Misconceptions about the Mormon Church (U.K.)

[_SteelHead]

July 12, 1843— Nauvoo, Illinois. Joseph Smith received D&C 132, a revelation about the eternal marriage covenant, while in the presence of his brother Hyrum Smith and William Clayton, recorder. (History of the Church, 5:500–7)

Historical Setting: Orson Pratt (Joseph F. Smith): [Elder Pratt, in company with President Joseph F. Smith, spoke at a meeting of the so-called Reorganized Church in 1878.] He explained the circumstances connected with the coming forth of the revelation on plural marriage. Refuted the statement and belief of those present that Brigham Young was the author of that revelation; showed that Joseph Smith the Prophet had not only commenced the practice himself, and taught it to others, before President Young and Twelve had returned from their mission in Europe, in 1841, but that Joseph actually received revelations upon that principle as early as 1831. (HC 5:xxxi, "Introduction," 1878.)

George A. Smith: In [July 12] 1843, the law on celestial marriage was written [at Nauvoo, Illinois] ,but not published, and was known only to perhaps one or two hundred persons. It was written from the dictation of Joseph Smith, by Elder William Clayton, his private secretary, who is now in this city. [Salt Lake City, Utah.] This revelation was published in 1852, read to a general conference, and accepted as a portion of the faith of the Church. Elder Orson Pratt went to Washington and there published a work called the Seer,in which this revelation was printed, and a series of articles showing forth the law of God in relation to marriage. (JD,August 13, 1871, 14:213-14.)

William Clayton (scribed to Joseph Smith): "On the morning of the 12th of July, 1843, Joseph and Hyrum Smith came into the office in the upper story of the 'brick store,' on the bank of the Mississippi River. They were talking on the subject of plural marriage. Hyrum said to Joseph, 'If you will write the revelation on celestial marriage, I will take and read it to Emma, and I believe I can convince her of its truth, and you will hereafter have peace.' Joseph smiled and remarked, 'You do not know Emma as well as I do.' Hyrum repeated his opinion and further remarked, 'The doctrine is so plain, I can convince any reasonable man or woman of its truth, purity or heavenly origin,' or words to their effect. Joseph then said, 'Well, I will write the revelation and we will see.' He then requested me to get paper and prepare to write. Hyrum very urgently requested Joseph to write the revelation by means of the Urim and Thummim, but Joseph, in reply, said he did not need to, for he knew the revelation perfectly from beginning to end.

"Joseph and Hyrum then sat down and Joseph commenced to dictate the revelation on celestial marriage, and I wrote it, sentence by sentence, as he dictated. After the whole was written, Joseph asked me to read it through, slowly and carefully, which I did, and he pronounced it correct. He then remarked that there was much more that he could write, on the same subject, but what was written was sufficient for the present. . . ." (Historical Record, Vol. 6, pp. 225-226)

Background Narration: Daniel H. Ludlow "This Revelation is dated the 12th of July, 1843. William Clayton, who was Temple Recorder and private clerk of the Prophet at that time, relates the following: On the morning of the 12th of July, 1843, Joseph and Hyrum Smith came into the office in the upper story of the "brick store," on the bank of the Mississippi River. They were talking on the subject of plural marriage. Hyrum said to Joseph, "If you will write the revelation on celestial marriage, I will take and read it to Emma, and I believe I can convince her of its truth, and you will hereafter have peace." Joseph smiled and remarked, "You do not know Emma as well as I do." Hyrum repeated his opinion and further remarked, "The doctrine is so plain, I can convince any reasonable man or woman of its truth, purity or heavenly origin," or words to their effect. Joseph then said, "Well, I will write the revelation and we will see." He then requested me to get paper and prepare to write. Hyrum very urgently requested Joseph to write the revelation by means of the Urim and Thummim, but Joseph, in reply, said he did not need to, for he knew the revelation perfectly from beginning to end.

Joseph and Hyrum then sat down and Joseph commenced to dictate the revelation on celestial marriage, and I wrote it, sentence by sentence, as he dictated. After the whole was written, Joseph asked me to read it through, slowly and carefully, which I did, and he pronounced it correct. He then remarked that there was much more than he could write, on the same subject, but what was written was sufficient for the present. (HR 6:225-26.)

"This was not the first mention of the subject among the Saints. Sarah Ann Kimball and many others knew of it in 1842, and Joseph B. Noble heard of it in the fall of 1840. Orson Pratt says that the Prophet Joseph, in the forepart of 1832, while he was living at the house of Father Johnson at Hiram, Ohio, told Church members that he had enquired of the Lord concerning this doctrine, and received the answer that it was true, but that the time to practice it had not come (Discourse by Orson Pratt, Salt Lake City, October 7, 1869). Consequently, the Law of the Church remained as stated in Doctrine and Covenants 42:22, and as it is to-day, 'Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shall cleave unto her and none else.'

"The Revelation is divided into two parts. The first, comprising vv. 3-33, deals mainly with the principle of celestial marriage, or marriage for time and all eternity; the second, comprising the remaining verses, deals with plural marriage. The doctrine of celestial marriage remains in force; the practice of plural marriage was abandoned by the acceptancy by the Church, in Conference assembled October 6th, 1890, of the Manifesto of President Woodruff." (Smith and Sjodahl, DCC, pp. 820-21.)

(Companion to Your Study of the Doctrine and Covenants, vol. 1, by Daniel H. Ludlow, P. 659-660)

Section Header Notes: (see Doctrine and Covenants 132)Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also plurality of wives. HC 5: 501–507. Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831.

1–6,Exaltation is gained through the new and everlasting covenant; 7–14,The terms and conditions of that covenant are set forth; 15–20,Celestial marriage and a continuation of the family unit enable men to become gods; 21–25,The strait and narrow way that leads to eternal lives; 26–27,Law given relative to blasphemy against the Holy Ghost; 28–39,Promises of eternal increase and exaltation made to prophets and saints in all ages; 40–47,Joseph Smith is given the power to bind and seal on earth and in heaven; 48–50,The Lord seals upon him his exaltation; 51–57,Emma Smith is counseled to be faithful and true; 58–66,Laws governing the plurality of wives are set forth.

Versus amount: 66

Suggested link: Official Declaration 1

Summary and Conclusion: Celestial marriage is ordained of God. Husbands and wives are assured the continuation of their marriage relationship beyond this life, provided they will enter into and live the Lord's law of celestial marriage. By so doing, they will receive all the blessings promised to Abraham. (Sacred Truths of the Doctrine and Covenants , vol. 1 by L. G. Otten, C. M. Caldwell):

[_Res Ipsa]

Actually, what you just posted may explain it all. If Joe called up the militia (that would have been his militia... Mormons) to protect his community (Mormons and of course himself) then I can see why the Governor might have taken that as an act of insurrection against the legal Government of Illinois and hence the U.S. Government. That WOULD be treason. It doesn't strain my credulity at all.

Where are the lawyers on this board when we need them?

I'll give you a lawyerly answer: it's complicated. The Nauvoo Charter was drafted to effectively allow Nauvoo to operate as a little city-state. It effectively became a little theocracy, with Joseph Smith wearing lots of different governmental hats. He appeared to run the Nauvoo Legion as if it were not subject to State authority (normally, if I recall correctly) the militias were under control of the governor).

Smith developed a neat little trick to avoid arrest warrants hanging around from the Missouri days. When someone tried to serve a warrant on him in Nauvoo, he'd file a writ of habeas corpus and appear in front of a Nauvoo justice of the peace (wink wink). The JOP would, shock of all shocks, declare the warrant invalid and Smith would decline to be arrested.

I believe Smith pulled this nifty trick twice after destruction of the printing press to avoid arrest warrants issued in Carthage. Rumors circulated that an armed force of some kind would go to Nauvoo. Smith's response was to declare martial law and call up the Nauvoo Legion to defend the City. (in my opinion, to defend Joseph, who decided to bug out and head for Utah until he changed his mind etc.)

Most states have criminal treason statutes. Illinois does today. I wouldn't be surprised if it did at the time. If a lawful militia were sent to serve and execute an arrest warrant on Smith, and he declared martial law and used the Legion to fight off the militia, that sounds like a pretty good argument for a charge of treason. But I don't believe there was any such attempt to use force to serve the warrant and arrest Smith, so it sounds pretty far-fetched to me. The governor did not bring the treason charge --it was based on an affidavit sworn to a Justice of the Peace by one of Smith's enemies. My own opinion is that Smith's enemies finally had him out of Nauvoo, and they weren't going to let him get back.

[_Quasimodo]

Actually, what you just posted may explain it all. If Joe called up the militia (that would have been his militia... Mormons) to protect his community (Mormons and of course himself) then I can see why the Governor might have taken that as an act of insurrection against the legal Government of Illinois and hence the U.S. Government. That WOULD be treason. It doesn't strain my credulity at all.

Where are the lawyers on this board when we need them?

I'll give you a lawyerly answer: it's complicated. The Nauvoo Charter was drafted to effectively allow Nauvoo to operate as a little city-state. It effectively became a little theocracy, with Joseph Smith wearing lots of different governmental hats. He appeared to run the Nauvoo Legion as if it were not subject to State authority (normally, if I recall correctly) the militias were under control of the governor).

Smith developed a neat little trick to avoid arrest warrants hanging around from the Missouri days. When someone tried to serve a warrant on him in Nauvoo, he'd file a writ of habeas corpus and appear in front of a Nauvoo justice of the peace (wink wink). The JOP would, shock of all shocks, declare the warrant invalid and Smith would decline to be arrested.

I believe Smith pulled this nifty trick twice after destruction of the printing press to avoid arrest warrants issued in Carthage. Rumors circulated that an armed force of some kind would go to Nauvoo. Smith's response was to declare martial law and call up the Nauvoo Legion to defend the City. (in my opinion, to defend Joseph, who decided to bug out and head for Utah until he changed his mind etc.)

Most states have criminal treason statutes. Illinois does today. I wouldn't be surprised if it did at the time. If a lawful militia were sent to serve and execute an arrest warrant on Smith, and he declared martial law and used the Legion to fight off the militia, that sounds like a pretty good argument for a charge of treason. But I don't believe there was any such attempt to use force to serve the warrant and arrest Smith, so it sounds pretty far-fetched to me. The governor did not bring the treason charge --it was based on an affidavit sworn to a Justice of the Peace by one of Smith's enemies. My own opinion is that Smith's enemies finally had him out of Nauvoo, and they weren't going to let him get back.

Thanks Brad! This all sounds logical to me. I have heard that Joe was considering fleeing to Texas, though and not Utah. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I wonder what would have happened if he had actually done that. Would he have called the faithful and his wives to join him there or would he have just opened a bar in Laredo?

This might be worth a thread.

[_Res Ipsa]

You may be right about Texas. I think mention was made of The Great Basin, but my recollection is fuzzy.

[_why me]

Actually, what you just posted may explain it all. If Joe called up the militia (that would have been his militia... Mormons) to protect his community (Mormons and of course himself) then I can see why the Governor might have taken that as an act of insurrection against the legal Government of Illinois and hence the U.S. Government. That WOULD be treason. It doesn't strain my credulity at all.

Mary was a little off in her posts about the press. However, treason was still trumped up to arrest Joseph and his brother and hold them in prison. They wanted him out of the way in hope that the church would fall without them. We also need to remember that the atmosphere at that time was extremely stressful for the people of Nauvoo who saw visions of Missouri again...burnings, death and destruction of their town by outsiders. Not unrealistic to call up the militia to protect the town in case of a mob invasion.

Joseph knew that he was going to die. And he knew that he was going to die because he founded the LDS church. He knew that when he went to prison the end was near, thus, his statements about going to carthege jail.

Why was he killed? Because he was the Mormon leader.

[_Mary]

Mary was a little off in her posts about the press.

No I wasn't.

However, treason was still trumped up to arrest Joseph and his brother and hold them in prison.

Rather than take the 'victim' mentality on this Why Me, why not ask 'What did the Mormons do that engendered so much opposition to them?'

I think, personally, that there were mistakes on both sides, arrogance on both sides, bad behaviour on both sides. I'm not excusing one or the other, I just think it is more complex than you are making out.

They wanted him out of the way in hope that the church would fall without them.

I think you are probably right on that.

We also need to remember that the atmosphere at that time was extremely stressful for the people of Nauvoo who saw visions of Missouri again...burnings, death and destruction of their town by outsiders.

...and as we can see from the Mountain Meadows Massacre, Mormons were just as capable of barbarous and evil acts.

"The Saints themselves may not have been totally without blame in the matter. The feelings of the Missourians, even though misplaced, were undoubtedly intensified by the rhetoric of the gathering itself. They were quick to listen to the boasting of a few overzealous Saints who too-loudly declared a divine right to the land. As enthusiastic millennialists, they proclaimed that the time of the gentiles was short, and they were perhaps too quick to quote the revelation that said that 'the Lord willeth that the disciples and the children of men should open their hearts, even to purchase this whole region of country, as soon as time will permit" (The Story of the Latter-day Saints, p. 83).

Not unrealistic to call up the militia to protect the town in case of a mob invasion.

But in light of the fact that Joseph had had a printing press destroyed, that Mormons were probably illegally practicing polygamy, that many had a disdain for 'gentile's', and that emotions and rumours were heightened on both sides, it was probably seen as an incendiary act.

Joseph knew that he was going to die.

It's easy to say that in hindsight, but the fact that he left to go west and was only persuaded back by his wife and others indicates that like any 'normal' person he would have got out of it if he could have done.

Why me, do you really think Stephen Kerr was being honest in his dealing of polygamy? How do you think he could have presented the subject that would have been more honest about LDS history and theology?

[_hobo1512]

Tobin,
LMAO.......You either need a helmet, or more meds.

You yourself said that 132 was added by sinful polygamists. Smith was the first one to do it, so he's got to be a sinful polygamist. You've said it yourself, so it must be right. That's why it is my new signature.

BTY 1943 was a typo. Anyone with any common sense (look who I'm talking to) would have had that figured out.

Keep going little buddy. You live in a special place.

Just a FYI since dates seem to be a problem with you. Joseph Smith was dead in 1876 when section 132 was added to the D&C.

And numbers seem to be a problem with you, 2,3, what's your point?

Just a FYI, the "revelation" of polygamy came when smith got caught with his pants down. Your super duper prophet is, how did you put it? Oh yeah, look at my signature.

[_hobo1512]

Actually, what you just posted may explain it all. If Joe called up the militia (that would have been his militia... Mormons) to protect his community (Mormons and of course himself) then I can see why the Governor might have taken that as an act of insurrection against the legal Government of Illinois and hence the U.S. Government. That WOULD be treason. It doesn't strain my credulity at all.

Mary was a little off in her posts about the press. However, treason was still trumped up to arrest Joseph and his brother and hold them in prison. They wanted him out of the way in hope that the church would fall without them. We also need to remember that the atmosphere at that time was extremely stressful for the people of Nauvoo who saw visions of Missouri again...burnings, death and destruction of their town by outsiders. Not unrealistic to call up the militia to protect the town in case of a mob invasion.

Joseph knew that he was going to die. And he knew that he was going to die because he founded the LDS church. He knew that when he went to prison the end was near, thus, his statements about going to carthege jail.

Why was he killed? Because he was the Mormon leader.

So, what you are saying is, the Mormons of Nauvoo realized they pulled the same crap in Nauvoo that they had everywhere else, and the people in Illinois weren't going to take their crap.

That about sums it up don't you think?

Why was he killed? He was a liar, cheat, adulterer, traitor, convicted con man, who just happened to be Mormon. Get it straight. Oh wait, who am I talking to?

Don't you get tired of being deceitful, and a hypocrite?

[_hobo1512]

Interesting update.

The people who posted the videos are now requiring comments to be "review" before they are added to the comment section.

Can anyone say "One sided information", or "censorship", or "fear of the truth".

How sad for them.

[_Tobin]

Just a FYI since dates seem to be a problem with you. Joseph Smith was dead in 1876 when section 132 was added to the D&C.

And numbers seem to be a problem with you, 2,3, what's your point?

Just a FYI, the "revelation" of polygamy came when smith got caught with his pants down. Your super duper prophet is, how did you put it? Oh yeah, look at my signature.

That's your characterization of events. And like most of the other things you have said, has little bearing on reality.