against polygamy were only political in their basis, and were specifically designed to destroy the Kingdom of God, since "polygamy" was an easy band-wagon issue that the rest of the country was sure to quickly get on. (It still is.)
What do the latter-day scriptures teach about this?
5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.
6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;
7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil. (D&C 98:5-7)
The early brethren maintained adamantly that the practice of plural marriage was in accordance with the righteous practice of religion, and protected by the First Amendment. They actually belittled and mocked the "laws" that assailed plural marriage, because they considered them only as the rumor and din of the enemy of God. As you see from verse seven above, that which is "more or less than" what maintains freedom and rights and privileges that should belong to constitutionally protected citizens, "COMETH OF EVIL."
It is a perverted concept of "obeying the law of the land" that is taught to the present-day LDS church if that requires the subjection of necessary, God-ordained righteous principles to the whims of wicked men.
Plural Marriage was "illegal" for the majority of time it was practiced in the LDS church. It was illegal in Illinois when the Lord commanded Joseph Smith to introduce it among the Twelve. It became "illegal" again in 1862 when Abraham Lincoln signed into law a Federal territorial law banning plural marriage. No, the "Law of the Land" argument holds no water when considering the former-day LDS doctrine of plural marriage.
Again, what did the early brethren say about the subject of the "Law of the land" as it relates to plural marriage?
[The Church leadership] could not ask Church members to obey the law and repudiate their plural wives. (Apostle Brigham Young, Jr., Spring 1890, Brigham Young, [Jr.] Diaries, 24 April 1890, Church Archives.)
I design [to continue] to live with and have children by my wives, using the wisdom God gives me to avoid being captured by the officers of the law. (Apostle Francis M. Lyman, 1890, Abraham H. Cannon Diaries, 30 Sept. -1 Oct. 1890.)
I am a law breaker; so is Bishop Whitney; so is B. H. Roberts. My wives have brought me only daughters. I propose to marry until I get wives who will bring me sons. (Heber J. Grant, 1899, "That Awful Mouth Again," Salt Lake Tribune, , 8 Sept. 1899; and "The Grant Declaration," ibid., 9 Sept. 1899.)
Heber J. Grant was an apostle when he made the above declaration. He later became president of the LDS church and a greater persecutor of polygamists than the Federal Government in the 1880s. You see, the present-day grand LDS rhetoric concerning "the law of the land" is also inconsistent with the former day doctrines on the same subject, and misrepresents the truth.
I strongly urge you to study the articles on our web site regarding plural marriage. You will understand these things better. You might even read the book "Solemn Covenant" by Carmon Hardy that speaks specifically on the LDS Manifesto historical era. I do not condone Mr Hardy's attitude in many places in that book, but his research is excellent. There are also many other books on the subject.
Integrity and Truth
Even though technically uttering "true" statements or statements at least considered to be the truth by the LDS people, It is clear to me [Name Withheld], that Gordon B. Hinckley hardly communicated any real truth at all in spirit regarding plural marriage in the Larry King interview. He presented some information in such a way as to downplay and for all intents and purposes actually deny the critical, eternal, divine nature of this practice and doctrine with his "behind us" comments. He repeated the traditional untruths regarding the Manifesto and its related history. Even if he intended to state "108 years" in stead of "118 years" regarding the time since the Manifesto, this is still a falsehood, because the practice continued in secret with the full approbation of the church leadership, for at least 14 or so years afterward. The statistics he brings up do not accurately characterize the importance of or the practice of plural marriage among the former-day LDS people. We have shown that the "Law of the land" argument that the LDS church invariably cites as such a powerful reason to not practice plural marriage today is inconsistent with the former LDS position and doctrines. Moreover, we have shown that Gordon B. Hinckley (along with many more recent LDS leaders) has rejected the principle of plural marriage as the basis for family life in the Celestial realms, and is an enemy of its actual righteous practice today. He actually speaks of homosexuals (who participate in heinous whoredoms) in far more loving terms than he does of those who righteously practice plural marriage, which is an eternal principle of the heavens!
[Name Withheld], when someone comes across in what might genuinely appear to be in an honest manner, but who is in reality preaching falsehoods and deceiving, we call this "guile," which means to be "cunningly deceptive." May I quote a passage from D&C 121?
No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without GUILE- (D&C 121:41-42)
If "guile" is a part of our nature, or if we are "cunningly deceptive," then we are not maintaining power or influence by the virtue of the Priesthood of God, but rather by someone else's priesthoods. I have clearly shown you here how the very comments of Gordon B. Hinckley that apparently you wanted to make sure that I wasn't neglecting have been deceptive in how he presents to the world the realities of the essential, true, and divine doctrine of Celestial Plural Marriage. If you are honest in heart, you have seen also how he is in total opposition to the former-day LDS position when he states that he thinks that the practice of plural marriage is "not doctrinal." This is based not only on his Larry King comments alone, but also on official LDS First Presidency correspondence accomplished under his personal oversight.
I checked out some synonyms of the word "guile" in a thesaurus. The following is what I found to be synonyms of this character trait: deception, deceit, duplicity, fraud, trickery, chicanery, artfulness, dishonesty, and knavery.
I recognize that all of us, me, you, and all of God's children are working or should be working to overcome our character weaknesses and mistakes. I daily look into my own heart to see if in all my communications and preaching of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ that I am being honest and without guile. A big part of my own investigations into the TLC regarded a determination of the honesty of heart of James D. Harmston and of the TLC people in general. Guile is something that we must all work on to eliminate from our character.
But guile is unmistakably part of the present-day LDS presentation of its own history and doctrine regarding plural marriage, as well as a part of the way the LDS Church handles many other doctrines that were formerly a part of the precious work of Joseph Smith: the doctrine of the Gathering, the Law of Consecration ("with a covenant and deed that cannot be broken," remember?), the doctrine of Adam or Michael as our Father in Heaven, the doctrine and process of Calling and Election, the principle and ordinance of rebaptism, the unchangaeability of ordinances of salvation and exaltation such as the endowment, the true responsibilities of the various priesthood offices, the Law of Adoption which is the true sealing principle, the true principles of how we are exalted and progress, and many more. When I started to study the facts from the undeniable historical record, it was a very different gospel of the restoration in many respects that was unfolded in a homogeneous, consistent pattern.
[Name Withheld], I used to sustain Gordon B. Hinckley also as a "prophet, seer, and revelator" in my ignorance for many years until I had my eyes opened through honest and sincere study, pondering, reasoning, and prayer. I have never had such experiences in truth, learning, the Spirit, and hungering and thirsting after righteousness as I have had here in the TLC, and I was a faithful believer in the LDS Church all my life until I was awakened.
Perhaps the most important question to our discussion on plural marriage is: Why would the Lord insist that such a difficult, critical principle be adopted and integrated into the fullness of the gospel for this dispensation, and then have it removed again at great difficulty to his church, to be no longer a part of the gospel for the same dispensation? Especially if it is a part of the Celestial Family Order? Do you think that the will of the Lord and his eternal doctrine would actually bend to the unrighteousness attacks of the world?
If you choose to not believe these things, then what I say will not impact you. But if you are one of those "elect" that the Lord spoke of in D&C 29:7-8, then you will not harden your heart against the truth, and you will not be able to relax and let go until you have satisfied yourself as to the truth or error of what I tell you. I don't consider myself to be above making a human error, so if there is something that you feel I have overlooked or that I am mistaken on, then let me know, and be specific. I promise you that I will again try to understand what you say, and respond honestly.
I tell you [Name Withheld], the Lord has again "set his hand a second time" to recover a remnant of his people. The true keys and priesthood of God have been again restored to the House of Israel, and this because the Gentiles have rejected the "fullness" of the gospel, exactly as Christ himself prophesied would happen in 3 Nephi 16:10. The day of the Gentile is now over. The priesthood and the keys are here, with the fullness, and I assure you that through an honest heart, you will know the same, but only if you apply yourself with all your heart to learning and understanding, with an insatiable desire to get to the bottom of what is the truth that your Father in Heaven wants you to know.
Thank you for your sincere attention, if indeed you have read this as I requested. I do hope you will study these things, and review the many resources we have on the web site. This is real, this is true, and this is life.
Let me know what else I might do for you.
Sincerely, your servant in Christ,
John W. Pratt
(19 March 1999)
Brother Pratt,
My purpose for writing you was not to engage in a disputation of doctrine rather to point out an out-of-context quotation. As a student of journalism and the Gospel, I find it wholly unethical and dishonest to represent things in such a manner. Further it would seem that you believe that I take issue with every quote, this is not so. It is only with the one that I pointed out in my previous communication.
I once had occasion to quote a professor extensively in an article that I wrote for my college's newspaper. I spent a great deal of time writing my article and interpreting what the professor had said. He later approached me on campus and stated that he would never again be a source for any of my articles. He pointed out several instances where I had taken his words out of context to best suit my article. Looking back on the article, I saw my error and vowed never again to engage in this behavior. My error was not intentional, though it was my responsibility and I was in the wrong. So to it is with your quotation, yet it suits your needs and that is sufficient for you.
Your letter does not point out anything that I have not previously read, nor does it cause my testimony to waiver. My testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ was gained through trial and tribulation, even almost unto death. I have received sufficient witness of God as to the truthfulness of those things which I believe. Without sharing intimate details of that witness, I will say that it was powerful and personal.
I will not labor to respond to every point made in your letter as I do not have the time sufficient for such an undertaking. Moreover, I do not find it productive to attempt something that will not benefit either one of us. I thank you for your time and response.
Sincerely,
[Name Withheld]
(20 March 1999)
Dear Brother[Name Withheld],
Your response to me yesterday still failed to point out HOW we were quoting Gordon B. Hinckley "out of context" when he stated that he condemned the practice of polygamy because he thought it was "not doctrinal." I affirmed to you and pointed out how this particular statement of his, even though couched among other statements regarding the same topic, could indeed stand on its own and may therefore be honestly quoted by itself, without accusations such as yours to us of conducting ourselves in a "wholly unethical and dishonest" manner. How is this not so?
All the related material that I pointed out so carefully to you regarding the falsehoods associated with GBH's other statements in the interview was not to engage in any "disputation" about the doctrine with you, as there is no disputing to be done. I provided to you the verbatim quotes from LDS Apostles and "prophets, seers, and revelators" that stated that the Manifesto was no revelation, and this from many, many different angles. Only the weakest of excuses, or as in your case, a refusal to address the issues and face the historical facts could possibly be used to continue to justify the doctrinal and historical position that your president so falsely maintains about the Manifesto and this eternal doctrine. Do you know how the "Christian" world in general scoffs at the incredulity of the LDS position on the many inconsistencies in the present-day LDS doctrine?
I had provided you this information also in direct response to your charge that we had "misrepresented the faith and doctrines" of the LDS Church. I'd say that GBH does the greatest job of all at "misrepresenting the faith and doctrines" what was supposed to be the Kingdom of God on the earth. I also demonstrated this to you. But if you are going to charge us, then follow through, brother. I have more than adequately answered your charge, and did so with much patience, honesty, at great labor and time, inviting you to point out specifically to me wherein I err, if you feel that I did. Brother, you have refused to point out any such thing, while still maintaining your charge against us, and while still also accusing us with "unethical and dishonest" conduct. You cannot ethically excuse yourself from further responsibility from your own charges against us by merely saying "I do not find it productive to attempt something that will not benefit either one of us." I testify to you that you will be accountable for your words.
You state that I had not told you anything that you "have not previously read." Brother [Name Withheld], I too had heard superficially of some of these things while still a stalwart defender of the LDS traditions. However, it was a process of more than just hearing of a few things that I had to go through to really dig, understand, ponder, and ultimately understand what happened during that time. How deeply have you strived to personally study these things? I wonder how carefully you read what I told you in my (admittedly lengthy) post if indeed you read it at all?
I have been in your shoes, you have not been in mine. In my own lifetime I have seen the evolution in doctrines, and more especially, the increased emphasis in the LDS church towards becoming one with the world. I know the excuses and "explanations" from the LDS side, including the "trump" card of "following the brethren," and "my witness of the spirit," because as I say, these "explanations" and "witnesses" formerly were my justifications in the LDS church. My experience here in the TLC, both in the doctrinal and understanding side, as well as with the spiritual, witness, manifestation side, far exceeds my LDS experience. The keys of the Kingdom of God have been restored anew.
I think it is far more "unethical and dishonest" to make charges, and then to not follow through with what you charge us with. If you want to honestly communicate on the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, we will welcome any communication from you. If you perceive that we are saying something in error, let us know specifically, and we will listen and then respond. But don't throw a stone and then run the other way.
Sincerely, John W. Pratt
(23 March 1999)
Brother Pratt:
To state, "I do not think that it (polygamy) is not doctrinal," as a statement unto its own, belies the entire message of the messenger. Indeed, the reason that polygamy is not practiced today, and the subsequent reason that it is not doctrinal is the Manifesto of 1890. That is why I included the entire quotation for your purview. Hence the reason I felt your quotation of Gordon B. Hinckley to be out-of-context.
Perhaps I did not properly clarify my point in my letter, yet it seemed apparent enough to me. Nevertheless, I see that my letters served your purpose and now fill the pages of your groups' website.
We have a basic disagreement here. You believe that the Manifesto of 1890 was fabricated by Wilford Woodruff and I say that it was revelation from God. We must now stand beside our beliefs and leave it at that. I am confident that all such matters will be put to rest at the pleasing judgement bar of God.
Regards,
[Name Withheld]
(25 March 1999)
Dear Brother [Name Withheld],
As a student of Journalism, you should be aware that the issue of something being "out of context" or not deals with the issue of whether or not the perceived meaning of a statement is changed if it is viewed alone versus if it is viewed in the overall flow of the conversation. The statement all by itself that "I think that it [polygamy] is not doctrinal" (which is the correct quote) is absolutely unchanged in its meaning by the overall "context." Considered either alone, or else "in context" as you might see it, Gordon Hinckley still doesn't consider plural marriage to be an eternal doctrine of the Celestial Heavens.
Yes, I know the rest of his statements describe the traditional LDS way the Manifesto is viewed, as well as some other misleading statements on that subject. But that still doesn't change the meaning of WHAT HE STATED, which REJECTS FORMER LDS DOCTRINE. When I was in the LDS Seminary program, they openly taught that plural marriage was an ETERNAL DOCTRINE, and a principle practiced in the heavens. They openly taught that our Father in Heaven had many wives. Do you know what that means [Name Withheld]? That means that in spite of the "manifesto," and in spite of the fact that the LDS church wasn't practicing plural marriage at the time, that the LDS church still taught at that time that PLURAL MARRIAGE WAS INDEED "DOCTRINAL."
Are you and GBH somehow saying that the "Manifesto" changed eternal doctrine? Are you now stating that because GBH made these statements on the Larry King interview that plural marriage is now no longer a principle of the Celestial worlds? Why don't you get off your ambiguous journalistic sit on the fence position and take a DOCTRINAL stand yourself? Answer this question: Is or is not plural marriage an eternal principle practiced in the Celestial worlds?
I feel that the only reason you responded to me this last time was because I did put our previous exchanges on our CHURCH's web site. If that will eventually induce you and perhaps others to deal with the issues and real questions regarding the truth of eternal doctrine that is inextricably a part of the Latter-day Restoration, which you have still completely avoided, then that will have perhaps "served some purpose" to righteous ends and establishing truth.
Your arguments about this statement of GBH being "out of context" don't hold up. We don't deny that GBH also repeated the traditional LDS views on why plural marriage is not practiced today in the LDS church. But this view is FALSE, and doesn't hold any water at all in view of the doctrinal and historical evidence--which I presented to you in great plainness and patience, and which you wrongly reject. You somehow feel divinely excused from having to deal with these realities, and choose to remain in stubborn ignorance. You excuse this by stating that you "don't have time" to respond to the particulars, feeling perhaps that you have some simple "trump card" argument that will counter it.
I concur there is a basic disagreement here, but only one side of these arguments is in agreement with the eternal principles of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, as well as the historical and doctrinal evidence. It is unfortunate that you have the idea that you must wait to the "judgment bar" before being able to put such issues completely to rest, as it really will happen much earlier, particularly for yourself if you do some honest investigation. With regards to not considering the "Manifesto" to be any revelation at all, or inspired by any revelation, I will be happy to be in the same boat on this issue as most all of the leading "brethren" of the LDS Church at the time of the "Manifesto." Who would know better?
All of the following men knew well that the Manifesto was no revelation by their actions, and many of them (as I provided you the quotes) specifically stated that the Manifesto was NO REVELATION.
The following APOSTLES or FIRST PRESIDENCY members took one or more plural wives after the Manifesto:
Francis M. Lyman, Abraham H. Cannon, Rudger Clawson, Matthias Cowley, John W. Taylor, George Teasdale, Brigham Young, Jr. Abraham O. Woodruff, not to mention WILFORD WOODRUFF.
The following APOSTLES or FIRST PRESIDENCY members performed new plural marriages after the Manifesto:
Matthias F. Cowley, Anthon H. Lund, Marriner W. Merrill, John W. Taylor, George Teasdale, Brigham Young Jr., and Abraham O. Woodruff
The following FIRST PRESIDENCY members gave authorizations for new plural marriages after the Manifesto:
WILFORD WOODRUFF, George Q. Cannon, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith
(The above is only what we know about, and doesn't include hundreds of LDS people involved below the leading quorums of the LDS Church.)
HEBER J. GRANT also publicly boasted about being a "lawbreaker" while continuing to live with and father children by his plural wives after the Manifesto. He was even convicted and fined in a court of law. He also publicly expressed desires for additional wives, all after the Manifesto.
Perhaps you will accept the following blatant lie foisted upon the LDS people by President Joseph F. Smith in the April 1904 LDS General Conference:
"I Joseph F. Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, hereby affirm and declare that no such [post-Manifesto plural] marriages have been solemnized with the sanction, consent or knowledge of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." (Apr. C. R., 1904, p. 75.)
The above represents the epitome of hypocrisy and lies that the LDS Church propagates to this day on this subject, which involves a rejection of one of the highest principles of Zion and of the Celestial Kingdom. As you maintain your position against all reason and spirit, you also personally partake of these lies and hypocrisy.
If you do respond again, just answer one question: Do you believe that Plural Marriage is an eternal principle of the Celestial worlds or not?
Sincerely,
John Pratt