Was polygamy out in the open?
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 22508
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm
Re: Was polygamy out in the open?
The Church had to keep polygamy under wraps till they reached Utah and the Saints were out of the reach of any law but their own, free to practice their Principle of Polygamy.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 576
- Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 5:04 pm
Re: Was polygamy out in the open?
A late post here but thought I'd chime in.
The LDS Church was only really open about the practice of polygamy from 1852 til about the 1870s when the practice came under heavy fire from the US Govt. Before in Nauvoo (early 1830s to 1844 and during the trek west it was far less open. Missionaries to Europe when asked about rumors of plural marriage would flat out deny it. Same with those involved in Nauvoo. In fact many in the Church in Nauvoo weren't even aware of he practice. Joseph Smith would deny it publicly. Emma hearing of the rumors of her husbands polygamy commissioned a number of women to investigate the charges. Ironically, some of them were Joseph's plural wives and Emma seems not to have been aware.
After the Brighamites moved to UT the practice expanded a lot and was much in the open. With this many people practicing it really couldn't have been kept under wraps. The Church did not announce the practice publicly til 1852 and did not replace what was then Sec. 101 of the D&C which condemned polygamy until the 1870s when they replaced it with our current Sec. 132.
Even after the 1890 Manifesto polygamy was practiced in secret with GA approval. A good number of leaders even took wives during that time. After the 2nd Manifesto (1904) the practice was largely reduced. Carmon Hardy in his book Solemn Covenant talks about how Joseph F. Smith, Church president, and other leaders facilitated continued practice by decentralizing the sealing authority away from the 1st presidency so that plural marriages could be performed outside the temple and by lower level leaders— allowing them to have no knowledge of the practice. Hardy says there is evidence of marriages performed in the Church proper up to 1910 after which the practice either dies or goes so far underground that it was "lost" to fundamentalists.
It no surprise that LDS leaders were secretive about the practice. It was illegal from Kirtland in 1831 all the way to Utah in the early 1900s. It was illegal in Mexico and Canada where it was practiced as well.
So while plural marriage was practiced in the open for a time much of it was in secret while the Church and leaders was denying it's practice.
The LDS Church was only really open about the practice of polygamy from 1852 til about the 1870s when the practice came under heavy fire from the US Govt. Before in Nauvoo (early 1830s to 1844 and during the trek west it was far less open. Missionaries to Europe when asked about rumors of plural marriage would flat out deny it. Same with those involved in Nauvoo. In fact many in the Church in Nauvoo weren't even aware of he practice. Joseph Smith would deny it publicly. Emma hearing of the rumors of her husbands polygamy commissioned a number of women to investigate the charges. Ironically, some of them were Joseph's plural wives and Emma seems not to have been aware.
After the Brighamites moved to UT the practice expanded a lot and was much in the open. With this many people practicing it really couldn't have been kept under wraps. The Church did not announce the practice publicly til 1852 and did not replace what was then Sec. 101 of the D&C which condemned polygamy until the 1870s when they replaced it with our current Sec. 132.
Even after the 1890 Manifesto polygamy was practiced in secret with GA approval. A good number of leaders even took wives during that time. After the 2nd Manifesto (1904) the practice was largely reduced. Carmon Hardy in his book Solemn Covenant talks about how Joseph F. Smith, Church president, and other leaders facilitated continued practice by decentralizing the sealing authority away from the 1st presidency so that plural marriages could be performed outside the temple and by lower level leaders— allowing them to have no knowledge of the practice. Hardy says there is evidence of marriages performed in the Church proper up to 1910 after which the practice either dies or goes so far underground that it was "lost" to fundamentalists.
It no surprise that LDS leaders were secretive about the practice. It was illegal from Kirtland in 1831 all the way to Utah in the early 1900s. It was illegal in Mexico and Canada where it was practiced as well.
So while plural marriage was practiced in the open for a time much of it was in secret while the Church and leaders was denying it's practice.
Crawling around the evidence in order to maintain a testimony of the Book of Mormon.
http://www.ldsrevelations.com/blog
http://www.ldsrevelations.com/blog
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 9207
- Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm
Re: Was polygamy out in the open?
That's really admirable of President Hinckley. How did you ever find that out? Do we know the reason?
Ajax
It was a public announcement maybe a few years after Hinckley was put in as president. He pulled GAs from all boards because he wanted them to focus on the work related to their calling.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 18195
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am
Re: Was polygamy out in the open?
A little thing about your speaker and polygamy: it's entirely possible he was conflating Utah polygamy with Nauvoo polygamy. He may not even know about Nauvoo polygamy. Let's try to give him the benefit of the doubt.
A little thing about boards: virtually all public businesses that have a board of directors publishes their annual report in which they list their board members. So... check all of the businesses you suspect of having GAs on their boards. A simple process, since most of them publish their annual reports online. And there is no reason for them to pay the GAs, if they aren't on their board. That idea is just backwards.
A little thing about boards: virtually all public businesses that have a board of directors publishes their annual report in which they list their board members. So... check all of the businesses you suspect of having GAs on their boards. A simple process, since most of them publish their annual reports online. And there is no reason for them to pay the GAs, if they aren't on their board. That idea is just backwards.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.